Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
William S. Dodge
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Ivory Coast ◽  
Child Slavery ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, a human rights case brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), alleging that U.S. companies aided and abetted child slavery in Ivory Coast. By a vote of 8 to 1, the Court held that the claims were impermissibly extraterritorial because nearly all the conduct occurred abroad. The Court left open the possibility that the implied cause of action under the ATS applies to U.S. corporations.

scholarly journals The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 149-155
Author(s):  
Ursula Kriebaum
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Route ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Rights Arbitration ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

Let me start with the goals of the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration. The Business and Human Rights Arbitration Project dates back to 2013. In that year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Kiobel v. Shell case that the U.S. Alien Tort Statute of 1789 has no extraterritorial effect. It denied victims of human rights abuses by companies access to U.S. courts to obtain damages for alleged violations. As a consequence, the idea arose that arbitration could be used as an alternative route for dispute resolution available to corporations and rights holders to resolve their disputes in the business and human rights field.

Jesner v. Arab Bank

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 720-727
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Hamilton
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Foreign Corporations ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

The exclusion of transnational human rights litigation from U.S. federal courts is, for most practical purposes, now complete. On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 5–4 ruling inJesner v. Arab Bank,deciding that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).

Reviving Human Rights Litigation After Kiobel

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
pp. 858-863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivian Grosswald Curran ◽  
David Sloss
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Death Knell ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the Supreme Court held that “the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the [Alien Tort Statute (ATS)], and that nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption.” The Court preserved the possibility that claims arising from conduct outside the United States might be actionable under the ATS “where the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States ... with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application.” However, the Court’s decision apparently sounds the death knell for “foreign-cubed” human rights claims under the ATS—that is, cases in which foreign defendants committed human rights abuses against foreign plaintiffs in foreign countries.

scholarly journals Litigation Dilemmas: Lessons from the Marcos Human Rights Class Action

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 479-508
Author(s):  
Nate Ela
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Movement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Legal Mobilization ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

How do activist plaintiffs experience the process of human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)? Answering this question is key to understanding the impact on transnational legal mobilization of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the US Supreme Court sharply limited the scope of the ATS. Yet sociolegal scholars know remarkably little about the experiences of ATS litigants, before or after Kiobel. This article describes how activist litigants in a landmark ATS class action against former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos faced a series of strategic dilemmas, and how disagreements over how to resolve those dilemmas played into divisions between activists and organizations on the Philippine left. The article develops an analytical framework focused on litigation dilemmas to explain how and why activists who pursue ATS litigation as an opportunity for legal mobilization may also encounter strategic dilemmas that contribute to dissension within a social movement.

Kiobel and the Weakening of Precedent: A Long Walk for a Short Drink

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
pp. 841-845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph G. Steinhardt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Gilded Age ◽  
High Profile ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. marks the second time in nine years that the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) does not provide jurisdiction in a high-profile human rights case, a sequence that might suggest an end to the gilded age of human rights litigation that began with Filártiga v. Peña-Irala. On closer analysis, however, Kiobel, like Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain before it, adopts a rhetoric of caution without foreclosing litigation that fits the Filártiga model. To the contrary, Sosa and Kiobel invite considerably more ATS litigation than they resolve or bar and therefore confirm Justice Antonin Scalia’s memorable encapsulation of the Court’s “Never Say Never Jurisprudence.” All four of the opinions in Kiobel confirm that multiple significant issues remain for future resolution, but it is unrealistic to expect answers on the basis of the Court’s decision because what is law in Kiobel isnt clear and what is clear in Kiobel isn’t law.

scholarly journals Lex Internationalis: Kiobel, Empires and the Color of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Sean Morris
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Modern Conception ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

In this article, I investigate the nature and origin of the Alien Tort Statute (A TS) and its link and application to the modern conception ofhuman rights. In the recent Kiobel decision, the Supreme Court resurrected the A TS and found that the A TS does not apply to human rights violations outside of the US allegedly committed by foreign-based corporations. The Supreme Court held that the presumption against extraterritorially applies to common law causes of action under the A TS, and no evidence exists that the First Congress wanted the A TS to confer jurisdiction over extraterritorial torts. In the article, Idevelop the notion ofthe color ofhuman rights to demonstrate that human rights itself has become a sort of lex internationalis.

scholarly journals Should or Must?: Nature of the Obligation of States to Use Trade Instruments for the Advancement of Environmental, Labour, and Other Human Rights

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Powell
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
Harm Principle ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

This article examines whether customs, treaties, and historical facts have caused the ethical human rights obligations of economically powerful states to assume a legal quality. The author argues that the legal quality of these obligations may arise from the global harm principle of international law and human rights obligations found in treaties. As a consequence, states may be held accountable for the human rights violations of transnational corporations. Further, the author examines the possibility of pursuing claims under the U.S. Alien Tort Statute for torts committed in violation of international treaties as another avenue for enforcing human rights obligations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document