Het Alien Tort Statute En Brussel I: Bevoegdheid Voor Onrechtmatige Daad Na Extraterritoriale Mensenrechtenschendingen Door Ondernemingen (The Alien Tort Statute and Brussels I: Tort Jurisdiction for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations by Corporations)

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bregt Natens
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

scholarly journals Lex Internationalis: Kiobel, Empires and the Color of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Sean Morris
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Modern Conception ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

In this article, I investigate the nature and origin of the Alien Tort Statute (A TS) and its link and application to the modern conception ofhuman rights. In the recent Kiobel decision, the Supreme Court resurrected the A TS and found that the A TS does not apply to human rights violations outside of the US allegedly committed by foreign-based corporations. The Supreme Court held that the presumption against extraterritorially applies to common law causes of action under the A TS, and no evidence exists that the First Congress wanted the A TS to confer jurisdiction over extraterritorial torts. In the article, Idevelop the notion ofthe color ofhuman rights to demonstrate that human rights itself has become a sort of lex internationalis.

scholarly journals Should or Must?: Nature of the Obligation of States to Use Trade Instruments for the Advancement of Environmental, Labour, and Other Human Rights

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Powell
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
Harm Principle ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

This article examines whether customs, treaties, and historical facts have caused the ethical human rights obligations of economically powerful states to assume a legal quality. The author argues that the legal quality of these obligations may arise from the global harm principle of international law and human rights obligations found in treaties. As a consequence, states may be held accountable for the human rights violations of transnational corporations. Further, the author examines the possibility of pursuing claims under the U.S. Alien Tort Statute for torts committed in violation of international treaties as another avenue for enforcing human rights obligations.

scholarly journals The Merida Initiative and the Tort Claims Act: Human Rights Violations and Foreign Non-Contractual Civil Liability in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pastora Melgar Manzanilla ◽  
Daniel Márquez Gómez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
Drug Trafficking ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Victim Protection ◽  
Alien Tort Statute ◽  
Tort Claims

This article discusses the possibility that Mexican victims of human rights violations may take advantage of the contents of the Alien Tort Claims Act to sue Mexican officials for extra-contractual civil liability in the event that they suffer damages derived from the use of firearms, technology, or otherwise, linked to the Merida Initiative. We analyze the Merida Initiative to Combat Illicit Narcotics and Reduce Organized Crime Authorization Act of 2008, and the Alien Tort Claims Act, also known as the Alien Tort Statute. We also refer to related Acts such as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act, as well as to cases that help to understand the scope and limitations of the Alien Tort Claims Act. We conclude that the Merida Initiative and the resources allocated under it have deepened human rights violations in Mexico, and that the Alien Tort Claims Act could be invoked by Mexicans victims of such violations and of the “war” against drug trafficking under the framework of the Merida Initiative.

scholarly journals The alien tort statute of 1789 and international human rights violations: Kiobel v. royal dutch petroleum co.

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Paula Alexander Becker
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Military Government ◽  
Foreign Governments ◽  
Petroleum Development ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. involves an action under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The case was brought in the United States, Southern District of New York, by the widow of Dr. Barinem Kiobel, a Nigerian activist and member of the Ogoni tribe, and others for human rights violations committed in the Niger River Delta. Defendants include Royal Dutch Petroleum, Shell Transport and Trading Co., and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria. Although the human rights violations including murder and torture were allegedly committed by the Nigerian military government, it is claimed that the Royal Dutch Petroleum defendants aided and abetted the Nigerian military in the human rights violations. The plaintiffs had engaged in protests about the environmental damage caused by the Royal Dutch Petroleum defendants in the area of the Niger Delta and the plight of the Ogoni people in Ogoniland. At the trial level, the court decided that certain claims involving violations of the Law of Nations could be heard by the court. However, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided that there is a presumption against extraterritoriality in the application of the ATS, and that “mere presence” of a defendant corporation in the United States is insufficient for a court to assume jurisdiction. However, the question remains: What corporate presence would serve as a sufficient basis for a court to assume jurisdiction under the ATS? Given the possibility that corporations could, and perhaps in the future will, be found liable for human rights violations occurring in foreign locales even after Kiobel, prudent risk management behooves corporations and their counsel to monitor whether human rights violations are occurring in connection with their operations, even when those human rights violations are committed by foreign governments or their agents.

Social representations of human rights violations: Further evidence

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Clémence ◽  
Thierry Devos ◽  
Willem Doise
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Costa Rica ◽  
Young People ◽  
Social Representations ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Questionnaire Study ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
High Tolerance ◽  
Individual Actions

Social representations of human rights violations were investigated in a questionnaire study conducted in five countries (Costa Rica, France, Italy, Romania, and Switzerland) (N = 1239 young people). We were able to show that respondents organize their understanding of human rights violations in similar ways across nations. At the same time, systematic variations characterized opinions about human rights violations, and the structure of these variations was similar across national contexts. Differences in definitions of human rights violations were identified by a cluster analysis. A broader definition was related to critical attitudes toward governmental and institutional abuses of power, whereas a more restricted definition was rooted in a fatalistic conception of social reality, approval of social regulations, and greater tolerance for institutional infringements of privacy. An atypical definition was anchored either in a strong rejection of social regulations or in a strong condemnation of immoral individual actions linked with a high tolerance for governmental interference. These findings support the idea that contrasting definitions of human rights coexist and that these definitions are underpinned by a set of beliefs regarding the relationships between individuals and institutions.

American and Canadian Civil Actions Alleging Human Rights Violations Abroad by Oil and Gas Companies

2008 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Horlick ◽  
Joe Cyr ◽  
Scott Reynolds ◽  
Andrew Behrman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Government ◽  
Oil And Gas Companies ◽  
Political Question ◽  
The U.S

Under the United States Alien Tort Statute, which permits non-U.S. citizens to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations that are violations of the law of nations, plaintiffs have filed claims against multinational oil and gas corporations for the direct or complicit commission of such violations carried out by the government of the country in which the corporation operated. In addition to exercising jurisdiction over U.S. corporations, U.S. courts have exercised jurisdiction in cases involving non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside the U.S.The exercise of jurisdiction by U.S. courts over non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside of the U.S. raises serious questions as to the jurisdictional foundation on which the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate them rests. Defences that foreign defendants can raise against the exercise of jurisdiction by the U.S. courts are an objection to the extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction, the act of state doctrine, the political question doctrine, forum non conveniens, and the principle of comity. These defences are bolstered by the support of the defendant’s home government and other governments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document