Home arrow Issues arrow -- Alien Tort Statute

Alien Tort Statute

Background

The Alien Tort Provision (ATP) was passed as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, though the ATP was largely dormant for nearly 200 years. Enactment of the ATP intended to give federal district courts jurisdiction to hear claims by aliens for torts in violation of law of nations or treaties of the United States.

Today, class action plaintiffs are attempting to use the ATP to try to hold U.S. multinational corporations vicariously liable for alleged violations of the law of nations by foreign governments and their militaries. Class action lawyers theory states that US corporations operating overseas benefit from police and military security by foreign host governments, so that if the foreign government commits internationally recognized torts against its own citizens, the U.S. corporation is liable under the ATP. In most cases, neither the victim nor the accused abusers have any contact with the US.

However, U.S. court resources should be used sparingly when attempting to adjudicate disputes arising from alleged conduct occurring solely outside the United States involving non-US citizens and their own governments' conduct. US courts are ill-suited to ferret out facts related to a foreign government's internal conflicts involving its own citizens. It is beyond the court's jurisdiction to assess liability against the true tortfeaser, the foreign government or its military. In addition, cases where U.S. courts are evaluating conduct of sovereign nations vis-a-vis their own citizens, raise tremendous risk of interference with U.S. foreign relations.

In the News

Display all Articles
rightphoto_ats

Featured

The Alien Tort Claims Act: History, Abuse and the Need for a Response
Includes case roster
USA*Engage

Publications

NCLC Urges Appeals Court to Reject Corporate Aiding and Abetting Liability Claim Under Alien Tort Statute (Amicus brief)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce National Chamber Litigation Center
May 8, 2007

There They Go Again: The Trial Bar’s Quest for the Next Litigation Bonanza
Arthur Fergenson and John Merrigan
January 2007

International Law and the Nation-State at the U.N.: A Guide for U.S. Policymakers
Lee A. Casey and David B. Rivkin Jr.
August 18, 2007 

NCLC Argues for Limited Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Statute (Amicus brief)
Corrie, et al.  v. Caterpillar, Inc.
June 14, 2006 

Aliens and the War on Terror
Paul Rosenzweig, The Heritage Foundation
March 8, 2004 

South African Government Officials (President Mbeki, Foreign Minister Zuma, Justice Minister Maduna) and British Government Speak Out Against Apartheid Litigation
US South Africa Business Council
July 16, 2003

Judicial Imperialism
Wall Street Journal, Robert Bork, American Enterprise Institute
June 17, 2003

Trial Lawyers Could Stymie Rebuilding of Iraq
Paul Rosenzweig, The Heritage Foundation
April 28, 2003

An Abuse of Power
Patti Waldmeir, Financial Times
March 13, 2007

Abuse of 18th Century Law Threatens U.S. Economic and Security Interests
Daniel T. Griswold, CATO Institute
January 25, 2003

The Very Long Arm of American Law
Thomas Niles, U.S. Council on International Business
November 5, 2002

The ‘Alien Tort Claims Act’: Is Our Litigation-Run-Amok Global?
John Howard, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
September 23, 2002

Enforcing Human Rights In American Courts When the Injury is Indirect:Will The Lawsuit Based On South African Apartheid Prevail
Anthony Sebok, FindLaw.com
July 15, 2002

The Costs of International Human Rights Litigation
Chicago Journal of International Law, Curtis Bradley
Fall 2001