Criticism of the ATS

As mentioned previously, there has been some criticism towards the Alien Tort Statute. Much of the hostility stems from corporations that do business in the United States but have a sizable presence outside the U.S. These corporations have very little difficulty agreeing to corporate responsibility, but they balk at the thought of actual enforcement of the corporate responsibility. (Roth, K 2005 'Rules on Corporate Ethics Would Help, Not Hinder Mutlinationals', Financial Times, June 21 archived at www.hrw.org) These entities argue that the ATS allows aliens to enforce codes of conduct for potential violations that occurred outside the U.S. or by a subsidy of the larger corporation.

The counter-argument is that many of the protocols or voluntary controls put forward by the transnationals do not have any form of enforcement or accountability. This means that corporations can say they are doing "good" but are not punished by violating or ignoring their own rules. (Betton, J 2008 'The Global Contact of Human Rights Violations: The Impact of the Alien Tort Claims Act' Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics) These business do have a good argument in that it can be difficult if not impossible for them to police subsidies in countries that have weak and/or corrupt governments or that they should be liable for the selling of goods in a country that violates human rights (e.g. South Africa during Apartheid). The transnational corporations generally get the support of the government on their side for a number of reasons examples include - political question doctrine, there is no known complicity by the parent company, or that the ATS is granting more rights to aliens than it does to citizens.

The reality of the situation is different, the courts have traditionally found issue with the lawsuits brought by plaintiff as either lacking standing or not a violation of international norms. Furthermore, even if the plaintiff somehow wins in court there is the difficulty of collecting the judgment. The debate regarding the ATS and its impact on transnational corporations will continue to grow as the law is used more and more in federal courts.

ATS abuse

There are some groups who view the ATS as a negative thing. The logic is that the ATS allows aliens to sue other aliens or corporations on grounds that a U.S. citizen could not claim. They further claim that it is a deterrent to multinational corporations from working in the United States if they face liability for something they may have done half-way around the globe. Furthermore, in order for a court to determine what is a tort in the violation of international norms a court must look at sources that are outside the United States and thereby diluting American jurisprudence and independence.

While each of these arguments are somewhat valid they do ignore key facts. In short, U.S. citizens generally have the same if not more rights than an alien suing in federal court; multinationals may face potential liability but given the general protections provided to corporations this argument seems weak; our courts have already been looking at international norms to determine international issues.

Other areas of law

The Alien Tort Statute is unique in American jurisprudence in that it relies heavily on foreign law. The law itself was an effort to conform with international norms, particularly with diplomats, rights to property and piracy. For the majority of the statutes history these three areas were all that were encompassed.

However, with the passage of Filartiga v. Pena-Irala and other ATS suits, both prior and post, have expanded area of laws that can be viewed when determining torts that are in violation of the law of nations. For example, in the United States courts have looked at domestic law, Torture Prevention Act and at international law, Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man or the Convention Against Torture.

Domestic law will be given preference, however, that does not detract from the power of international law. Furthermore, more weight will be given to laws that codify and create an enforceable instrument as opposed to laws or declarations that speak of broad principles (text that is aspirational).

This blog in the future will look at many of these possible sources of international law ranging from the Convention Against Torture to the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda to the International Criminal Court. The sources of inspiration for expanding the scope of torts in violation of the law of nations is enormous.