Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Early Cases

The first reported case citing the ATS is Moxon v. The Fanny 17 F.Cas. 942 (D. Pa. 1793) (No. 9895) decided in 1793 which involved a libel action seeking restitution for a ship and its cargo taken in violation of the law of nations. The reference to the ATS was by implication, not by direct reference to the ATS.

Bolchos v. Darrel 3 F. Cas. 810 (D.C.S.C. 1795) (No. 1607) involved a lawsuit seeking restitution for the value of slaves taken from a captured Spanish ship. The district court recognized the plaintiff's right to seek compensation for a violation of substantive rights under the law of nations.

Between 1795 and 1979 the vast majority of cases that referenced the ATS did it in a cursory nature. The following cases are a good example of cases that referred to the ATS.

Huynh Thi Anh v. Levi, 586 F.2d 625 (6th Cir. 1979); Benjamins v. British European Airways, 572 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1978); Dreyfus v. Von Finck, 534 F.2d 24 (2d. Cir. 1976); Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger, 528 F.2d 1194 (9th Cir. 1975); IIT v. Vencap, Ltd., 519 F.2d 1001 (2d Cir. 1975); Abiodun v. Martin Oil Serv., Inc., 475 F.2d 142 (7th Cir. 1973); Valanga v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 259 F. Supp. 324 (E.D. Pa. 1966); Damaskinos v. Societa Navigacion Interamericana, S.A., Panama, 255 F. Supp. 919 (S.D.N.Y. 1966); Lopes v. Schroder, 225 F. Supp. 292 (E.D. Pa. 1963); Upper Lakes Shipping, Ltd. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 33 F.R.D. 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1963); Adra v. Clift, 195 F. Supp. 857 (D. Md. 1961); Khedivial Line, S.A.E. v Seafarers' Int'l Union, 278 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1960); O'Reilly DeCamara v. Brooke, 209 U.S. 45 (1908)

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Origins of ATS

The origins of the ATS are up to some debate as the historical record is largely silent on what the original legislatures were thinking. Some scholars believe that the ATS was enacted to allow the federal courts of the United States to be able to prosecute violations of international law that posed a threat to international peace and national security. For example the various states were unable or unwilling to prosecute claims by the British and other States for damages stemming from the Wars of Independence. The failure to prosecute posed serious problems for the nation as Britain may have initiated military action to acquire the demanded resources.

The Marbois incident is indicative of the underlying theory behind the ATS. In 1784 the French Consul in Philadelphia was assaulted and it created significant barriers to U.S./French relations. When the Constitutional Convention convened three years later the Marbois incident would have been fresh on everyone's mind.

Other scholars claim the ATS was a "badge of honor" representing a commitment to uphold international norms. Whatever the origins of the ATS may be, the ATS has had a significant impact in recent history on the ability of the United States to impose international norms with domestic courts on aliens. Where the line is drawn has yet to be seen and is open to significant debate.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

The purpose of this Blog

The purpose of this blog is to track the history and development, historical and current, of the Alien Tort Statute (also referred to as Alien Tort Claim Act). I became interested in the ATS while working for Prof. William Aceves at California Western School of Law. In my opinion the ATS is a powerful vehicle to address and redress wrongs and grievances for aliens in U.S. courts against those individuals who are immune or unlikely to be prosecuted in the aliens home country.

This blog will first lay out the legislative groundwork/history of the ATS, at least what little exist. It will then briefly go through the cases leading up to the seminal case of Filartiga v Pena-Irala 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980). The cases following Filartiga will be dissected in greater detail up to Sosa v Alvarez-Machain 542 U.S. 692 (2004). I would also like to trace any case concerning ATS that is currently in litigation or is about to go into litigation to track any changes or worthwhile theories as to what actions do or do not fall within the requirements of the ATS.

For those that are wondering the ATS is codified at 28 U.S.C. 1350 and states "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."