The Alien Tort Statute (ATS), also known as the Alien Tort Claims Act, is a federal law in the United States that allows foreign nationals to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations committed abroad. Enacted in 1789, the ATS is one of the oldest federal statutes in the United States and has been the subject of significant debate and controversy over the years. The statute provides that "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." The ATS has been used to bring cases involving a wide range of human rights abuses, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and forced labor.
One of the key issues surrounding the ATS is the question of what constitutes a "tort" under the law of nations. The Supreme Court has addressed this issue in several cases, including Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004) and Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2013). In Sosa, the Court held that the ATS allows foreign nationals to bring lawsuits for violations of international law, but only for claims that are "specific, universal, and obligatory" under international law. In Kiobel, the Court further limited the scope of the ATS, holding that it does not apply to claims against foreign corporations for human rights abuses committed abroad.
Key Points
- The Alien Tort Statute allows foreign nationals to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations committed abroad.
- The ATS has been used to bring cases involving a wide range of human rights abuses, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and forced labor.
- The Supreme Court has limited the scope of the ATS, holding that it only applies to claims that are "specific, universal, and obligatory" under international law.
- The ATS does not apply to claims against foreign corporations for human rights abuses committed abroad.
- The statute has been the subject of significant debate and controversy over the years, with some arguing that it is an important tool for holding human rights abusers accountable, while others argue that it is an overreach of U.S. jurisdiction.
History and Evolution of the Alien Tort Statute
The ATS was enacted in 1789 as part of the Judiciary Act, which established the federal court system in the United States. At the time, the statute was intended to provide a remedy for foreign nationals who had been injured by U.S. citizens or residents while abroad. Over the years, the ATS has been used to bring a wide range of cases, including cases involving human rights abuses, environmental damage, and corporate misconduct. However, it was not until the 1980s that the ATS began to be used regularly to bring human rights cases, with the filing of Filartiga v. Pena-Irala in 1980. This case, which involved a Paraguayan national who had been tortured by a Paraguayan official, established the principle that the ATS could be used to bring lawsuits for human rights abuses committed abroad.
Notable Cases and Decisions
There have been several notable cases and decisions involving the ATS over the years. In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), the Supreme Court held that the ATS allows foreign nationals to bring lawsuits for violations of international law, but only for claims that are “specific, universal, and obligatory” under international law. In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2013), the Court further limited the scope of the ATS, holding that it does not apply to claims against foreign corporations for human rights abuses committed abroad. Other notable cases include Doe v. Unocal Corp. (2002), which involved human rights abuses committed by a U.S. corporation in Burma, and Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. (2006), which involved environmental damage and human rights abuses committed by a U.S. corporation in Nigeria.
| Case | Year | Claim |
|---|---|---|
| Filartiga v. Pena-Irala | 1980 | Torture by a Paraguayan official |
| Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain | 2004 | Kidnapping and torture by a Mexican official |
| Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. | 2013 | Human rights abuses committed by a foreign corporation in Nigeria |
| Doe v. Unocal Corp. | 2002 | Human rights abuses committed by a U.S. corporation in Burma |
| Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. | 2006 | Environmental damage and human rights abuses committed by a U.S. corporation in Nigeria |
Criticism and Controversy
The ATS has been the subject of significant criticism and controversy over the years. Some argue that the statute is an overreach of U.S. jurisdiction, and that it should not be used to bring lawsuits against foreign corporations or individuals for human rights abuses committed abroad. Others argue that the ATS is an important tool for promoting human rights and accountability, and that it should be used to bring cases against those responsible for human rights abuses, regardless of where they were committed. The controversy surrounding the ATS has been fueled by recent Supreme Court decisions, which have limited the scope of the statute and made it more difficult for foreign nationals to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts.
Implications and Future Directions
The implications of the ATS are far-reaching and complex. The statute has been used to bring cases involving a wide range of human rights abuses, and has helped to promote accountability and justice for victims of human rights abuses around the world. However, the recent limitations on the scope of the ATS have raised concerns about the ability of foreign nationals to access justice in U.S. courts. As the ATS continues to evolve, it is likely that we will see further controversy and debate about its application and scope. Ultimately, the ATS remains an important tool for promoting human rights and accountability, and its continued development and refinement will be critical to ensuring that those responsible for human rights abuses are held accountable.
What is the Alien Tort Statute?
+The Alien Tort Statute is a federal law in the United States that allows foreign nationals to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations committed abroad.
What types of cases can be brought under the ATS?
+The ATS has been used to bring cases involving a wide range of human rights abuses, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and forced labor.
How has the Supreme Court limited the scope of the ATS?
+The Supreme Court has limited the scope of the ATS by holding that it only applies to claims that are “specific, universal, and obligatory” under international law, and by holding that it does not apply to claims against foreign corporations for human rights abuses committed abroad.
