No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Alien Tort Statute Jurisdiction in Kiobel
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 February 2017
Abstract
- Type
- Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013
References
1 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) (reported by Ingrid Wuerth in this issue of the Journal).
2 28 U.S.C. §1350. The ATS provides that “[t]he 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.”
3 Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1669 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
4 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 456 F.Supp.2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
5 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010); see John R. Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 105 AJIL 122,142 (2011).
6 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 132 S.Ct. 472 (2011); see John R. Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 106 AJIL 360, 382 (2012).
7 See John R. Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 106 AJIL 843, 862 (2012).
8 See Robert Barnes, Should U.S. Courts Hear Lawsuits over Corporate Abuses Abroad?, Wash. Post, Oct. 2, 2012, at A5.
9 130 S.Ct. 2869 (2010); see John R. Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 104 AJIL 654, 654 (2010).
10 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1665 (2013).
11 Id. at 1664.
12 [Editor’s note: Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).]
13 Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1664–65.
14 Id. at 1665–68 (citations omitted).
15 Id. at 1669.
16 Id.
17 [Editor’s note: 28 U.S.C. §1350 note (2012).]
18 Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1669 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
19 Id. at 1671 (Breyer, J., concurring).
20 Id. at 1669–70 (Alito, J., concurring).
21 [Editor’s note: 542 U.S. 692 (2004).]
22 Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1670 (Alito, J., concurring).