ats primer.pdf

7/27/2019 ATS Primer.pdf

1/4

THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE: A PRIMER ON LIABILITY FOR

MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS

Paul E. Hagen

Anthony L. Michaels

Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.

ALI-ABA Course of Study

Environmental Law

May 5-6, 2005

I. INTRODUCTIONU.S. federal courts are increasingly being called upon to redress human rights abuses and

environmental damage that has occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Most often, these cases are brought against large multinational corporations under the Alien TortStatute (ATS) (also called the Alien Tort Claims Act or ATCA), a statute enacted over 200

years ago that allows alien plaintiffs to bring actions for damages in U.S. federal court for tort-

like injuries caused by a violation of international law.

In recent years, the number of cases brought against U.S. companies has grown. While

the case law continues to evolve, companies should take care to ensure that their activities

abroad, particularly in developing countries (and especially in developing countries with a

history of human rights abuses or military rule) conform to accepted international norms in the

areas of human rights and environmental protection so as to reduce reputational risks andlitigation exposure in the U.S. Similarly, companies investing overseas must take care to partner

with governments that respect human rights and adhere to widely accepted environmental and

labor protections.

II. STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND BACKGROUNDA form of the ATS, 28 U.S.C. 1350, was first enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of

1789. In its current form, the ATS provides:

Aliens action for tort

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civilaction by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law

of nations or a treaty of the United States.

28 U.S.C. 1350.

The statute was rarely invoked until the landmark 1980 decision of the Second Circuit in

Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2nd Cir. 1980) (holding that deliberate torture perpetrated

under color of official authority violates international law, and gives rise to an ATS claim

whenever the perpetrator is properly served within the United States). Since then, the lower


2/4

-2-

federal courts began to develop a complex jurisprudence for dealing with international human

rights cases brought under the ATS. In other cases, plaintiffs have sought remedy for allegedenvironmental damage caused by defendants outside the U.S.

On June 29, 2004, the Supreme Court addressed and resolved some of the fundamentalquestions concerning the scope of the ATS, and provided guidance concerning the types of

international legal norms that can support an ATS cause of action. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 124

S. Ct. 2739 (2004). Many other issues remain unresolved, however, and the legal landscape of

ATS liability continues to evolve.

III. ANATOMY OF CLAIMS UNDER THE ATSA. The ATS Provides Subject Matter Jurisdiction, But Does Not Create a Cause

of Action

Prior to Sosa, the majority lower court view (adopted by the Second, Fifth, Ninth, and

Eleventh Circuits), was that the ATS created a cause of action for an alien seeking damages for

tort-like injuries caused by a violation of international law. Flores v. Southern Peru Copper

Corp., 343 F.3d 140 (2nd Cir. 2003) (theFilartiga Court not only held that the [ATS] provides

a jurisdictional basis for suit, but also recognized the existence of a private right of action);Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 1999) (followingFilartiga); Abebe-

Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844, 847 (11th Cir. 1996) (we read the [ATS] as requiring no more

than an allegation of a violation of the law of nations in order to invoke section 1350);In re

Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Human Rights Litigation, 25 F.3d 1467, 1475 (9th Cir. 1994)

(Marcos) (the ATS creates a cause of action and nothing more than a violation of the law of

nations is required to invoke section 1350);see also Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F.Supp.2d424, 443 (D. N.J. 1999); Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 179 (D. Mass. 1995). Under the

minority view, the ATS was deemed to provide subject matter jurisdiction, but not to create a

cause of action. See Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 798 (D.C. Cir. 1984)(Bork, J., concurring) (ATS provides only subject matter jurisdiction -- it does not create a cause

of action).

The Supreme Court resolved this question in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S. Ct. 2739

(June 29, 2004). The Court reviewed the history of the ATS and held that it is a jurisdictional

statute that was not intended to create any new causes of action. As discussed below, the Court

concluded that the ATS was enacted on the understanding that the common law would provide a

cause of action for the modest number of international law violations with a potential forpersonal liability at the time, and that under limited circumstances courts may cautiously

recognize new international law principals that create personal liability. Id. at 2761.1

1A related statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), 28 U.S.C.

1350 App., provides a cause of action in certain human rights cases. The TVPA expressly

authorizes a federal civil action against anyone who engages in torture or extrajudicial killing,under color of foreign authority or law. In legislative history, it was explained that [t]he TVPA

would establish an unambiguous and modern basis for a cause of action that has been(Continued )


3/4

-3-

B. Elements Of An ATS Cause Of ActionTo state a claim under the ATS the plaintiff must (1) be an alien, (2) claim a tort, (3) that

violates a rule in a U.S. treaty or customary international law that carries personal liability. AnATS claim may lie even where all the plaintiffs and defendants are non-U.S. citizens, and where

all the conduct underlying the claim occurred in a foreign nation.

SinceFilartiga, the key issue in determining whether a valid claim exists is often whether

the right asserted is indeed a recognized principle of customary international law that protects the

plaintiff, and is sufficiently well-defined and has such other characteristics that have led courts toconclude that the right is actionable. UnderSosa, the Court resolved that courts may go beyond

the handful of offenses understood to carry personal liability in 1789, but that courts should

recognize new actionable rules with caution, and only under limited circumstances.

IV. IDENTIFYING ACTIONABLE PRINCIPLES OF CUSTOMARYINTERNATIONAL LAWA. Courts Look to the Current State of International Law, which is Constantly

Evolving

Whether a claim is actionable under the ATS must be gauged against the current state of

international law, looking to those sources we have long, albeit cautiously, recognized. Sosa,

124 S. Ct. at 2766;see also Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 881.

B. Sources and Evidence of Customary International LawIn Sosa, the Court addressed the types of sources to be consulted to determine

international law, as follows:

[W]here there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or

judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized

(...Continued)

successfully maintained under [the ATS], which permits Federal district courts to hear claims by

aliens for torts committed in violation of the law of nations. H.R.Rep. No. 367, 102d Cong.,

2d Sess. 3, 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 84, 86. The Senate Report on the TVPA noted that theFilartiga

case has met with general approval. S.Rep. No. 102-249 at 5 (1991). Other legislative history

may be read as further suggesting that complimentary ATS remedies were intended to remain

intact. The Second and Eleventh Circuits interpreted the legislative history of the TVPA as a

Congressional endorsement of theFilartiga line of cases -- at least with respect to claimsinvolving torture. Flores, 343 F.3d at 153;Abebe-Jira, 72 F.3d at 848. Similarly, in Sosa, the

Court cited the enactment of the TVPA as evidence of Congress agreement with the courts

conclusion that the judiciary may recognize new international law causes of action under the

ATS (as discussed below).


4/4

-4-

nations; and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators . . . .

Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of theirauthors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what

the law really is.

Sosa, 124 S. Ct. at 2766-67 (quoting The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. at 700).

Prior to Sosa, the lower courts identified four primary sources for establishing customary

international law:

International conventions and treaties establishing expressly recognized rules;

Custom and practice of states, primarily as evidenced by formal lawmaking andofficial actions of states, acting out of legal obligation;

Judicial decisions; and

Works of highly qualified legal scholars.

See Flores, 343 F.3d at 157;Beanal, 197 F.3d at 165; Siderman de Blake v. Republic of

Argentina, 965 F.2d 699, 714 (9th Cir. 1992).

Many lower courts recognized even before Sosa that because customary international law

flows from such diverse sources, often unfamiliar to lawyers and judges, it may have a soft,

indeterminate character, subject to creative interpretation. Flores, 343 F.3d at 154 (quoting

Louis Henkin,International Law: Politics and Values 29 (1995)). Accordingly, courts

recognized the need to proceed with extraordinary care and restraint when examining thesesources to identify actionable rules of international law. Id. In Sosa, the Court examined the

history of the ATS in detail, and further explained the limits and judicial restraint that courts

should apply in deciding whether to recognize a new ATS cause of action.

C. Recognition of New Actionable Rules of International Law Under SosaIn Sosa, the Supreme Court provided a lengthy discussion of the types of considerations

and limits that courts should follow in whether to recognize an ATS cause of action based on a

particular rule of international law. The plaintiff in Sosa, Humberto Alvarez-Machain

(Alvarez), was a Mexican citizen indicted by a federal grand jury for the murder in Mexico of

an agent of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and a warrant for his arrest was issuedby a federal court. Sosa, The DEA allegedly approved a plan to hire Mexican nationals to seize

Alvarez and bring him to the U.S. for trial. The plan was executed by a group of Mexicannationals including Jose Francisco Sosa (Sosa), who abducted Alvarez from his house in

Mexico, held him overnight in a motel, and brought him by private plane to the U.S. He was

then tried and acquitted for the murder. Alvarez brought a number of civil claims, including aclaim against Sosa under the ATS alleging that Sosa had violated the clear and universally

recognized [international law] norm prohibiting arbitrary arrest and detention.

After reviewing the history of the ATS at length, the Court concluded that the ATS was a

jurisdictional statute creating no new causes of action, but was enacted on the understanding that

ats primer.pdf

Documents