Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:05:52.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reviving Human Rights Litigation After Kiobel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Vivian Grosswald Curran  and
David Sloss
Vivian Grosswald Curran
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
David Sloss
Affiliation:
Center for Global Law and Policy at Santa Clara University School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the Supreme Court held that “the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the [Alien Tort Statute (ATS)], and that nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption.” The Court preserved the possibility that claims arising from conduct outside the United States might be actionable under the ATS “where the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States ... with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application.” However, the Court’s decision apparently sounds the death knell for “foreign-cubed” human rights claims under the ATS—that is, cases in which foreign defendants committed human rights abuses against foreign plaintiffs in foreign countries.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 107 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 858 - 863
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1669 (2013).

2 Id.

3 Filártiga v. Peñã-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).

4 Id. at 890.

5 The second and third points are implicit in the court’s rationale in Filártiga and its progeny, although the court did not state these points explicitly.

6 See, e.g., Matar v. Dichter, 563 F.3d 9 (2d Cir. 2009) (decision on ATS claim against former Israeli government official based on bombing of building in Gaza), aff’g 500 F.Supp.2d 284, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

7 See Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1673–77 (Breyer, J., concurring).

8 Id. at 1669 (majority opinion) (explaining that the Court’s decision “guards against our courts triggering.. serious foreign policy consequences, and instead defers such decisions ... to the political branches”).

9 By granting federal prosecutors the power to block civil tort claims, the proposed legislation would probably act as a bar to corporate liability, but we would not add explicit statutory language to preclude corporate liability.

10 After the French Senate approved the bill, it was referred to the Committee on Constitutional Laws, Legislation, and General Administration of the Republic. Justice: compétence territoriale du juge français pour les infractions visées par le statut de L• Cour pénah internationale [Law: territorial jurisdiction of French courts for offenses under the Statute of the International Criminal Court], Dossier De L’assemblée Nationale [Record of the National Assembly] (Feb. 26, 2013), at http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/dossiers/article_689-11_code_procedure_penale.asp [hereinafter Justice]. From there, it will return to the National Assembly to be voted on by that chamber.

11 See Curran, Vivian Grosswald, Globalization, Legal Transnationalization and Crimes Against Humanity: The Lipietz Case, 56 Am. J. Comp. L. 363 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 See Loi du 16 juin 1993 relative á la répression des infractions graves aux Conventions internationales de Genève du 12 aouˆt 1949 et aux Protocoles I et II du 8 juin 1977, additionnels á ces Conventions [Act of 16 June 1993 on the repression of serious violations of the international Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977 additional to these Conventions], Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Mar. 23, 1993; Loi relative á la répression des violations graves du droit international humanitaire [Law on the repression of serious violations of international humanitarian law], M.B., May 7, 2003.

13 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), 2002 ICJ Rep. 121 (Feb. 14).

14 See Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, US Threatens to Move NATO HQ out of Belgium, Telegraph, June 13, 2003, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/1432913/US-threatens-to-pull-Nato-HQ-out-of-Belgium.html.

14 Code Judiciaire/Gerechtelijk Wetboek [Judicial Code], Art. 144 quater (Belg.); Code Penal/Strafwetboek [Criminal Code], Art. 12 bis, para. 2, titre préliminaire (Belg.). For an analysis immediately after the 2003 changes, see Ratner, Steven R., Belgium’s War Crimes Statute: A Postmortem, 97 AJIL 888 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Cour Constitutionnelle/Grondwettelijk Hof [Constitutional Court], DécisionNo. 62/2005, Mar. 23, 2005, at http://www.const-court.be/cgi/arrets_popup.php?lang=en&ArrestID=1931 (Belg.).

17 Loi du 22 mai 2006 modifiant certaines dispositions de la loi du 17 avril 1878 [Act of 22 May 2006 amending certain provisions of the Law of 17 Apr. 1878], M.B., July 7, 2006, 35,135.

18 Völkerstrafgesetzbuch [Code of Crimes Against International Law], §§1, 7 (Ger.).

19 See Luc Reydams, Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives 144–45 (2003).

20 Gesetz zur Einfu¨hrung des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches [Law on the Introduction of the International Criminal Code], June 26, 2002, Bundesgesetzblatt, TEIL I, at 2254 (Ger.).

21 Strafprozessordnung [Code of Criminal Procedure], §153f (1)–(3) (Ger.) (relating to Code of Crimes Against International Law).

22 In 2009, the Stuttgart Appeals Court upheld a decision rejecting a victim complaint against Donald Rumsfeld and others on behalf of Guantánamo Bay detainees. A further appeal was held inadmissible. See Center for Constitutional Rights, German War Crimes Complaint Against Donald Rumsfeld, et al. (filed Nov. 14, 2006), at http:// ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/german-war-crimes-complaint-against-donald-rumsfeld-et-al.

23 Loi 2010-930 du 9 aouˆt 2010 portant adaptation du droit pénal á l’institution de la Cour pénale internationale [Law 2010-930 of 9 Aug. 2010 on the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court], Journal Officiel De La République Francçaise [Official Gazette of France], Aug. 10, 2010, p. 14,678.

24 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 UNTS 90.

25 Code De Procédure PÉnale [C. Pr. Pén.] [Code of Criminal Procedure], Art. 689-11 (Fr.).

26 Proposition de loi tendant á modifier l’article 689-11 du code de procédure pénale [Bill to amend Article 689-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure], Sess. Ord. 2012-13, FR. SÉnatdoc. No. 354 (Feb. 13, 2013), available at http://www.senat.fr/leg/ppll2-354.html. The National Assembly must also vote to approve this legislation before it can become law. See Justice, supra note 10.

27 See Séance du 26 février 2013 [du Sénat] [Meeting of 26 Feb. 2013 of the Senate] (Fr.), Travaux Parle Mentaires (Fг.), available at http://www.senat.fr/seances/s201302/s20130226/s20130226002.html [hereinafter Séance].

28 Travaux Parlementaires (Feb. 13,2013) (citing Cass. crim. 10 janvier 2007) (Fr.) (holdingby French supreme court of criminal law that defendants accused of grave crimes against humanity could not be tried in absentia).

29 Proposition de loi, supra note 26 (noting that “peut être poursuivie et jugée par les juridictions françaises, si elle se trouve en France, toute personne soupçonnée de...” (“may be prosecuted and tried by French courts, if he or she is located in France, anyone suspected of...”).

30 See С PR. Pén., Arts. 1, 2.

31 See id.

32 See Séance, supra note 27.

33 See, e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 8, GA Res. 217A (III), UN GAOR, 3d Sess., Resolutions, at 71, UN Doc. A/810 (1948) (“Everyone has the right to an effective remedy ... for acts violating [his] fundamental rights ....”); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 2(3), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (obligating states “to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy”).

34 Some states and commentators understand “universal jurisdiction” to include the possibility of trial in absentia. However, trial in absentia arguably violates a defendant’s due process rights.

35 See 1 Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §404 cmt. a (1987) (“Universal jurisdiction over the specified offenses is a result of universal condemnation of those activities and general interest in cooperating to suppress them .... These offenses are subject to universal jurisdiction as a matter of customary law.”).

36 See Curran, supra note 11.

37 Our proposal would not affect litigation under the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. §1350 note, which already provides a private right of action for torture victims that is not subject to prosecutorial control.

38 See 18 U.S.C. §1091(e)(2)(D).

39 The genocide statute covers incitement, attempt, and conspiracy, as well as genocide. See 18 U.S.C. §1091(c), (d).

40 18 U.S.C. §2441(b).

41 See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §1203 (implementing U.S. obligations under the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, Dec. 17, 1979, TIAS No. 11,081, 1316 UNTS 205); 18 U.S.C. §2332f (implementing U.S. obligations under the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Dec. 15, 1997, 2149 UNTS 284).

42 The preamble to the Rome Statute notes that “it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.” Rome Statute, supra note 24, pmbl. It is unclear whether the drafters believed that every state has a legal duty to criminalize crimes against humanity. If so, they did not specify the source of that duty.

43 It is not unusual for Congress to define a federal crime by reference to international law. Perhaps the earliest example was a federal piracy statute enacted in 1819. See Act of Mar. 3, 1819, ch. 77, Pub. L. No. 15-77, 3 Stat. 510 (1819) (act protecting the commerce of the United States and punishing the crime of piracy).