Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T12:33:20.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction: The Path to Sosa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Martin S. Flaherty*
Affiliation:
Fordham Law School; Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Customary International Law as Federal Law After Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2007

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

1 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

2 28 U.S.C. sec. 1350.

3 ITT v. Vencap, Ltd., 519 F.2d 1001, 1015 (2d Cir. 1975).

4 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).

5 Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995).

6 Doe v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003).

7 Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 798 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Bork, J., concurring).

8 United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992).

9 Sosa, 524 U.S. at 724.

10 Id. at 725.

11 Id.

12 See, e.g., Bradley, Curtis A. & Goldsmith, Jack N. The Current Illegitimacy of Human Rights Litigation, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 319 (1997)Google Scholar (arguing that modern international human rights litigation is unauthorized).

13 Sosa, 542 U.S. at 725-28.

14 Id. at 738.

15 376 U.S. 398 (1964).

16 Id. at 729, n.18.

17 See id. at 732-33.