The accused Arab Bank's main offices, in Jordan
Washington Post: article link
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC Oyez summary: link
KIobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Oyez summary: link
On Monday, October 9, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether corporations may be sued in American courts for violating human rights abuses abroad. This case, Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, involves several alien individuals who were abused or killed by terrorists in attacks against Israeli citizens overseas. The surviving aliens and their families accused Arab Bank, PLC of financing these terrorists. They reference the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a law from 1789 that allows federal courts to hear "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." However, due to the ambiguity of this law, the Supreme Court has made clarifications and continues to do so with this case.
For example, in the KIobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum case of 2011, the Supreme Court wanted to answer two questions: (1) Under the ATS, are corporations liable for violations of the law of nations? (2) Should American courts hear disputes involving nations other than the U.S. in the first place? The Supreme Court answered the second question by ruling that under the ATS, there is "presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. law." In other words, no—cases abroad can only be heard if they have a significant connection to the U.S. However, the first question remained unanswered until now, with the pending results of Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC.
What are your responses to these two questions? Should American courts have to hear cases of human rights abuses in foreign nations? If so, should corporations be immune from liability for violations of the law of nations, such as executions and torture? Should the ATS stay as it is, be revised, or even abolished completely?
KIobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Oyez summary: link
On Monday, October 9, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether corporations may be sued in American courts for violating human rights abuses abroad. This case, Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, involves several alien individuals who were abused or killed by terrorists in attacks against Israeli citizens overseas. The surviving aliens and their families accused Arab Bank, PLC of financing these terrorists. They reference the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a law from 1789 that allows federal courts to hear "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." However, due to the ambiguity of this law, the Supreme Court has made clarifications and continues to do so with this case.
For example, in the KIobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum case of 2011, the Supreme Court wanted to answer two questions: (1) Under the ATS, are corporations liable for violations of the law of nations? (2) Should American courts hear disputes involving nations other than the U.S. in the first place? The Supreme Court answered the second question by ruling that under the ATS, there is "presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. law." In other words, no—cases abroad can only be heard if they have a significant connection to the U.S. However, the first question remained unanswered until now, with the pending results of Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC.
What are your responses to these two questions? Should American courts have to hear cases of human rights abuses in foreign nations? If so, should corporations be immune from liability for violations of the law of nations, such as executions and torture? Should the ATS stay as it is, be revised, or even abolished completely?
1 comment:
I believe that companies should be held responsible for their actions and if they are american based companies, the Supreme court should have jurisdiction over the matter. Based on that, I also believe that corporations should be able to be tried for these clear violations of other counties. While I do believe that the country in which the country is violating their law should have input, I think that a compromise should occur where the country is able to provide input, but the Supreme Court is able to deem if the punishment is proper. Therefore I believe that the ATS should be modified to include corporations into the deffinition
Post a Comment