Title: The Alien Tort Claims Act and the Law of Nations
Abstract: Although Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 establishes concurrent jurisdiction of federal and state courts in actions by aliens for torts that violate the of and although in 1789 of nations was much broader than what later came be called law, none of opinions of U.S. Supreme Court justices in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, and none of briefs of counsel for parties or of friends of court, refer distinction between two, and all treat 1789 statute as though it said law or customary The terms international and law were neologisms invented by Jeremy Bentham in 1780s for express purpose of replacing both name and concept of a of nations that transcends inter-state treaties and agreements. The Article traces briefly evolution of concept of a of nations from its source in ancient Roman jus gentium its culmination in late 18th century. The great American jurists who drafted United States Constitution and 1789 Judiciary Act on which Alien Tort Claims Act was based were steeped in European writings on of nations, which included not only inter-state treaties and agreements, called jus inter gentes, but also common all nations, called jus intra gentes. The Founding Fathers were also strongly influenced by Blackstone's 4-volume Commentaries on Laws of England, published in 1765 1769, in which Blackstone wrote that of nations is part of English common and that it includes not only such inter-state matters as rights of ambassadors and rights of safe conduct under passports but also such universal intra-state matters as maritime and merchant. In new American Republic, of nations was understood be part of both federal common and state common law. The United States Constitution gave Congress power enact laws that defined and punished piracy and other crimes that violate of nations, and 1789 Judiciary Act gave federal courts concurrent jurisdiction over civil actions by aliens for torts that violated of nations if amount in controversy exceeded $500. Thus most types of violations of of nations were left in sole competence of state courts. Also of nations itself, in broad sense in which it was understood, contained rules of competence of courts and of conflict of laws that gave jurisdiction in most types of criminal and civil cases courts of place where crime was committed or place where civil obligation arose. Although Article does not analyze Sosa case, it does take issue with a statement in concurring opinion of Justice Scalia in which he accuses 20th century internationalist professors and human-rights activitists of redefining of nations to mean consensus of states on any subject. It is not, however, consensus of states but consensus of mankind, and not on any subject but on some subjects, that can indeed give rise liability under of nations as it was understood in 1789 and as it has been revived in recent times. Such consensus exists with respect state sponsored torture. It is suggested that it may also exist with respect state sponsored kidnapping of a foreign suspect in order avoid likelihood of failure obtain extradition under an extradition treaty.
Publication Year: 2005
Publication Date: 2005-02-12
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot