美国《外国人侵权请求法》研究
|
摘要
《外国人侵权请求法》根源于1789年《司法法》第9条,经过几次修订后,目前编纂在《美国法典》第1350条,规定：“对外国人仅基于所实施的违反万国法或者美国缔结的条约提起的任何侵权民事诉讼,联邦地方法院具有初始管辖权。”该条款制定出来后基本上处于沉寂状态,直到1980年。美国第二巡回上诉法院在Filartiga v. Pena-Irala案中的判决让《外国人侵权请求法》走上了复兴之路,同时也在学术界掀起了对于《外国人侵权请求法》的出台背景与立法目的的争论。目前,一般认为,《外国人侵权请求法》的通过,直接原因是回应Marbois事件等外交危机,避免因“拒绝司法”而陷联邦政府于不利地位。最终,在宪政体制上,联邦主义占据主导,联邦法院成了审理涉及外国人的案件的主要司法机关。
在长期的实践中,面对各界的争议以及社会不断变迁的现实,《外国人侵权请求法》也在变迁,势力范围不断扩张。《外国人侵权请求法》在20世纪80年代的复兴,与美国国内的民权运动的高涨以及国际民事诉讼的爆炸密不可分。
要理解《外国人侵权请求法》的内涵,必须把握住万国法的内涵、什么是违反万国法或美国缔结的条约的侵权以及诉讼主体资格。随着原告开始针对公司提起民事诉讼,对于《外国人侵权请求法》是否应适用于公司的实践产生了争议。为了让受害人得到救济,避免公司逃避人权责任,针对公司的诉讼将会增加。
在弄清了《外国人侵权请求法》的内涵后,联邦法院要行使管辖权,必须满足对人管辖权和事项管辖权的要求。在《外国人侵权请求法》诉讼中,对人管辖权的基础是被告在法院出庭或者同意法院的管辖权、或者被告与法院地具有某种持续的联系,至少要满足“最低限度的联系”的要求,并且符合“正当程序”条款的限制,不会有违传统的公平审判和实质正义。《外国人侵权请求法》中的管辖权并不是普遍民事管辖权,而是根据美国国内法律来行使的,而且案件实际上是与美国相关的。
通过行使管辖权,《外国人侵权请求法》发挥着重要的影响和作用,让行为人承担责任、有助于威慑潜在的行为人、救济受害人,并且为人权法的发展作出贡献。因此,没有必要修改或限制《外国人侵权请求法》。
在裁决涉及《外国人侵权请求法》的诉讼时必然要面对法律选择问题,然而,《外国人侵权请求法》本身又没有规定法律选择规则以及可适用的法律。对于法律选择问题,虽然各个巡回法院之间存在很大的分歧,不过总体上仍然是受《裁判规则法》与《第二次冲突法重述》的指引。对于所诉行为的合法性,法院一般适用国际法和侵权行为地法,而对于赔偿金额和诉讼时效问题则适用美国国内法,包括联邦普通法。
原告根据《外国人侵权请求法》提起民事诉讼后,被告可以提出不方便法院、用尽当地救济、国家豁免、国家行为理论、国际礼让、政治行为理论等抗辩,许多案件都因此被撤销了。
与美国类似,其他国家也曾经遇到违反国际法的侵权诉讼案件。从英国的Al-Adsani案、Jones案、加拿大的Bouzari案、意大利的Ferrini案和希腊的Voiotia案可以看出,以违反国际法为由追究被告的侵权民事责任,在美国之外的其他国家并没有得到普遍认可。美国的外国人侵权请求诉讼的繁荣,根源于美国独特的法律制度,难以为其他国家所移植、复制和借鉴。
The Alien Tort Claims Act (hereinafter referred to as ATCA) originated from article 9 of Judiciary Act of 1789, being codified as 28 U.S.C.§1350 (2000), after several times'modification, which now provides that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of 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." The ATCA is nearly dormant after being enacted until 1980. In Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made the ATCA on the road to renaissance. It also gave rise the controversy on the background and legislative purpose of the ATCA in the academic community. At present, it is generally viewed that the direct cause of the passage of the ATCA is a response to diplomatic crisis, such as Marbois event, and to avoid the federal government being in a disadvantaged position due to "denial of justice". Finally, federalism is dominant in the constitutional system, and the federal court is the principal judicial organ to hear cases involving foreigners.
In the long-term practice, in the face of the deabte of all walks of life and the reality of social change, the ATCA is also changing constantly and its sphere of influence is expanded. The revival of the ATCA in 1980s is closely related to the upsurge of the civil rights movement in the United States, as well as the explosion of the international civil litigation.
To understand the connotations of the ATCA, it is necessary to grasp the meaning of the law of nations, what is tort in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States and the standing. As the plaintiff started to bring civil action against the company, there are disagreements on whether the ATCA ought to be applied to private company. In order to provide relief to victims and avoid the companies from evading responsibility for human rights, litigation against the company will increase.
After the connotation of the ATCA being clarified, the requirements of personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction must be met for, then the federal court can exercise jurisdiction. In the ATCA cases, the basis of personal jurisdiction is the defendant' appearance in the court or agreement to the jurisdiction of the court, or there is some continuous connection between the defendant and the court, at least to meet the "minimum contact" test, and in line with the "due process" clause and will not be contrary to the traditional fair play and substantial justice.The jurisdiction of the ATCA is not the universal civil jurisdiction, but exerciesed according to the domestic law of the United States, and the cases are actually associated with the United States.
Through the exercise of jurisdiction, the ATCA plays an important influence and role in making the perpetrator shoulder responsibility, help to deter potential perpetrators, relieve the victims, and contribute to the development of human rights law. Therefore, there is no need to modify or limit the ATCA.
In ruling the litigation involving the ATCA, the choice of law issues is inevitably confronted with, but the ATCA itself has no choice of law rules or provisions of applicable law. Although there are many differences on the choice of law issues between the various circuit courts, on the whole they are still subjected to the guide of the Rules of Decision Act and Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. The court applied the international law and the law of the place of the tort to judge the legality of the conduct in question; as to the amount of compensation and the issue of statutes of limitation, they are governed by domestic law of the United States, including the federal common law.
After the plaintiffs bring the civil action according to the ATCA, the defendant may put forward many defenses such as forum non conveniens, exhaustion of local remedy, the state immunities, acts of state doctrine, international comity, the political question doctrine, and thus many cases are dismissed.
Like the United States, other countries were once confronted with tort litigation arising from in violation of international law. From the Al-Adsani case and Jones case in United Kingdom, Bouzari case in Canada, Ferrini case in Italy and Voiotia case in Greece, it can be seen that to make the defendants shoulder responsibility on account of their conduct in violation of international law has not been generally recognized by nations except the United States. The prosperity of the litigation of the alien tort in United States is rooted in the United States' unique legal system, and it is difficult for other countries to transplant, copy and use for reference.
在长期的实践中,面对各界的争议以及社会不断变迁的现实,《外国人侵权请求法》也在变迁,势力范围不断扩张。《外国人侵权请求法》在20世纪80年代的复兴,与美国国内的民权运动的高涨以及国际民事诉讼的爆炸密不可分。
要理解《外国人侵权请求法》的内涵,必须把握住万国法的内涵、什么是违反万国法或美国缔结的条约的侵权以及诉讼主体资格。随着原告开始针对公司提起民事诉讼,对于《外国人侵权请求法》是否应适用于公司的实践产生了争议。为了让受害人得到救济,避免公司逃避人权责任,针对公司的诉讼将会增加。
在弄清了《外国人侵权请求法》的内涵后,联邦法院要行使管辖权,必须满足对人管辖权和事项管辖权的要求。在《外国人侵权请求法》诉讼中,对人管辖权的基础是被告在法院出庭或者同意法院的管辖权、或者被告与法院地具有某种持续的联系,至少要满足“最低限度的联系”的要求,并且符合“正当程序”条款的限制,不会有违传统的公平审判和实质正义。《外国人侵权请求法》中的管辖权并不是普遍民事管辖权,而是根据美国国内法律来行使的,而且案件实际上是与美国相关的。
通过行使管辖权,《外国人侵权请求法》发挥着重要的影响和作用,让行为人承担责任、有助于威慑潜在的行为人、救济受害人,并且为人权法的发展作出贡献。因此,没有必要修改或限制《外国人侵权请求法》。
在裁决涉及《外国人侵权请求法》的诉讼时必然要面对法律选择问题,然而,《外国人侵权请求法》本身又没有规定法律选择规则以及可适用的法律。对于法律选择问题,虽然各个巡回法院之间存在很大的分歧,不过总体上仍然是受《裁判规则法》与《第二次冲突法重述》的指引。对于所诉行为的合法性,法院一般适用国际法和侵权行为地法,而对于赔偿金额和诉讼时效问题则适用美国国内法,包括联邦普通法。
原告根据《外国人侵权请求法》提起民事诉讼后,被告可以提出不方便法院、用尽当地救济、国家豁免、国家行为理论、国际礼让、政治行为理论等抗辩,许多案件都因此被撤销了。
与美国类似,其他国家也曾经遇到违反国际法的侵权诉讼案件。从英国的Al-Adsani案、Jones案、加拿大的Bouzari案、意大利的Ferrini案和希腊的Voiotia案可以看出,以违反国际法为由追究被告的侵权民事责任,在美国之外的其他国家并没有得到普遍认可。美国的外国人侵权请求诉讼的繁荣,根源于美国独特的法律制度,难以为其他国家所移植、复制和借鉴。
The Alien Tort Claims Act (hereinafter referred to as ATCA) originated from article 9 of Judiciary Act of 1789, being codified as 28 U.S.C.§1350 (2000), after several times'modification, which now provides that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of 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." The ATCA is nearly dormant after being enacted until 1980. In Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made the ATCA on the road to renaissance. It also gave rise the controversy on the background and legislative purpose of the ATCA in the academic community. At present, it is generally viewed that the direct cause of the passage of the ATCA is a response to diplomatic crisis, such as Marbois event, and to avoid the federal government being in a disadvantaged position due to "denial of justice". Finally, federalism is dominant in the constitutional system, and the federal court is the principal judicial organ to hear cases involving foreigners.
In the long-term practice, in the face of the deabte of all walks of life and the reality of social change, the ATCA is also changing constantly and its sphere of influence is expanded. The revival of the ATCA in 1980s is closely related to the upsurge of the civil rights movement in the United States, as well as the explosion of the international civil litigation.
To understand the connotations of the ATCA, it is necessary to grasp the meaning of the law of nations, what is tort in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States and the standing. As the plaintiff started to bring civil action against the company, there are disagreements on whether the ATCA ought to be applied to private company. In order to provide relief to victims and avoid the companies from evading responsibility for human rights, litigation against the company will increase.
After the connotation of the ATCA being clarified, the requirements of personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction must be met for, then the federal court can exercise jurisdiction. In the ATCA cases, the basis of personal jurisdiction is the defendant' appearance in the court or agreement to the jurisdiction of the court, or there is some continuous connection between the defendant and the court, at least to meet the "minimum contact" test, and in line with the "due process" clause and will not be contrary to the traditional fair play and substantial justice.The jurisdiction of the ATCA is not the universal civil jurisdiction, but exerciesed according to the domestic law of the United States, and the cases are actually associated with the United States.
Through the exercise of jurisdiction, the ATCA plays an important influence and role in making the perpetrator shoulder responsibility, help to deter potential perpetrators, relieve the victims, and contribute to the development of human rights law. Therefore, there is no need to modify or limit the ATCA.
In ruling the litigation involving the ATCA, the choice of law issues is inevitably confronted with, but the ATCA itself has no choice of law rules or provisions of applicable law. Although there are many differences on the choice of law issues between the various circuit courts, on the whole they are still subjected to the guide of the Rules of Decision Act and Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. The court applied the international law and the law of the place of the tort to judge the legality of the conduct in question; as to the amount of compensation and the issue of statutes of limitation, they are governed by domestic law of the United States, including the federal common law.
After the plaintiffs bring the civil action according to the ATCA, the defendant may put forward many defenses such as forum non conveniens, exhaustion of local remedy, the state immunities, acts of state doctrine, international comity, the political question doctrine, and thus many cases are dismissed.
Like the United States, other countries were once confronted with tort litigation arising from in violation of international law. From the Al-Adsani case and Jones case in United Kingdom, Bouzari case in Canada, Ferrini case in Italy and Voiotia case in Greece, it can be seen that to make the defendants shoulder responsibility on account of their conduct in violation of international law has not been generally recognized by nations except the United States. The prosperity of the litigation of the alien tort in United States is rooted in the United States' unique legal system, and it is difficult for other countries to transplant, copy and use for reference.
引文
① state impunity,一些国际文件翻译为“有罪不罚”,例如联合国人权理事会的一些报告,http://www.unhcr,orq/cqi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4785d91b2 (last visited May 6,2009).
② See Edward A. Amley, Jr., Sue and Be Recognized:Collecting § 1350 Judgments Abroad,107 Yale L.J.2177 (1998).
① See KeyCite_28_USCA_S_1350_2_1_09_2140.
② See William J. Aceves, The Anatomy of Torture:A Documentary History ofFilartiga v Pena Irala, Martinus Nijhoff,2007.
③ See Beth Stephens & Michael Ratner, International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts, Transnational Publishers Inc.,1996.2008年,该书出了修订版。See Beth Stephens, Judith Chomsky, Jennifer Green, Paul Hoffman, Michael Ratner, International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2008.
④ See Craig Scott (eds.), Torture as Tort:Comparative Perspectives on the Development of Transnational Human Rights Litigation, Hart Publishing,2001.
⑤ See Jeffrey Davis, Justice across Borders:the Struggle for Human Rights in U.S. Courts, Cambridge University Press,2008.
⑥ See Ralph G Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999.
⑦ See Chandra Lekha Sriram, Globalizing Justice for Mass Atrocities, Routledge,2005.
①英文原文是"the district courts... shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."
②英文原文是"The district courts shall have jurisdiction... [o]f all suits brought by any alien for a tort 'only' in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States."
① William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev,467(1986).
② Act of March 3d,1911, ch.231,§24,36 Stat.1087,1093英文原文是"The district courts shall have jurisdiction... [o]f all suits brought by any alien for a tort only, in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States."
③ 62 Stat.934(1948).英文原文是"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of 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."
④ Pub. L. No.102-256,106 Stat.73,73(1992).
⑤ Torture Victim Protection Act, Pub. L. No.102-256,106 Stat.73 (1992) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 1350(2000)).
① Rasul v. Bush,542 U.S.466 (2004).
② 126 S.Ct.2749 (2006).
③ Pub. L. No.109-366,120 Stat.2600 (codified at 10 U.S.C.§§948a to 950w & 42 U.S.C.§2000dd-0).
④ See Amnesty International, United States of America, Military Commissions Act of 2006-Turning Bad Policy Into Bad Law, http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511542006 (last visited April 19,2008).
⑤ Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No.109-366,120 Stat. 2600,2633-2634, §6(b).
⑥ Boumediene v. Bush,128 S.Ct.2229 (2008).
① Sosa v.Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct. 2739 (2004).
② Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461,464(1989).
③ See William R. Casto, The First Congress's Understanding of its Authority over the Federal Courts'Jurisdiction, 26 B.C. L. Rev.1101,1114 (1985); see also Wythe Holt, "To Establish Justice":Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts,1989 Duke L.J.1421,1458; Kevin R. Johnson, Why Alienage Jurisdiction? Historical Foundations and Modern Justifications for Federal Jurisdiction over Disputes Involving Noncitizens, 21 Yale J. Int'l L.1,6-8(1996).
④ William S. Dodge, The Historical Origins of the Alien Tort Statue:A Response to the "Originalists," 19 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.221(1996).
① Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461,477 (1989); William R. Casto, The Federal Courts'Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,490-491 (1986); Scott A. Rosenberg, The Theory of Protective Jurisdiction,57 N.Y.U. L. Rev.933,1017(1982).
② Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461,477(1989).
③ William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,499 n.179 (1986).
④ William R. Casto, Correspondence,83 Am. J. Int'l L.901,903 (1989).
⑤ William S. Dodge, The Historical Origins of the Alien Tort Statue:A Response to the "Originalists," 19 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.221(1996).
⑥ See Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction over International Law Claims:Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1,24-26 (1985); William R. Casto, The Federal Courts'Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,490-491 (1986);
⑦ Respublicav. De Longchamps,1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 111 (1784).
⑧根据Casto教授的研究,当时很多杰出的政治家在相互通信时经常讨论Marbois事件。See William R. Casto,
The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,492 n.143 (1986).
① See Aric K. Short, Is the Alien Tort Statute Sacrosanct? Retaining Forum Non Conveniens in Human Rights
Litigation,33 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1001,1008-1011 (2001).
② Respublica v. De Longchamps,1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 111,116 (1784).
③ William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,492 n.144 (1986).
④ William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,494 (1986).
⑤ Jorge Cicero, The Alien Tort Statute of 1789 as a Remedy for Injuries to Foreign Nationals Hosted by the United States,23 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.315,336 (1992).
⑥ William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,494(1986).
⑦ See Curtis Bradley, The Alien Tort Statute and Article Ⅲ,42 Va J. Int'L L.586,641-42 (2002).
⑧ Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461(1989).
① Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,825 (1989).
② Respublicav. De Longchamps,1 U.S. (1 Dall.)111,116(1784).
③ See Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,842-849 (1989); Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law:Part One,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1003,1042-53 (1985)
④ Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461,479 (1989).
⑤ See generally Edwin D. Dickinson, Is the Crime of Piracy Obsolete?,38 Harv. L. Rev.334 (1925).
① See Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction Over International Law Claims:Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1 (1985).
② See Joseph Modeste Sweeney, A Tort Only in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 445,465-475 (1995); see also Le Caux v. Eden,99 Eng. Rep.375 (K.B.1781).
③ See Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,842-849 (1989); Stewart Jay, Origins ofFederal Common Law:Part One,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1003,1039-1111(1985).
④ 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812).
⑤ Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law:Part Two,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1231,1276 (1985).
⑥有学者曾经对1789年《司法法》与联邦法院的创立背景、埃尔斯沃思提出的方案、弗吉尼亚方案以及各方的妥协等都有详细研究,比较有参考价值。See Wythe Holt, "To Establish Justice"':Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts,1989 Duke L.J.1421 (1989).
① The Federalist No.3 (John Jay), http://thomas. loc. gov/home/histdox/fedpaper. txt (last visited December 4,2008).
② See Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L.461,479 (1989).
③ See William S. Dodge, Congressional Control of Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction:Why the Original Jurisdiction Clause Suggests an "Essential Role, " 100 Yale L.J.1013,1017 n.19 (1991).
④ William S. Dodge, The Historical Origins of the Alien Tort Statue:A Response to the "Originalists, "19 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.221 (1996).
⑤ The Federalist No.80 (Alexander Hamilton), http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpaper.txt (last visited December 4,2008).
⑥ See Wythe Holt, "To Establish Justice ":Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts,1989 Duke L.J.1421,1440-1453 (1989); see also William R. Casto, The First Congress's Understanding of Its Authority over the Federal Courts' Jurisdiction,26 B.C. L. Rev.1101,1111-1113 (1985); Kevin R. Johnson, Why Alienage Jurisdiction? Historical Foundations and Modern Justifications for Federal Jurisdiction over Disputes Involving Noncitizens,21 Yale J. Int'l L.1,6-8 (1996); Dunlop v. Ball,6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 180 (1804).
⑦ See William R. Casto, The First Congress's Understanding of Its Authority Over the Federal Courts' Jurisdiction,26 B.C. L. Rev.1101,1114 (1985).
⑧关于该事件,参见本文第二章第二节第四部分的论述。
⑨ William R. Casto, The Federal Courts'Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,497 & n.168 (1986).
① See 1 Op. Att'y Gen.57,59 (1795).
② Moxon v. The Fanny,17 F. Cas.942 (D. Pa.1793) (No.9,895).
③ Bolchos v. Darrell,3 F. Cas.810 (D.S.C.1795) (No.1,607).
④ Bruce A. Barenblat, Torture as a Violation of the Law of Nations:An Analysis of28 U.S. C. § 1350,16 Tex. Int'l L.J.117,124(1981).
①Moxon v.The Fanny,17.F. Cas.942(D.Pa.1793)(No.9,895).
②3 F. Cas.810,811(D.S.C.1795)(No.1607).
③O'Reilly de Camara v.Brooke,209 U.S.45(1908).
① Pauling v. McElroy,164 F.Supp.390 (D.D.C.1958).
② Khedivial Line, S.A.E. v. Seafarers'Intern. Union,278 F.2d 49 (2d Cir.1960).
③ 195 F.Supp.857 (D. Md.1961).
④ 225 F. Supp.292 (E.D. Pa.1963).
①255 F. Supp.919 (S.D.N.Y.1966).
②Valanga v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,259 F. Supp.324 (E.D. Pa.1966).
③255 F.Supp.919 (S.D.N.Y.1966).
④Abiodun v.Martin Oil Serv., Inc.,475 F.2d 142 (7th Cir.,1973)
⑤Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger,528 F.2d 1194,1201 n.13 (9th Cir.1975).
⑥Huynh Thi Anh v. Levi,586 F.2d 625,630 (6th Cir.1978).
① IIT v. Vencap, Ltd.,519 F.2d 1001 (2d Cir.1975).
② Dreyfus v. Van Fink,534 F.2d 24 (2d Cir.1976).
③ Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,884 (2d Cir.1980).
④ Benjamins v. British European Airways,572 F.2d 913 (2d Cir.1978).
⑤ 225 F. Supp.292 (E.D. Pa.1963).
⑥ Ivan Poullaos, The Nature of the Beast:Using the Alien Tort Claims Act to Combat International Human Rights Violations,80 Wash. U. L.Q.327,333 (2003).
⑦ Russell G. Donaldson, Construction and Application of Alien Tort Statute, Providing for Federal Jurisdiction over Alien's Action for Tort Committed in Violation of Law of Nations or Treaty of the United States,116 A.L.R. Fed.387 (2003).
① 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.1980).
②有学者对该案的前因后果作了详细描述。See Richard Pierre Claude, The Case ofJoelito Fildrtiga and the Clinic of Hope,5 Hum. Rts. Q.275 (1983)该案判决作出后,曾经有学者专门发表文章来评论该案。See, e.g., Jeffrey M. Blum & Ralph G. Steinhardt, Federal Jurisdiction over International Human Rights Claims:The Alien Tort Claims Act after Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,22 HARV. INTL L. J.53 (1981); Symposium:Federal Jurisdiction, Human Rights and the Law of Nations:Essays on Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,11 GA. J. INTL & COMP. L.305 (1981); Michael Danaher, Case Comment, Torture as a Tort in Violation of International Law:Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,33 STAN. L. REV.353 (1981); Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Customary International Law as Federal Common Law:A Critique of the Modern Position,110 Harv. L. Rev.815,832-34(1997); Deborah R. Gerstel & Adam G. Segall, Conference Report:Human Rights in American Courts,1 Am. U.J. Int'l. L.& Pol'y 137, 157-60 (1986); Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United States,82 Mich. L. Rev.1555,1560-62 (1984); Richard B. Lillich, The Role of Domestic Courts in Enforcing International Human Rights Law,74 Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc.20,24 (1980); Ralph G. Steinhardt, Fulfilling the Promise of Filartiga:Litigating Human Rights Claims against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos,20 Yale J. Int'l L.65 (1995).
③ 175 U.S.677,700 (1900).
④ See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins,304 U.S.64 (1938).
① 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.1980).这一点,法院吸取了美国政府的意见。See Memorandum for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Fildrtiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.1980) (No.79-6090),1980 WL 340146.
② Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,577 F. Supp.860 (E.D.N.Y.1984).
③ Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,776 (D.C. Cir.1984).
④详细的分析,see Anthony D'Amato, What Does Tel-Oren Tell Lawyers? Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l L.92 (1985). See also Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, pp.105-118.
①有人对Bork法官的意见深表赞同。See Virginia A. Melvin, Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic:Redefining the Alien Tort Claims Act,70 Minn. L. Rev.211 (1985).
② Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2734,2739 (2004).
③ Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,779 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Edwards, J., concurring).
④ Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,823 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Robb, J., concurring).
⑤ Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan,770 F.2d 202 (D.C. Cir.1985).
⑥ 369 U.S.186,217(1962).
⑦ Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan,770 F.2d 202,206-207 (D.C. Cir.1985).
⑧ See Peter Schuyler Black, Kadic v. Karadzic:Misinterpreting the Alien Tort Claims Act,31 Ga.L. Rev.281 (1996).
① In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation (Marcos Ⅰ),978 F.2d 493,502 (9th Cir.1992), cert.denied,508 U.S.972,113 S.Ct. 2960,125 L.Ed.2d 661 (1993).
② Paul v. Avril,812 F. Supp.207,211 (S.D. Fla.1993).
③ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,180 (D. Mass.1995).
④ Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232,237 (2d Cir.1995).
⑤ Doe v. Karadzic,866 F. Supp.734,739 (S.D.N.Y.1994).
① Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232,237 (2d Cir.1995).
② Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232,250 (2d Cir.1995).
③ See William J. Aceves, Affirming the Law of Nations in U.S. Courts:the Karadzic Litigation and the Yugoslav Conflict,14 Berkeley J. Int'l L.137,166-168 (1996).
④ Peter Schuyler Black, Kadic v. Karadzic:Misinterpreting the Alien Tort Claims Act,31 Ga. L. Rev.281(1996).
⑥ See Julian G Ku, The Third Wave:The Alien Tort Statute and the War on Terrorism,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.105, 108 (2005). See generally Anthony D'Amato, What Does Tel-Oren Tell Lawyers? Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l. L.92 (1985).
⑦ See Beth Stevens, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain "The Door is Still Ajar" For Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts,
① U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain,541 U.S.930,124 S.Ct.1627,158 L.Ed.2d 263,72 USLW 3597 (U.S. Mar 19,2004) (NO.03-485).
② Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2734,2768 (2004).
① Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2734,2743-2744 (2004).
② Richard Hermar & Martyn Day, Helping Bush Bushwhack Justice, The Guardian, Apr.4,2004, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/27/usa.humanrights (last visited May 13,2008).
③ 542 U.S.692,739-751 (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring).
① Brief ofAmici Curiae National Foreign Trade Council, et al. at 5, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2739 (2004).
② See generally William R. Casto, The Federal Courts'Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,479-480 (1986).
③ National Foreign Trade Council petition for Writ of Certiorari Amicus Brief in Sosa v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain (Oct.6,2003).
④ In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Human Rights Litigation,25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir.1994).
⑤ Gabriel D. Pinilla, Corporate Liability for Human Rights Violations on Foreign Soil:A Historical and Prospective Analysis of the Alien Tort Claims Controversy,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.687 (2004).
⑥ 517 F.Supp.542 (D.D.C.1981), affd 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir.1984).
⑦ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2739,2755 (2004).
① William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467 (1986).
② The Paquete Habana,175 U.S.677 (1900).
③ Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law§§ 111 & 112 (2003).
④ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,180 (D. Mass.1995); Abebe-Jira v. Negewo,72 F.3d 844,847 (11th Cir. 1996).
⑤ See Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria,461 U.S.480,495 (1983)正如美国联邦最高法院所指出的,美国《宪法》第3条第2款的管辖权比《美国法典》第1331条的联邦问题管辖权要宽泛的多。
⑥ 255 U.S.180,202(1921).
⑦ 463 U.S.1,13(1983).
① Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2739,2757 (2004).
② See William Spiegelberger, The Door is Ajar for Alien Tort suits, But How Far?, available at http:// www.whitecase.ru/articles/alientort.pdf (last visited December 4,2008).
③ See, e.g., Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,816 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Bork, J., concurring); Joseph Modeste Sweeney, A Tort Only in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.445,477 (1995).
④ Davis v. Passman,442 U.S.228,237 (1979) (quoting 1848 N.Y. Laws, ch.379, s 120(2)).
① See Anthony D'Amato, Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l L.92, 95(1985).
② See Anthony D'Amato, Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l L.92, 100(1985).
③ See Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,810 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Bork, J., concurring).
④ See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins,304 U.S.64 (1938); Henry J. Friendly, In Praise of Erie--and of the New Federal Common Law,39 N.Y.U. L. Rev.383,405-422(1964).
⑤ Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino,376 U.S.398,425 (1964); Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United States,82 Mich. L. Rev.1555,1559-60 (1984).
⑥ Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law:Part Two,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1231,1270(1985).
⑦ Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law:Part Two,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1231,1263-1264 (1985).
⑧ Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law:Part Two,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1231,1274-1275 (1985); see, e.g., Respublica v. De Longchamps,1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 111,116 (1784).
⑨ Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United States,82 Mich. L. Rev.1555,1557 (1984).
⑩之后的很多案例都不同意Bork法官的看法。See, e.g., Abebe-Jira v. Negewo,72 F.3d 844,847 (11th Cir. 1996); Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232,236 (2d Cir.1995); Hilao v. Estate of Marcos,25 F.3d 1467,1475 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,115 S. Ct.934 (1995); Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,179 (D. Mass.1995); Paul v. Avril,812 F. Supp.207,212 (S.D. Fla.1993); Forti v. Suarez-Mason,672 F. Supp.1531,1539 (N.D. Cal.1987).
① See Jaykumar A. Menon, The Alien Tort Statute:Blackstone and Criminal/Tort Law Hybridities,4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 372 (2006).
② See Jaykumar A. Menon, The Alien Tort Statute:Blackstone and Criminal/Tort Law Hybridities,4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 372 (2006).
③ Fortiv. Suarez-Mason,672 F.Supp.1531 (N.D.Cal. Oct 06,1987) (NO. C-87-2058 DLJ), Reconsideration Granted in Part by, Forti v. Suarez-Mason,694 F.Supp.707 (N.D.Cal. Jul 06,1988) (NO. C-87-2058-DLJ).
④ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,725 (2004).
⑤ Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, preface, p. x.
⑥ Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, preface, p. x.
① See generally Lockwood, The United Nations Charter and United States Civil Rights Litigation:1946-1955,69 IOWA L. REV.901 (1984); Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Public Law Litigation,100 Yale L.J.2347, 2360-2361 (1991).
② Christina Whitman, Constitutional Torts,79 Mich. L. Rev.5 (1980).
① Warren Richey, When Can Foreigners Sue in US Courts?, Christian Sci. Monitor, Mar.30,2004, at 2.
② See generally Beth Stephens, Translating Filartiga:A Comparative and International Law Analaysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l L.1,2-4 (2002).
③ Bryan Garner (eds.), Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), West Group,2004, p.903.《美国法学》上的定义与此类似,See 45 Am. Jur.2d International Law § 1 (2005).
④ Bryan Garner (eds.), Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), West Group,2004, p.835.
①对于国际法的名称和定义,王铁崖先生曾经有过细致的探讨,参见王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版,第13-17页。
②王铁崖教授认为,格劳修斯所借用的“万民法”一词指的是“习惯国际法”,以区别于自然国际法,后者是关于国际关系的自然法。参见王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版,第14页。
③参见王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版,第15页。
④ See Michael T. Morley, The Law of Nations and the Offenses Clause of the Constitution:A Defense of Federalism,112 Yale L.J.109 (2002). See also, Genc Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of the Law of Nations in the Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193 (2005).
⑤ See Michael T. Morley, The Law of Nations and the Offenses Clause of the Constitution:A Defense of Federalism,112 Yale L.J.109 (2002). See also, Genc Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of the Law of Nations in the Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193 (2005).
① See Michael T. Morley, The Law of Nations and the Offenses Clause of the Constitution:A Defense of Federalism,112 Yale L. J.109 (2002). See also, Genc Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of the Law of Nations in the Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193 (2005).
① Mortimer Sellers, Ethics and Authority in International Law,12 Emory Int'L L. Rev.1597,1600 (1998) (book review).
② Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, p.52.
③ Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, p.48.
④ See Edwin D. Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States,101 U. Pa. L. Rev.26,27(1952).
⑤ M. W. Janis, Jeremy Bentham and the Fashioning of "International Law," 78 Am. J. Int'l L.405,417(1984); see also Anthony D'Amato, What Does Tel-Oren Tell Lawyers?:Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l L.92,92(1985).
⑥ Anthony D'Amato, What Does Tel-Oren Tell Lawyers?:Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l L.92,94 (1985).
⑦布莱克斯通的著作可以通过网络免费下载,
① Harold J. Berman, World Law,18 Fordham Int'l L.J.1617,1617(1995).
② See Michael T. Morley, The Law of Nations and the Offenses Clause of the Constitution:A Defense of Federalism,112 Yale L.J.109 (2002). See also, Genc Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of the Law of Nations in the Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193 (2005).
③ See Michael T. Morley, The Law of Nations and the Offenses Clause of the Constitution:A Defense of Federalism,112 Yale L.J.109 (2002). See also, Genc Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of the Law of Nations in the Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193,220-221 (2005).
④ See generally Edwin D. Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States,101 U. PA. L. REV.26 (1952).
⑤ Beth Stephens, Federalism and Foreign Affairs:Congress's Power To "Define and Punish... Offenses against The Law Of Nations",42 Wm.& Mary L. Rev.447 (2000).
① The Nereide,13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 388,423 (1815).法院认定：“法院受作为国法一部分的万国法的约束”。See also Gordon A. Christenson, Federal Courts and World Civil Society,6 J. Trans. L.& Pol'y 405,427 (1997).
② Philip C. Jessup, The Doctrine of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins Applied to International Law,33 Am J. Int'l L.740, 742(1939).
③ Harold J. Berman, The Alien Torts Claim Act and The Law of Nations,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.69,75 (2005).
④ Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United States,82 Mich. L. Rev.1555 (1984).
⑤ Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins,304 U.S.64 (1938).
⑥ Philip C. Jessup, The Doctrine of Erie v. Tompkins Applied to International Law,33 Am. J. Int'l L.740,741-7 (1939).
⑦ Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 102 (1987).
⑧ See, e.g., Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819 (1989); Harold H. Sprout, Theories as to the Applicability of International Law in the Federal Courts of the United States, 26 Am. J. Int'l L.280 (1932). Harold Hongju Koh, The 1998 Frankel Lecture:Bringing International Law Home, 35 Hous. L. Rev.623 (1998).
⑨ See Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Customary International Law as Federal Common Law:A Critique of the Modern Position,110 Harv. L. Rev.815 (1997); Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, The Current Illegitimacy of International Human Rights Litigation,66 Fordham L. Rev.319 (1997); Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Federal Courts and the Incorporation of International Law,111 Harv. L. Rev.2260 (1998); Russell J. Weintraub, Establishing Incredible Events by Credible Evidence:Civil Suits for Atrocities that Violate International Law,62 Brook. L. Rev.753 (1996); Arthur M. Weisburd, State Courts, Federal Courts, and International Cases,20 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (1995).
⑩ See, e.g., F. Giba-Matthews, Customary International Law Acts As Federal Common Law in U.S. Courts,20 Fordham Int'l L.J.1839,1845 (1997); Michael J. Glennon, Process Versus Policy in Foreign Relations:Foreign
Affairs and the United States Constitution,95 Mich. L. Rev.1542,1551-53 (1997); Ryan Goodman & Derek P. Jinks, Filartiga's Firm Footing:International Human Rights and Federal Common Law,66 Fordham L. Rev.463, 468-69 (1997); Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Nationalizing International Law:Essay in Honor of Louis Henkin,36 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.121,126 n.23 (1997); Gerald L. Neuman, Sense and Nonsense about Customary International Law:A Response to Professors Bradley and Goldsmith,66 Fordham L. Rev.371,371-73 (1997); Beth Stephens, The Law of Our Land:Customary International Law as Federal Law after Erie,66 Fordham L. Rev.393,396-97 (1997); See Harold Hongju Koh, Is International Law Really State Law"?, 111 Harv. L. Rev.1824 (1998).
① See Ernest A. Young, Sorting Out the Debate over Customary International Law,42 Va. J. Int'l L.365,467-84 (2002).
② 376 U.S.398 (1964).
③ 126 S. Ct.2669 (2006).
④ See Ernest A. Young, Sosa and the Retail Incorporation of International Law,120 Harv. L. Rev. F.28 (2007). See also, See Ernest A. Young, Federal Suits and General Laws:A Comment on Judge Fletcher's Reading of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,93 VA. L. REV. IN BRIEF 33,35 (2007).
⑤ See Arthur M. Weisburd, The Executive Branch and International Law,41 Vand. L. Rev.1205,1239 (1988); Arthur M. Weisburd, State Courts, Federal Courts, and International Cases,20 Yale J. Int'l L.1,38-44 (1995).
⑥ Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United States,82 Mich. L. Rev.1555,1561 (1984).
⑦ 175 U.S.677,700 (1900). See Edwin D. Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States,101 U. PA. L. REV.26,26-27 (1952).
⑧最近几年的代表性判例参见Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.,125 S.Ct. 2169,2185 (2005).
⑧ See Swift v. Tyson,41 U.S.1 (1842), Huntington v. Attrill,146 U.S.657 (1892), The Paquete Habana,175 U.S. 677(1900).
① See Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,824,834 (1989).
② See Edwin D. Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States,101 U. Pa. L. Rev.26,35(1952); see also William S. Dodge, The Historical Origins of the Alien Tort Statue:A Response to the "Originalists," 19 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.221,232 (1996).
③ Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 111 n.3 (1987).
④ Trans-Continental Inv. Corp., S. A. v. Bank of Commonwealth,500 F.Supp.565 (C.D.Cal.1980).
⑤ See Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp.,343 F.3d 140,160 (2d Cir.2003).
① Aldana v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.,305 F. Supp.2d 1285 (S.D. Fla.2003), affd in part and vacated in part, 416 F.3d 1242(11th Cir.2005).
② See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,963 F. Supp.880 (C.D. Cal.1997), affd in part and rev'd in part sub nom, Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2003), affd en bane,403 F.3d 708 (9th Cir.2005).
③ Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No.96-C8386,2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3293 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.22,2002).
④ 305 F. Supp.2d 1297 (S.D. Fla.2003).
⑤ 124 S.Ct.2755 (2004).
⑥ Sarei v. Rio Tinto Plc.,221 F. Supp:2d 1116 (C.D. Cal.2002).
⑦ Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., No.93-C7527,1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4718 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.11,1994), dismissed,945 F. Supp.625 (S.D.N.Y.1996), remanded sub nom, Jota v. Texaco, Inc.,157 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.1998), mandamus denied,241 F.3d 194 (2d Cir.2001), dismissed,142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001), modified and affd,303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir.2002).
①221 F. Supp.2d 1159 (C.D. Cal.2002).
② See Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,815-816 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Bork, J., concurring).
③ Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney (May 7,1793), quoted in Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,846 (1989)..
④ 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199,281 (1796).
⑤ See United States v. La Jeune Eugenie,26 F. Cas.832,846 (C.C.D. Mass.1822) (No.15,551), overruled on other grounds,23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 66 (1825).
① See Charles D. Siegal, Deference and Its Dangers:Congress'Power to "Define... Offenses against the Law of Nations," 21 Vand. J.Transnat'l L.865,874-879(1988).
② See United States v. La Jeune Eugenie,26 F. Cas.832,846 (C.C.D. Mass.1822) (No.15,551), overruled on other grounds,23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 66 (1825).
③ See Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,833(1989).
④ See Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,827(1989).
⑤ Judiciary Act, ch.20, s 9,1 Stat.73,77(1789).
⑥ Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995).
⑦ See Armin Rosencranz & Richard Campbell, Foreign Environmental and Human Rights Suits against U.S. Corporations in U.S. Courts,18 Stan. Envt'l L.J.145,206 (1999);Sonia Jimenez, The Alien Tort Claims Act:A Tool for Repairing Ethically Challenged U.S. Corporations,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.721,736 (2004).
⑧ See 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (2000); Craig Forcese, ATCA's Achilles Heel:Corporate Complicity, International Law and the Alien Tort Claims Act,26 Yale J. Int'l L.487,502-510 (2001).
⑨ 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3293 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.22,2002).
① See Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co.,457 U.S.922,939(1982).
② Natalie Bridgeman, Human Rights Litigation Under the ATCA as a Proxy for Environmental Claims,6 Yale Hum. Rts.& Dev. L.J.1,8(2003).
③ 124 S.Ct.2739 (2004).
④ Natalie Bridgeman, Human Rights Litigation under the ATCA as a Proxy for Environmental Claims,6 Yale Hum. Rts.& Dev. L.J.1,5 (2003).
⑤ See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins,304 U.S.64(1938).
⑥ See Kristen D.A. Carpenter, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:A Toothless Tiger?,26 N.C. J. Int'l L.& Com. Reg.1 (2000).
① Fernandez-Roque v. Smith,622 F. Supp.887,903 (N.D. Ga.1985); Jama v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Serv.,22 F. Supp.2d 353,365 (D.N.J.1998)
② Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,884-885 (2d. Cir.1980); Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,185-186
(D. Mass.1995).
③ Abebe-Jiri v. Negewo,72 F.3d 844,848 (11th Cir.1996).
④ Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,623 F.Supp.246 (D.D.C. Oct 15,1985) (NO. CIV.A. 84-0353).
⑤ Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,736 F.Supp.1 (D.D.C. Mar 09,1990) (NO. CIV A 84-0353-AER).
⑥ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F.Supp.162 (D.Mass.1995).
⑦ Jogi v. Piland,131 F.Supp.2d 1024 (C.D.I11.2001).
⑧ Valanga v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,259 F.Supp.324 (E.D.Pa.1966).
⑨ See, e.g., Edye v. Robertson,112 U.S.580,598-599 (1884).在该案中,法院界定了非自动执行条约理论,要求条约必须明示或者默示地规定了私人诉权。虽然这一点遭到很多学者的批评,但是实践中法院仍然是这么做的。See, e.g., Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Public Law Litigation,100 Yale L.J.2347,2360-61 (1991); Stephen Reisenfeld, The Doctrine of Self-Executing Treaties and U.S. v. Postal:Win at Any Price?,74 Am. J. Int'l L.892,895(1980).
① See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.1980), on remand,577 F.Supp.860 (S.D.N.Y.1984).
② See Jordan J. Paust, Litigating Human Rights:A Commentary on the Comments,4 Houston J. Int'l L.59,83-84 (1981).
③ Joseph Modeste Sweeney, A Tort Only in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.445, 475 (1995).
④ 7 F. Cas.418,426 (C.C.D. Mass.1815) (No.3776). See also Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 335 (1816) (Story, J.).
⑤ See, e.g., Whittemore v. Cutter,29 F. Cas.1120,1123 (C.C.D. Mass.1813) (No.17,600); Meeker v. Wilson,16 F. Cas.1311,1312 (C.C.D. Mass.1813) (No.9392).
⑥ Moxon v. The Fanny,17. F. Cas.942 (D. Pa.1793) (No.9,895).
⑦ See 17 F. Cas.942,947 (D. Pa.1793) (No.9895).
① See 1 Op. Att'y Gen.57 (1795).
② 1 Op. Att'y Gen.57 (1795).没有证据表明在塞拉利昂发生的这起事件最终导致了诉讼。See Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction Over International Law Claims:Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1,41 n.185 (1985).
③ 1 Op. Att'y Gen.141(1804).
④ 26 Op. Att'y Gen.250(1907).
① See Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction Over International Law Claims:Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1,28-31 (1985); William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,507-508 (1986).
② Wythe Holt, "To Establish Justice ":Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts, 1989 Duke L.J.1421,1458 (1989).
③ See Wythe Holt, "To Establish Justice ":Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts,1989 Duke L.J.1421,1487-1488 (1989).
④ See Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction Over International Law Claims:Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1,28-31 (1985); William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,507-508 (1986).
⑤ Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front,257 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.D.C.2003).
① Beanal v. Freeport-McMoRan, Inc.,969 F.Supp.362 (E.D.La.1997).
② Cabello Barrueto v. Fernandez Larios,205 F.Supp.2d 1325 (S.D.Fla.,2002).
③ 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.1992).
④ 488 F. Supp.665 (D.D.C.1980).
⑤ Domingo v. Republic of the Philippines,808 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir.1987)(判决赔偿300万美元)；Jerry Large, A Life of Justice, Seattle Times, Aug.24,1995.
① Greenham Women against Cruise Missiles v. Reagan,591 F. Supp.1332,1338 (S.D.N.Y.1984).
② Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan,770 F.2d 202,206-07 (D.C. Cir.1985).
③ 22 F. Supp.2d 353 (D.N.J.1998).
④ 343 F. Supp.2d 338 (D.N.J.2004).
⑤ See 124 S. Ct.2739,2747-2754 (2004).
⑥ Al Odah v. U.S.,321 F.3d 1134 (C.A.D.C.2003), on remand 103 Fed.Appx.676,2004 WL 1613572.
⑦ Rasul v. Bush, U.S.2004,124 S.Ct.2686,542 U.S.466,159 L.Ed.2d 548, on remand 103 Fed.Appx.676,2004 WL 1613572. see also, Atif Rehman, The Court of Last Resort:Seeking Redress for Victims ofAbu-Ghraib Torture through the Alien Tort Claims Act,16 Ind. Int'1 & Comp. L. Rev.493 (2006).
⑧ See Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1916 (FSIA) (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330,1332(a)(2)-(4),1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602-1611); 28 U.S.C.§1604 (2005).
⑨ See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346,2671-2680 (2005).
⑩ See, e.g., Ickes v. Fox,300 U.S.82,96 (1937); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895A(1) (1979).
①Restatement(Second)of Torts § 895A cmt.b(1979).
②28 U.S.C.§2680(k).(2005).
③28 U.S.C.§2680(j)(2005).
④28 U.S.C.§2680(a),(h),(j),(k)(2005)；Ibrahim v.Titan Corp.,391 F. Supp.2d 10,18.19 & n.6(D.D.C. 2005).
⑤See Harlow v. Fitzgerald,457 U.S.800,806,102 S.Ct 2727,73 L.Ed.2d 396(1982).
⑥Bieregu v.Ashcroft,259 F.Supp.2d 342(D.N.J.2003).
⑦Rosner v. U.S.,231 F.Supp.2d 1202(S.D.Fla.2002).
⑧5 U.S.C.A.§702.
⑨Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan,770 F.2d 202(D.C.Cir. 1985).
⑩Canadian Transport Co.v. U.S.,663 F.2d 1081(C.A.D.C.1980).
① Schneider v. Kissinger,310 F.Supp.2d 251 (D.D.C.2004).
② In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases,355 F.Supp.2d 443 (D.D.C.2005).
③ 487 U.S.500,512(1988).
④ See Boyle v. United Techs. Corp.,487 U.S.500,510 (1988).
⑤ See Boyle v. United Techs. Corp.,487 U.S.500,512 (1988).
⑥ See Abigail Heng Wen, Suing the Sovereign's Servant:The Implications of Privatization for the Scope of Foreign Sovereign Immunities,103 COLUM. L. REV.1538,1562-1563 (2003). See also Ibrahim v. Titan Corp., 391 F. Supp.2d 10,12 (D.D.C.2005); Saleh v. Titan Corp.,353 F. Supp.2d 1087,1088 (S.D. Cal.2004); Jama v. INS,343 F. Supp.2d 338,345-346 (D.N.J.2004).
① See Mark Jacobsen, Case Comment,28 U.S.C.1350:A Legal Remedy for Torture in Paraguay?,69 Geo. L.J. 833,835(1981).
② 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995).
③ Justin Lu, Jurisdiction over Non-State Activity under the Alien Tort Claims Act,35 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.531 (1997).
④ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,963 F. Supp.880,891 (C.D. Cal.1997). See also Nat'l Coalition Gov't of Burma v. Unocal Corp.,176 F.R.D.329 (C.D. Cal.1997); Doe v. Unocal Corp.,110 F. Supp.2d 1294 (C.D. Cal.2000), affd in part, rev'd in part,395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2002), reh'g en banc granted,395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003). See also Doe v. Unocal Corp.,403 F.3d 708 (9th Cir.2005).
① Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,947-953 (9th Cir.2002).
② See, e.g., Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.,381 F. Supp.2d 1164 (C.D. Cal.2005); Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy Inc.,453 F. Supp.2d 633 (S.D.N. Y.2006); Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum,226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000).
③ See Khulumani v. Barclay Nat. Bank Ltd,504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.2007), affd due to lack of a quorum sub nom., American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza,2008 WL 117862,76 U.S.L.W.3405 (May 12,2008) (No.07-919); Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,487 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.2007), reh'g granted,499 F.3d 923 (9th Cir.2007); Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc.,416 F.3d 1242,1247-48 (11th Cir.2005); Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2002), reh'g en bane granted,395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
④ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2002).
⑤ See Khulumani v. Barclay Nat. Bank Ltd.,504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.2007).
⑥ 169 F. Supp.2d 259,315 (S.D.N. Y.2001).
⑦ Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and Shell Transp. and Trading Co., PLC, No.96 CIV.8386 (KMW),2002 WL 319887 *2 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
⑧ Ntsebeza v. Citigroup, Inc. (In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig.),346 F. Supp.2d 538 (S.D.N.Y.2004).
① 238 F. Supp.2d 1379 (JPML 2002).
② In re South African Apartheid Litig.,346 F. Supp.2d 538,542 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
③ Khulumani v. Barclay Nat'l Bank Ltd.,504 F.3d 254,260 (2d Cir.2007).
④ Khulumani v. Barclay Nat. Bank Ltd.,509 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.,2007).
⑤ American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza,128 S.Ct.2424,171 L.Ed.2d 225,76 USLW 3405,76 USLW 3603,76 USLW 3608 (U.S. Mav 12.2008) (NO.07-919).
⑥ Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp.,312 F. Supp.2d 1229,1243 (N.D. Cal.2004).
① Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp., No. C 99-02506 SI,2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59374 (N.D. Cal.2007).
② Terry Collingsworth, The Key Human Rights Challenge:Developing Enforcement Mechanisms,15 HARV. HUM. RTS. J.183,198 (2002).
③ Michael Giuseppe Congiu, From Rights to Remedies:the Alien Tort Claims Act, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the State Action Requirement,2 S.C. J. Int'l L.& Bus.127,156 (2005-2006).
④ See, e.g., Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc.,303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir.2002) (秘鲁和厄瓜多尔); Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., 273 F.3d 120 (2d Cir.2001)(印度)；Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co.,239 F.3d 440 (2d Cir.2000)(埃及)；Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000) (尼日利亚)；Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc.,197 F.3d 161 (5th Cir.1999)(印度尼西亚)；Hamidv. Price Waterhouse,51 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir.1995); Carmichael v. United Techs. Corp.,835 F.2d 109 (5th Cir.1988)(沙特阿拉伯)；Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.,381 F. Supp.2d 1164 (C.D. Cal.2005) (哥伦比亚)；Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp.,312 F. Supp.2d 1229 (N.D. Cal.2004) (尼日利亚)；Villeda v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.,305 F. Supp.2d 1285 (S.D. Fla.2003), affd,416 F.3d 1242 (11th
① See Kenny Bruno, De-Globalizing Justice:The Corporate Campaign to Strip Foreign Victims of Corporate-Induced Human Rights Violations of the Right to Sue in U.S. Courts, Multinational Monitor, available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/2003/03justice.htm (last visited August 16,2008); see also Marcel Herbke, US Bill Puts Oil Before Human Rights, Ohmy News, available at http:www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/atca/2005/1026oil.htm (last visited August 16,2008).
② Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law §101 (1987).
③ See Terry Collingsworth, "Corporate Social Responsibility," Unmasked,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.669,673(2004). World Pol. J.1 (Spring 2004), available at http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-1/kurlantzick.htm (last visited August 16,2008); Jacqueline Koch, Not in Their Backyard, CorpWatch, available at http://www. globalpolicy.org/intljustice/atca/2004/0714backyard.htm (last visited August 16,2008).
① See Donald J. Kochan, No Longer Little Known But Now a Door Ajar:An Overview of the Evolving and Dangerous Role of the Alien Tort Statute in Human Rights and International Law Jurisprudence,8 Chap. L. Rev. 103,132(2005).
② See Mark E. Rosen, The Alien Tort Statute:An Emerging Threat to National Security,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.627 (2004).
① Beth Stephens, Individuals Enforcing International Law:The Comparative and Historical Context,52 DePaul L. Rev.433 (2002).
② Anne-Marie Slaughter & David L. Bosco, Alternative Justice, Global Policy Forum, available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/intliustice/atca/2001/altjust.htm (last visited December 4,2008).
③ Curtis A. Bradley, The Costs of International Human Rights Litigation,2 Chi. J. Int'l L.457,460 (2001).
① Anne-Marie Slaughter & David Bosco, Plaintiff's Diplomacy,79 Foreign Aff.102,108 (2000).
② Mark S. Zaid, Military Might Versus Sovereign Right:The Kidnaping of Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain and the Resulting Fallout,19 Hous. J. Int'l L.829 (1997).
③ Letter of Michael J. Matheson, Acting Legal Advisor (July 8,1997), reprinted in Nat'l Coalition Gov. of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc.,176 F.R.D.329,362 (C.D. Cal.1997).
④ Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC.,221 F. Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal.2002).
① Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No.96-C8386,2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3293(S.D.N.Y. Feb.22,2002).
② 124 S.Ct.2762(2004).
③ See David J. Bederman, International Law Advocacy and its Discontents,2 Chi. J. Int'l L.475 (2001); Curtis A. Bradley, The Costs of International Human Rights Litigation,2 Chi. J. Int'l L.457 (2001); Beth Stephens, Taking Pride in International Human Rights Litigation,2 Chi. J. Int'l L.485 (2001).
④ Edward J. Schoen, Joseph S. Falchek & Margaret M. Hogan, The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789:Globalization of Business Requires Globalization of Law and Ethics,62 Journal of Business Ethics 41 (2005).
⑤ See Donald J. Kochan, No Longer Little Known But Now a Door Ajar:An Overview of the Evolving and Dangerous Role of the Alien Tort Statute in Human Rights and International Law Jurisprudence,8 Chap. L. Rev. 103,130-132(2005).
① See 542 U.S.692,748-749 (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring).
② See Donald J. Kochan, No Longer Little Known But Now a Door Ajar:An Overview of the Evolving and Dangerous Role of the Alien Tort Statute in Human Rights and International Law Jurisprudence,8 Chap. L. Rev. 103,131 (2005).
③ See Charles F. Hollis, Ⅲ, Perpetual Mistrial:The Impropriety of Transnational Human Rights Litigation in United States Courts,1 Santa Clara J. Int'l L.1 (2003).
④ Note, Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation:Adjudicating on "Foreign Territory",30 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev.101, 140(2006).
⑤ Borchien Lai, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Temporary Stopgap Measure Or Permanent Remedy?,26 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus.139,160(2005).
⑥ 124 S.Ct.2755 (2004).
① See generally Jenna Greene, Use of 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act against Business Growing,44 Broward Daily Bus. Rev.158, July 24,2003.
② Borchien Lai, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Temporary Stopgap Measure Or Permanent Remedy?,26 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus.139,161(2005).
③ Borchien Lai, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Temporary Stopgap Measure or Permanent Remedy?,26 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus.139,161 (2005).
① See William M. Richman & William L. Rieynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (3rd ed.), Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,2002, p.121. 《布莱克法律辞典》(第八版)的解释是:A court's power to bring a person into its adjudicative process; jurisdiction over a defendant's personal rights, rather than merely over property interests.-- Also termed in personam jurisdiction; jurisdiction in personam; jurisdiction of the person; jurisdiction over the person. Bryan Garner (eds.). Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), West Group,2004, p.870.
②《布莱克法律辞典》(第八版)的解释是:A court's power to adjudicate the rights to a given piece of property, including the power to seize and hold it.-- Also termed jurisdiction in rem. Bryan Garner (eds.), Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), West Group,2004, p.869. See William M. Richman & William L. Rieynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (3rd ed.), Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,2002, pp.19-20.
③ See William M. Richman & William L. Rieynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (3rd ed.), Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,2002, pp.19-20.
① See William M. Richman & William L. Rieynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (3rd ed.), Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,2002, pp.24-25.
② See Nathan Levy, Jr., Mense Process in Personal Actions at Common Law and the Power Doctrine,78 Yale L.J.52,58 (1968).
③ Hart v. Granger,1 Conn.154,168(1814).
④ Bigelow v. Stearns,19 Johns.39,40-41 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1821).
⑤详细的考证参见Caleb Nelson, Sovereign Immunity as a Doctrine of Personal Jurisdiction,115 Harvard L. Rev.1559 (2002).
⑥ 466 U.S.408 (1984).
⑦ 495 U.S.604,109 L. Ed.2d 631,110 S. Ct.2105 (1990).
⑧ GTE New Media Servs. v. BellSouth Corp.,199 F.3d 1343,1347 (D.C.Cir.2000).
① Burnham v. Superior Court,495 U.S.604,109 L. Ed.2d 631,110 S. Ct.2105 (1990).
② See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k).
③ 70 F.3d 232 (9th Cir.1995).
④ Henderson v. United States,517 U.S.654,672,116 S.Ct.1638,134 L.Ed.2d 880 (1996).
⑤ United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co.,736 F.2d 1371,1382 (9th Cir.1984); Chan v. Soc'y Expeditions, Inc.39 F.3d 1398,1404 (9th Cir.1994); Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,339 U.S. 306,314,70 S.Ct.652,94 L.Ed.865 (1950).
⑥ Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink,284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir.2002).
⑦ See Errion v. Connell,236 F.2d 447,457 (9th Cir.1956); Novak v. World Bank,703 F.2d 1305,1310 n.14 (D.C.Cir.1983); Doe v. Karadzic,1996 WL 194298 (S.D.N.Y. Apr 22,1996); Trujillo v. Trujillo,71 Cal.App.2d 257,162 P.2d 640,641-42 (1945); In re Ball,2 Cal.App.2d 578,38 P.2d 411,412 (1934).
⑧ 792 F. Supp.215 (S.D.N.Y.1992).
① 120 U.S. App. D.C.288,345 F.2d 978,980-81 (D.C. Cir.1965).
② Tachiona v. Mugabe,169 F.Supp.2d 259 (S.D.N.Y. Oct 30,2001) (NO.00 CIV.6666 (VM)).
③ Tachiona ex rel. Tachiona v. Mugabe,186 F.Supp.2d 383 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 14,2002) (NO.00 CIV 6666 VM).
④ Tachiona v. U.S.,386 F.3d 205 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Oct 06,2004) (NO.03-6033(L),03-6043(XAP)). Certiorari Denied by Tachiona v. U.S.,547 U.S.1143,126 S.Ct.2020,164 L.Ed.2d 806,74 USLW 3425,74 USLW 3636,74 USLW 3640 (U.S. May 15,2006) (NO.05-879).
⑤ Slater v. Mexican National R. Co.,194 US 120 (1904). See also McKenna v. Fisk,42 U.S.241,248-249 (1843).
⑥ Ruti Teitel, The Alien Tort And The Global Rule of Law, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/i.1468-2451.2005.570.x?cookieSet=1(last visited August 16, 2008).
⑦ 630 F.2d 876,885 (2d Cir.1980).
① McKenna v. Fisk,42 U.S.241,248-249 (1843). See also Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.80.
② Ralph G Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.80.
③ 67 F. Supp.2d 1140 (C.D. Cal.1999).
④ See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington,326 U.S.310,316(1945).
⑤ No.96-35971,1998 WL 31494 (9th Cir. Jan.28,1998), cert, denied,525 U.S.816 (1998).
① Adam Liptak, Florida:Judge Dismisses Child Slavery Case, New York Times, July 31,2007, p.15.
② Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front,257 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.D.C.2003).
③ Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum,226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000).
④ 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.2005).
⑤ See Rein v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,995 F. Supp.325,330 (E.D.N.Y.1998).
⑥ See Tachiona v. Mugabe,234 F.Supp.2d 401 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
⑦ Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler AG,2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 31929, at * 61 (N.D. Cal. Nov.22,2005).
⑧ See William M. Richman & William L. Rieynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (3rd ed.), Matthew Bender
& Company, Inc.,2002, pp.1(?)-17.翻译为对事管辖权更妥当,但是考虑到国内的习惯,所以本文仍然使用事
项管辖权一词。《布莱克法律辞典》(第八版)的解释是：Jurisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of
relief sought; the extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things.--Also termed jurisdiction of the subject matter; jurisdiction of the cause; jurisdiction over the action. Bryan Garner (eds.), Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), West Group,2004, p.870.
① See Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo,353 U.S.138,146-147 (1957); Blackmer v. United States,284 U.S.421, 437 (1932). See also American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.,213 U.S.347,357 (1909).
② Curtis A. Bradley, The Alien Tort Statute and Article 111,42 Va. J. Int'l L.587 (2002).
① See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,885-886 (2d Cir.1980).
② See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,885 (2d Cir.1980).
③ 630 F.2d 876,887 (2d Cir.1980).
④ 239 F.3d 440,447-450 (2d Cir.2000).
① 229 F.3d 1155 (6th Cir.2000).
② Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.,488 U.S.428(1989).
③ See Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.,256 F. Supp.2d 1345 (S.D. Fla.2003).
④ Beanalv. Freeport-McMoran, Inc.,197 F.3d 161 (5th Cir.1999).
⑤ Estate of Rodriquez v. Drummond Co., Inc.,256 F. Supp.2d 1250 (N.D. Ala.2003).
⑥ 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (note) (1994).
⑦ 18 U.S.C.§2333(a) (1994).
⑧28 U.S.C.§§1330,1602-1611 (1994).
⑨ See Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.,488 U.S.428 (1989).
⑩ See Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina,965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.1992).
① Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany,26 F.3d 1166,1176-1184 (D.C. Cir.1994) (Wald, J., dissenting).
② See Kimberly J. McLarin, Holocaust Survivor Will Share $2.1 Million in Reparations, N.Y. Times, Sept.20, 1995, at B5.
③ 28 U.S.C.§§1605(a)(7)(A), (B)(ii) (Supp. V.1999). See 22 C.F.R. §126.1(d) (2000).其中,伊朗、古巴、叙利亚、伊拉克、利比亚、苏丹和朝鲜被认为是支持恐怖主义的国家。相关内容,还可以参见本文第五章第三节的论述。
④ Soudavar v. Islamic Republic of Iran,67 Fed.Appx.618 (C.A.D.C.2003).
⑤ Goldstar (Panama) S.A. v. U.S.,967 F.2d 965 (C.A.4 (Va.) 1992).
⑥ Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232,236 (2d Cir.1995).
⑦ See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,887-88 (1980); see also Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232,238 (2d Cir. 1995)
⑧ Khulumani v. Barclay Nat'l Bank Ltd.,504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.2007).
① In Vietnam Ass'n for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chemical Co.,517 F.3d 104 (2d. Cir.2008).
② Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,487 F.3d 1193,1200-01 (9th Cir.2007).
③ Roe v. Bridgestone Corp.,492. F. Supp.2d 988,1004-06 (S.D. Ind.2007).
④ Steel Co. v.Citizens for a Better Env't,523 U.S.83,89(1998)
⑤ Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,546 U.S.500,511 (2006).
⑥ Cisneros v. Aragon,485 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir.2007).
⑦ Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't,523 U.S.83,91 (1998).
① Jeffrey Davis, Justice without Borders:Human Rights Cases in U.S. Courts,28 Law & Policy 60,65 (2006).
② Jean-Marie Simon, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Justice or Show Trials?,11 B.U. Int'l L.J.1,4-5 (1993).
③ Forti v. Suarez-Mason,672 F. Supp.1531 (N.D. Cal.1987).
④ Genc Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of The Law Of Nations in The Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193 (2005).
① Saleh v. Titan Corp.,361 F. Supp.2d 1152 (S.D. Cal.2005).
② In re South African Apartheid Litigation,238 F.Supp.2d 1379 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. Dec 16,2002) (NO.1499).
① International Law Association, Final Report on the Exercise of Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences 3 n.6 (2000), quoted in Beth Stephens, Translating Filartiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2002).
② The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 404 cmt. a (1987). See Roger S. Clark, Offenses of International Concern:Multilateral State Treaty Practice in the Forty Years Since Nuremberg, 57 Nordic J. Int'l L.49 (1988).
③ International Law Association, Final Report on the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences 4-9 (2000), quoted in Beth Stephens, Translating Fildrtiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2002); Kenneth C. Randall, Universal Jurisdiction under International Law,66 Tex. L. Rev.785,788 (1988).
① The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 402 cmt. B (1987).
② S. Rep. No.102-249,5 (1992).
③ Beth Van Schaack, In Defense of Civil Redress:The Domestic Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in the Context of the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention,42 Harv. Int'l L.J.141,195 (2001).
④ James Paul George, Defining Fildrtiga:Characterizing International Torture Claims in United States Courts,2 Dick. J. Int'l L.1,32(1984).
⑥ The Case of The S.S. Lotus. (France v. Turkey). Permanent Court of International Justice,1927.1927 P.C.I.J. (ser.A) No.9. http://www.law.nyu.edu/kingsburyb/fall01/intl law/PROTECTED/unit5/ss lotus edit.htm (last visited August 16,2008).另见陈致中：《国际法案例》,法律出版社1998年版,第41页。
⑥ Gerald Fitzmaurice, The General Principles of International Law,92 Recueil Des Cours 1,218 (1957).
① Jennifer Kaylin, Yale Law School Team Takes on an Alumnus, N.Y. Times, Apr.11,1993, at 6.
② Doe v. Lumintang, Civ. Action No.00-674 (GK)(AK), Sept.10,2001, decision, available at http://www.cja.org/cases/Luminiang_Docs/Lumintang_DefM2Vacate.pdf(last visited August.10,2008).
③ Abebe-Jira v. Negewo,72 F.3d 844(11th Cir.1996).
④ Bernard Fernandez, Retired Colonel Retreats to Chile Ahead of Suit, Phila. News, Aug.18,1987, at 76.
⑤ Beth Van Schaack, With All Deliberate Speed:Civil Human Rights Litigation as A Tool for Social Change,57 Vand. L. Rev.2305,2339 (2004).
⑥ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,110 F. Supp.2d 1294,1296 (C.D. Cal.2000); rev'd, Doe v. Unocal Corp., Nos.00-56603, 00-57197, Nos.00-56628,00-57195,2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 19263 (9th Cir. Sept.18,2002), en banc review granted, Doe v. Unocal Corp., Nos.00-56603,00-57197, Nos.00-56628,00-57195,2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2716, 2-3 (9th Cir. Feb.14,2003).
⑦ See Paul Magnusson, A Milestone For Human Rights, BusinessWeekly, Jan.24,2005, at 63.
⑧ In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litig.,105 F. Supp.2d 139,142-43 (E.D.N.Y.2000).
① See Complaint and Jury Trial Demand, Khulumani v. Barclays Nat'l Bank, Ltd (Nov.11,2001), available at http://www.cmht.com/casewatch/cases/apartheid-cmpl.pdf (last visited Feb.7,2008)..
② Deborah J. Karet, Privatizing Law on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands:Is Litigation the Best Channel for Reforming the Garment Industry?,48 Buffalo L. Rev.1047,1080-85 (2000).
③ See Jonathan Birchall, The Limits of Human Rights Legislation, The Financial Times Ltd., Jan.20,2005, at 13.
④ Verite, About Us, Our Mission, http://verite.org/aboutus/main.html (last visited Feb.7,2008).
⑤ Robert J. Peterson, Political Realism and the Judicial Imposition of International Secondary Sanctions: Possibilities from John Doe v. Unocal and the Alien Tort Claims Act,5 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable 277,292-294 (1998).
⑥ Nicholas Keung, U of T Human Rights Clinic Makes Law School A Crusade, Toronto Star, Jan.4,2004, at A4. Caroline Davidson, Tort Au Canadien:A Proposal for Canadian Tort Legislation on Gross Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law,38 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.1403,1423 (2005).
⑦ Jose E. Alvarez, Rush to Closure:Lessons of the Tadic Judgment,96 MICH. L. REV.2031,2101-2 (1998).
① Statement of Juan Romagoza, available at http://www.cja.org/forSurvivors/reflect.doc (last visited August.10, 2008).
② See Jeffrey Davis, Justice across Borders:the Struggle for Human Rights in U.S. Courts, Cambridge University Press,2008, p.2.
③ Fabri, Torture and Impunity:Legal Recourse May Lead to Healing, Traumatic Strcss Points, Vol.16, No.2, Spring 2002, available at http://www.istss.org/Pubs/TS/Spring02/torture.htm (last visited August.10,2008).
④ See Jeffrey Davis, Justice across Borders:the Struggle for Human Rights in U.S. Courts, Cambridge University Press,2008, p.2.
⑤ Tom R. Tyler & Hulda Thorisdottir, A Psychological Perspective on Compensation for Harm:Examining the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund,53 DePaul L. Rev.355,361 (2003).
⑥ Tom R. Tyler & Hulda Thorisdottir, A Psychological Perspective on Compensation for Harm:Examining the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund,53 DePaul L. Rev.355,367-368 (2003); see also Deborah R. Hensler, Money
Talks:Searching for Justice through Compensation for Personal Injury and Death,53 De Paul L. Rev.417, 432-437 (2003).
① See Detlev F. Vagts & Peter Murray, Litigating the Nazi Labor Claims:The Path Not Taken,43 Harv. Int'l L. J. 503,522 (2002).
② Tom R. Tyler & Hulda Thorisdottir, A Psychological Perspective on Compensation for Harm:Examining the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund,53 DePaul L. Rev.355,369 (2003). See also Deborah R. Hensler, Money Talks: Searching for Justice through Compensation for Personal Injury and Death,53 De Paul L. Rev.417,424-425 (2003).
③ Rhonda V. Magee, The Master's Tools, From the Bottom Up:Responses to African-American Reparations Theory in Mainstream and Outsider Remedies Discourse,79 Va. L. Rev.863,906-907 (1993).
④ See Center for Justice & Accountability, Carlos Mauricio's Story, http://www.cja.org/forSurvivors/CarlosforSurvivors.shtml (last visited Feb.7,2008).
⑤ See, e.g., Doe v. Saravia,2004 WL 2913256 (E.D.Cal. Nov.24,2004).
⑥ Paul B. Stephan, Export/Import:American Civil Justice in a Global Context:A Becoming Modesty-U.S. Litigation in the Mirror of International Law,52 DePaul L. Rev.627,644 (2002).
⑦ See, e.g., Bigio v. Coca Cola,239 F.3d 440,455 (2d Cir.2000); ⅡTv. Vencap,519 F.2d 1001,1015 (2d Cir. 1975); Abiodun v. Martin Oil Serv., Inc.,475 F.2d 142,145 (7th Cir.1973); Valanga v. Metropolitan Life Ins.,259 F. Supp.324,327 (E.D. Pa.1966); De Wit v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, N.V.,570 F. Supp.613,618 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). See also Guinto v. Marcos,654 F. Supp.276,280 (S.D. Cal.1986); Nat'l Coalition Gov't of Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc.,176 F.R.D.329,345 (C.D. Cal.1997).
⑧ See Beth Stephens, Taking Pride in International Human Rights Litigation,2 Chi. J. Int'l L.485,487-488 (2001).
① See Sandra Coliver, Jennie Green & Paul L. Hoffman, Holding Human Rights Violators Accountable By Using International Law In U.S. Courts:Advocacy Efforts And Complementary Strategies,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.169, 185 (2005).
② Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.95.
③ Joshua L. Bettridge, The Alien Tort Statute:Judicial Activism and Its Impact on International Law,1 Regent J Int'l L 65,74 (2003).
④ Hannah R. Bornstein, The Alien Tort Claims Act In 2007:Resolving The Delicate Balance Between Judicial And Legislative Authority,82 Ind. L.J.1077,1081 (2007).
① Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.45.
② Kevin R. Carter, Amending the Alien Tort Claims Act:Protecting Human Rights or Closing off Corporate Accountability?,38 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L.629 (2006-2007).
① Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88,105 n.12 (2d Cir.2000).
② See Tachiona v. Mugabe,216 F. Supp.2d 262,269 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
③ Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of (Ala),353 U.S.448 (1957).
④有学者探讨了行为地法以及国际法作为裁判规则的可能性及其利弊,Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, pp.88-94.
⑤ See Jeffrey Rabkin, Universal Justice:The Role of Federal Courts in International Civil Litigation,95 Colum. L. Rev.2120,2142 (1995).
⑥ See Edward A. Amley, Jr., Sue and Be Recognized:Collecting 1350 Judgments Abroad,107 Yale L.J.2177, 2190-2191 (1998).
⑦ Note, Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation:Adjudicating on "Foreign Territory",30 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev.101 (2006).
① See Tachiona v. Mugabe,234 F.Supp.2d 401 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
② Symeon C. Symeonides, Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2002:Sixteenth Annual Survey,51 Am. J. Comp. L.1,47(2003).
③ 28 U.S.C.§1652(2000).
①41 U.S.(16 Pet.)1(1842).
②304 U.S.64,77.78(1938).
③41 U.S.(16 Pet.)1,12(1842).
④Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co.v.Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co.,276 U.S.518,533(1928).
① Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2734 (2004).
② See William R. Casto, The Federal Courts'Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,477 (1986). But see G. Edward White, A Customary International Law of Torts, available at http://law.bepress.com/uvalwps/uva_publiclaw/art34 (last visited September 3,2008).
③ Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino,376 U.S.398 (1964).
④ See, e.g., United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc.,440 U.S.715,726-727(1979).
⑤ See, e.g., Atherton v. FDIC,519 U.S.213,217-220 (1997); O'Melveny & Myers v. FDIC,512 U.S.79,83-86 (1994).
⑥ See, e.g., Semtek Int'l Corp. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,531 U.S.497,508 (2001).
⑦ See, e.g., Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88,105 n.12 (2d Cir.2000); Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 403 F. Supp.2d 1019,1027 (W.D. Wash.2005); Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,179-180 (D. Mass.1995).
① See, e.g., In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litig.,978 F.2d 493,503 (9th Cir.1992)(赞同地方法院利用内国法来裁定《外国人侵权请求法》诉讼的结果,而根据传统的冲突法原则一般都是适用损害地法)；Adra v. Clift,195 F. Supp.857,866 (D. Md.1961)(适用州法,但是没有明示这样做是否构成创设新的联邦普通法抑或州法通过RDA而得以适用)。类似的,在Unocal案中,多数意见虽然认为要受国际法约束,但是仍然适用州法作为联邦普通法的裁判规则。See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,949 & n.25 (9th Cir.2002)(采用国际法作为裁判规则,但也承认在不同的事实上可能采用不同的规则)。
② Marbury v. Madison,5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137,177 (1803).
③ See The Paquete Habana,175 U.S.677,700 (1900).
④ See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6 (1971); see also Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,949 (9th Cir.2002); Cruz v. United States,387 F. Supp.2d 1057,1070 (N.D. Cal.2005).
⑤ Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6(2); see also Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6(1).
⑥ See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws§ 6 cmt. c.
⑦ Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §145(1).
⑧ Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145(2).
⑨ See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,949 (9th Cir.2002).
① 630 F.2d 876.889 (2d Cir.1980).
② Doe v. Rafael Saravia.348 F.Supp.2d 1112 (E.D.Cal.2004).
③ 195 F. Supp.857,860-861 (D. Md.1961).
④ Adra v. Clift,195 F. Supp.857,866 (D. Md.1961).
⑤ Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,788 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Edwards, J., concurring).
⑥ See 397 F. Supp.2d 908,913-16 (S.D. Ohio 2005).
⑦ See In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litig.,978 F.2d 493,503 (9th Cir.1992).
① Paul J. Mishkin, The Variousness of Federal Law':Competence And Discretion in The Choice of National and State Rules for Decision,105 U. PA. L. REV.797 (1957).
② Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.95.
③ Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, reprinted in 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.129,140 (2001).
④ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F3d 932,948 (9th Cir 2002).
⑤ Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,456 F.3d 1069,1090 (9th Cir.2006).
⑥ S. Rep. No.102-249,9-10(1991).
⑦ See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petrol. Co., No.96 CIV.8386,2002 WL 319887 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.28,2002).
⑧ See Richard A. Conn, Jr., The Alien Tort Statute:International Law as the Rule of Decision,49 Fordham L. Rev. 874,885 (1981).
⑨ See Richard A. Conn, Jr., The Alien Tort Statute:International Law as the Rule of Decision,49 Fordham L. Rev. 874,885 (1981).
① See Andrew Ridenour, Doe v. Unocal Corp., Apples and Oranges:Why Courts Should Use International Standards to Determine Liability for Violation of the Law of Nations under the Alien Tort Claims Act,9 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L.581,597-98 (2001).
② See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,948 n.23 (2002).
③ Nancy Morisseau, Seen But Not Heard:Child Soldiers Suing Gun Manufacturers under The Alien Tort Claims Act,89 Cornell L. Rev.1263,1298 (2004).
④ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F.Supp.162,183 (D. Mass.1995).
⑤ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F.Supp.162,183 n.24 (D. Mass.1995).
① Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, reprinted in 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.129,159 (2001).
② Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.,451 U.S.630,640 (1981).
③ Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.,451 U.S.630,641 (1981).
④ See, e.g., Doe v Unocal,395 F.3d 932,947 (9th Cir 2002).
⑤很多学者主张利用《外国人侵权请求法》来对公司在海外的行为提起诉讼。See, e.g., Marisa Anne Pagnattaro, Enforcing International Labor Standards:The Potential of the Alien Tort Claims Act,37 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.203, 205 (2004); Igor Fuks, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Future ofATCA Litigation:Examining Bonded Labor Claims and Corporate Liability,106 Colum. L. Rev.112,112 (2006)这被称为《外国人侵权请求法》诉讼的第二波。See Curtis A. Bradley, Customary International Law and Private Rights of Action,1 Chi. J. Int'l L.421,421(2000).有学者将根据《外国人侵权请求法》对恐怖主义的诉讼称为第三波。See Julian G Ku, The Third Wave: The Alien Tort Statute and the War on Terrorism,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.105 (2005).至于第一波,当然是以Filartiga案为代表。
① See 963 F. Supp.880 (C.D. Cal.1997); 27 F. Supp.2d 1174 (C.D. Cal.1998; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 19263.
② Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,947 (9th Cir 2002).
③ 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4083 (S.D.N.Y.2003). ④ IT-95-17/1-T(Dec.10,1998), reprinted in 38 I.L.M.317 (1999).电子版判决书可以参见http://www.icty.org/x/cases/furundziia/tiug/en/fur-tj981210e.pdf (last visited May 13,2009).
⑤ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F3d 932,950 (9th Cir 2002).
⑥Hote,Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation:Adjudicating on "Foreign Territory",30 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev.101, 136(2006).
⑦ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,948 n.23 (9th Cir 2002).
⑧ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,954 n.32 (9th Cir.2002).
⑨ See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,963(9th Cir 2002) (Reinhardt, J., concurring).也有学者反对多数法官的意见。See, e.g., Recent Cases, Ninth Circuit Uses International Law to Decide Applicable Substantive Law under Alien Tort Claims Act,116 Harv. L. Rev.1525,1525-1526(2003). ⑩ See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,970 (9th Cir 2002) (Reinhardt, J., concurring).
① Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,950-951 (9th Cir.2002).
② See, e.g., Mehinovic v. Vuckovic,198 F. Supp.2d 1322,1344,1355-1356 (N.D. Ga.2002).
③对于帮助与教唆责任问题,有学者作了专门的论述。See Paul L. Hoffman & Daniel Zaheer, The Rules of the Road:Federal Common Law and Aiding and Abetting under the Alien Tort Claims Act,26 Loyola L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.47 (2003).
④ Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy Inc.,453 F. Supp.2d 633,668 (S.D.N.Y.2006).
⑤ See, e.g., Arthur Andersen LLPv. United States,125 S. Ct.2129,2135-2136 (2005).
⑥ Aldana v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.,305 F. Supp.2d 1285,1304 (S.D. Fla.2003), affd in part, vacated in part,416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.2006).
⑦ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,110 F. Supp.2d 1294,1307 (C.D. Cal.2000), affd in part, rev'd in part,395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2002).
⑧ Lucien J. Dhooge, A Modest Proposal to Amend the Alien Tort Statute to Provide Guidance to Transnational Corporations,13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L.& Pol'y 119,134 (2007).
⑨ Tarek F. Maassarani, Four Counts of Corporate Complicity:Alternative Forms of Accomplice Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act,38 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.39 (2005-2006).
① See Justin Prociv, Incorporating Specific International Standards into ATCA Jurisprudence:Why the Ninth Circuit Should Affirm Unocal,34 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev.515 (2003); Andrew Ridenour, Doe v. Unocal Corp., Apples and Oranges:Why Courts Should Use International Standards to Determine Liability for Violation of the Law of Nations under the Alien Tort Claims Act,9 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L.581 (2001).
② See, e.g., Recent Cases, Ninth Circuit Uses International Law to Decide Applicable Substantive Law under Alien Tort Claims Act,116 Harv. L. Rev.1525,1525-26 (2003).
③ Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv.& Dev. Corp.,274 F. Supp.2d 86 (D.C. Cir.2003).
④ Restatment (Second) of Torts § 876 (1977). See also Daniel Diskin, The Historical and Modern Foundations for Aiding and Abetting Liability under the Alien Tort Statute,47 Ariz. L. Rev.805,832 (2005).
⑤ Daniel Diskin, The Historical and Modern Foundations for Aiding and Abetting Liability under the Alien Tort Statute,47 Ariz. L. Rev.805,834 (2005).
⑥ Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc.,403 F. Supp.2d 1019,1027 (W.D. Wash.2005).
⑦ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,179-80 (D. Mass.1995).
① Harold G Maier, The Role of Experts in Proving International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts:A Commentary,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.205,209 (1995/1996).
② 175 U.S.677,700(1900).
③ Harold G. Maier, The Role of Experts in Proving International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts:A Commentary,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.205,211(1995/1996).
④ See Paul L. Hoffman, The "Blank Stare Phenomenon ":Proving Customary International Law in U.S. Courts, 25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.181,181-182 (1995/1996).
⑤ Bruno Simma & Philip Alston, The Sources of Human Rights Law:Custom, Jus Cogens, and General Principles, 12 AUSTL. Y. B. INTL LL.82 (1992); Paul L. Hoffman, The "Blank Stare Phenomenon":Proving Customary International Law in U.S. Courts,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.181,183 (1995/1996)..
① Forti v. Suarez-Mason,672 F. Supp.1531 (N.D. Cal.1987), modified,694 F. Supp.707 (N.D. Cal.1988).
② 112 S. Ct.2188 (1992). Hoffman教授对在该案中证明国际习惯法的努力及其失败有详细描述。See Paul L.Hoffman, The "Blank Stare Phenomenon":Proving Customary International Law in U.S. Courts,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.181,185-186 (1995/1996).
③ Abebe-Jiri v. Negewo, No.1:90-cv-2010 GET (N.D. Ga., Aug.20,1993).
④ Traiano v. Marcos,978 F.2d 493 (9th Cir.1992), cert, denied sub nom., MarcosManotoc v. Trajano,113 S 2960(1993).
⑤ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,179-180 (D. Mass.1995); Ortiz v. Gramajo, No.91-11612,1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5307 (D. Mass. April 12,1995); Todd v. Panjaitan, No.92-12255 (D. Mass. Oct.26,1994); Paul v. Avril, No.91-399-CIV (S.D. Fla. June 30,1994).
⑥ See Charlotte Ku & Christopher J. Borgen, American Lawyers and International Competence,18 Dick. J. Int'l L. 493,501 (2000).
⑦ See Karen Knop, Here and There:International Law in Domestic Courts,32 N. Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.501,501 (2000).
⑧ See Charlotte Ku & Christopher J. Borgen, American Lawyers and International Competence,18 Dick. J. Int'l L. 493,514(2000).
⑨ Recent Cases, Civil Procedure--Choice of Law--Ninth Circuit Uses International Law to Decide Applicable Substantive Law under Alien Tort Claims Act.-John Doe Ⅰ v. Unocal Corp., NOS.00-56603,00-57197,00-56628, 00-57195,2002 WL 31063976 (9th Cir. Sept.18,2002),116 Harv. L. Rev.1525 (2003).
⑩ Charlotte Ku & Christopher J. Borgen, American Lawyers and International Competence,18 Dick. J. Int'l L. 493,501 (2000).
11 See Karen Knop, Here and There:International Law in Domestic Courts,32 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.501, 516-517(2000).
① Note, Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation:Adjudicating on "Foreign Territory",30 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev.101, 139(2006).
②这种观点得到个别学者的支持,认为在《外国人侵权请求法》诉讼中,法律选择的不同,可能会导致原
告挑选法院。See Gary Clyde Hufbauer, The Supreme Court Meets International Law:What's the Sequel to Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain?,12 TULSA J. COMP.& INT'L L.77,77 (2004).
③ Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,577 F. Supp.860 (E.D.N.Y.1984).
④ Gordon A. Christenson, Customary International Human Rights Law in Domestic Court Decisions,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.225,251(1995-1996).
① Gordon A. Christenson, Customary International Human Rights Law in Domestic Court Decisions,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.225,251-253(1995-1996).
② 577 F. Supp.860,863-64 (E.D.N.Y.1984).
③ Mushikiwabo v. Barayagwiza, No.94 Civ.3627,1996 WL 164496 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.9,1996).
④ See, e.g., Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios,402 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir.2005).
⑤ Tachiona v. Mugabe,216 F. Supp.2d 262 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
⑥ See Arce v. Garcia,434 F.3d 1254,2006 WL 13218 (11th Cir. Jan.4,2006).
⑦ See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,577 F. Supp.860,866 (E.D.N.Y.1984).
① Mechinovic v. Vuckovic,198 F. Supp.2d 1322,1360 (N.D. Ga.2002) (quoting BMW of N. Am., Inc., v. Gore, 517 U.S.559,576-77 (1996)), declined to follow by Aldena v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc.,416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.2005).
② See, e.g., Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios,402 F.3d 1148 (11 th Cir.2005); see also Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos,103 F.3d 767,779-82 (9th Cir.1996); Abebe-Jira v, Negewo,72 F.3d 844,846-48 (11th Cir.1996); Mechinovic v. Vuckovic,198 F. Supp.2d 1322,1358-60 (N.D. Ga.2002); Tachiona v. Mugabe,216 F. Supp.2d 262 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Mushikiwabo v. Barayagwiza, No.94 Civ.3627,1996 WL 164496, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.9,1996); Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,197-200 (D. Mass.1995); Paul v. Avril,901 F. Supp.330,335-36 (S.D. Fla. 1994); Todd v. Panjaitan,No. CV-92-12255-PBS,1994 WL 827111, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct.26,1994); Forti v. Suarez, No.87-2058-DLJ (N.D. Cal. Apr.25,1990); Quiros de Rapaport v. Suarez-Mason, No. C87-2266 JPV (N.D. Cal. Apr.11,1989); Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,577 F. Supp.860,864-867 (E.D.N.Y.1984).
③ See Richard B. Lillich, Damages for Gross Violations of International Human Rights Awarded by US Courts,15 Hum. Rts. Q.207 (1993).
④ 25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir.1994).
⑤ Abebe-Jira v. Negewo,72 F.3d 844,846-48 (11th Cir.1996).
⑥ Mehinovic v. Vuckovic,198 F. Supp.2d 1322,1358-60 (N.D. Ga.2002).
⑦ Tachiona v. Mugabe,216 F. Supp.2d 262 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
⑧ Mushikiwabo v. Barayagwiza, No.94 Civ.3627,1996 WL 164496, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.9,1996).
⑨ Todd v. Panjaitan, No. CV-92-12255-PBS,1994 WL 827111, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct.26,1994).
⑩ Rapaport v. Suarez-Mason, No. C87-2266 JPV (N.D. Cal. Apr.11,1989). 11 M. O. Chibundu, Making Customary International Law through Municipal Adjudication:A Structural Inquiry,
39 VA. J. INTL L.1069,1110n.139 (1999)(citing Flatlow v. Iran,999 F. Supp.1,34 (D.D.C.1998)).
① North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas,515 U.S.29,35 (1995).
② Nat'l Coalition Gov't of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc.,176 F.R.D.329,359 (C.D. Cal.1997).
③ See In re World War II Era Japanese Forced Labor Litig.,164 F. Supp.2d 1160 (N.D. Cal.2001).
④ See Forti v. Suarez-Mason,672 F. Supp.1531,1548-49 (N.D. Cal.1987).该案比较全面地讨论了诉讼时效问题,值得关注。See also, Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,192 (D. Mass 1995).
⑤ Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,517 F. Supp.542 (D.D.C.1981), affd 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir.1984).
⑥ See Forti v. Suarez-Mason,672 F. Supp.1531,1549 (N.D. Cal.1987).
⑦ See Papa v. United States,281 F.3d 1004,1012-1013 (9th Cir.2002); Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios,402 F.3d 1148,1153 (11th Cir.2005); Jean v. Dorelien,431 F.3d 776,778-779 (11th Cir.2005); Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front,257 F. Supp.2d 115,119 (D.D.C.2003); Manliguez v. Joseph,226 F. Supp.2d 377,386 (E.D.N.Y.2002); Cabiri v. Assasie-Gyimah,921 F. Supp.1189,1194-96 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
①See Papa v.United States,281 F.3d 1004,1012(9th Cir. 2002).
②See Ivanova v.Ford Motor Company,67 F.Supp.424,462(D.N.J.1999).
③See Deutsch v.Turner Corp,317 F.3d 1005,1028(9th Cir. 2003).
④See,e.g.,Arce v. Garcia,434 F.3d 1254,1265(11th Cir. 2006).
⑤Sandvik. v. United States,177 F.3d 1269,1271(11th Cir.1999).
⑥Justice v.United States,6F.3d 1474,1479(11th Cir.1993).
⑦Baldwin County Welcome Ctr.v.Brown,466 U.S.147,151(1984).
⑧See Irwin v.Dep't of Veterans Affairs,489 U.S.89,96(1990).
⑨See Forti v.Suarez-Mason,672 F. Supp.1531,1549(N.D.Cal.1987).
① Hilao v. Estate of Marcos,103 F.3d 767,771 (9th Cir.1996).
② Hilao v. Estate of Marcos,103 F.3d 767,773 (9th Cir.1996).
③ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,963 F. Supp.880 (C.D. Cal.1997).
④ Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios,157 F. Supp.2d 1345 (S.D. Fla.2001).
⑤ See Jean v. Dorelien,431 F.3d 776,780-81 (11th Cir.2005).
⑥ See In re Agent Orange Prod Liab. Litig.,373 F. Supp.2d 7,63 (E.D.N.Y.2005).
⑦ Burt Neuborne, Preliminary Reflections on Aspects of Holocaust-Era Litigation in American Courts,80 Wash. U. L.Q.795,806 n.29 (2002).
⑧ 164 F. Supp.2d 1160 (N.D. Cal.2001). See also, Russell A Miller, Much Ado, But Nothing:California's New World War Ⅱ Slave Labor Law Statute of Limitations and Its Place in the Increasingly Futile Effort to Obtain Compensations from American Courts,23 Whittier L. Rev.121 (2001).
⑨ Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co.,67 F. Supp.2d 424 (D.N.J.1999).
①See Michael J.Bazyler, The Holocaust Restitution Movement in Comparative Perspective,20 Berkeley J.Int'l L. 11,23-24(2002)；Burt Neuborne,Preliminary Reflections on Aspects of Holocaust-Era Litigation in American Courts,80 Wash.U.L.Q.795,799(2002).
②S.Rep.No.102-249,10-11(1991).
③Arce v. Garcia (Arce Ⅰ),400 F.3d 1340,1343(11th Cir.2005),vacated,434 F.3d 1254,1256(2006).
④Ellis v. Gen.Motors Acceptance Corp.,160 F.3d 703,706(11th Cir.1998).
① David E. Chawes, Time Is Not on Your Side:Establishing A Consistent Statute of Limitations for the Alien Tort Claims Act,27 Seattle U. L. Rev.191,218-231 (2003).
① See Richard T. Marooney & George S. Branch, Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act:United States Court Jurisdiction over Torts,12-SUM Currents:Int'l Trade L.J.3,10-11 (2003); Marisa Anne Pagnattaro, Enforcing International Labor Standards:The Potential of the Alien Tort Claims Act,37 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.203, 257-61 (2004).
② See Richard B. Lillich, Invoking International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts,54 U. Cin. L. Rev.367, 413 (1985); Sarah H. Cleveland, Global Labor Rights and the Alien Tort Claims Act,76 Tex. L. Rev.1533 (1998); Armin Rosencranz & Richard Campbell, Foreign Environmental and Human Rights Suits against U.S: Corporations in U.S. Courts,18 Stan. Envtl. L.J.145,181 (1999).
③ See Amanda Sue Nichols, Alien Tort Statute Accomplice Liability Cases:Should Courts Apply the Plausibility Pleading Standard of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly?,76 Fordham L. Rev.2177,2178-2179 (2008).
④ See, e.g., Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A.416 F.3d 1242,1247-50 (11th Cir.2005).当然，有的法院采用《联邦民事程序规则》第8(a)条的通知诉答要求(notice pleading requirement),会让原告的请求一直继续下去直到最终通过简易判决或和解而被撤销。See, e.g., Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petrol. Co., No.96 CⅣ. 8386,2002 WL 319887 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.28,2002); Doe v. Unocal Corp.,963 F. Supp.880,895 (C.D. Cal.1997).
⑤ Lucinda Saunders, Rich and Rare are the Gems They War:Holding De Beers Accountable for Trading Conflict Diamonds,24 Fordham Int'l L. J.1402,1455 (2001).
① See Russell J. Weintraub, International Litigation and Forum Non Conveniens,29 Tex. Int'l L.J.321 (1994); Lonny Sheinkopf Hoffman & Keith A. Rowley, Forum Non Conveniens in Federal Statutory Cases,49 Emory L.J. 1137(2000).
② Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,330 U.S.501,508,91 L. Ed.1055,67 S. Ct.839 (1947).
③ See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,454 U.S.235,254,70 L. Ed.2d 419,102 S. Ct.252 (1981).
④关于不方便法院原则在美国各州的适用情况,有学者曾经作过专门研究。See David W. Robertson & Paula K. Speck, Access to State Courts in Transnational Personal Injury Cases:Forum Non Conveniens and Antisuit Injunctions,68 Tex L. Rev.937,950-53 (1990).
⑤ See ICC Indus.v. Isr. Disc. Bank, Ltd,170 Fed. Appx.766 (2006); Carey v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank AG,370 F.3d 234 (2004).
⑥ See Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp.,274 F.3d 65,75 (2d Cir.2001) (en banc).
⑦ Sinochem Int'l Corp. Lidv. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp.,127 S Ct. 1184 (2007).
⑧ See Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp.,253 F. Supp.2d 510 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
⑨ See, e.g., In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation,978 F.2d 493,500 (9th Cir.1992); Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88,106 (2d Cir.2000); Jota v. Texaco, Inc.,157 F.3d 153,159 n.6 (2d Cir.1998); Aquinda v. Texaco, Inc.,142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001), affd as modified,303 F.3d 470,479 (2d Cir.2002).
① Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company,226 F.3d 88,107 (2d Cir.2000).
② 在 Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc.案中,原告提出尼日利亚司法腐败,其难以在尼日利亚法院得到充分的救济,但被法院驳回,法院认为尼日利亚是可替代性的法院,而美国法院是不方便法院。See Abdullahi v. Pfizer,Inc., 142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001), affd as modified,303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir.2002)在另外一起案件中,美国法院则以玻利维亚存在广泛的司法腐败、不具有公信力为由不同意适用不方便法院原则。See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Kavlin,978 F. Supp.1078 (S.D. Fla.1997).
③ See Phillip J. Blumberg, American Law in a Time of Global Interdependence:U.S. National Reports to the ⅩⅥth International Congress of Comparative Law:Section IV Asserting Human Rights against Multinational Corporations under United States Law:Conceptual and Procedural Problems,50 Am. J. Comp. L.493,507 (2002).
④ See Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc.,142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001), affd as modified,303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2002). See also, Phillip J. Blumberg, American Law in a Time of Global Interdependence:U.S. National Reports to the ⅩⅥth International Congress of Comparative Law:Section Ⅳ Asserting Human Rights against Multinational Corporations under United States Law:Conceptual and Procedural Problems,50 Am. J. Comp. L. 493,523 (2002).
⑤ Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995).
⑥ Cabiri v. Assasie-Gyimah,921 F.Supp.1189 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
⑦ 574 F. Supp.854 (S.D.N.Y.1983), affd,767 F.2d 908 (2d Cir.1985).
① The Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy,2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4085 (SDNY 2003).
② Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.2000).
③ See Aquinda v. Texaco, Inc.,142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001), affd as modified,303 F.3d 470,479 (2d Cir. 2002).
④ See Aaron Xavier Fellmeth, Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.:A New Standard for the Enforcement of International Law in U.S. Courts?,5 Yale Hum. Rts.& Dev. L.J.241,241 (2002).
⑤ See e.g., Aquinda v. Texaco, Inc.,142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y 2001), affd as modified,303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2002); Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp.,253 F. Supp.2d 510 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc.,142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001), affd as modified,303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir.2002). See also, Jeffrey E. Baldwin,
① Jeffrey E. Baldwin, International Human Rights Plaintiffs and the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens,40 Cornell Int'l L.J.749,779-780 (2007); Matthew R. Skolnik, The Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in Alien Tort Claims Act Cases:A Shell of Its Former Self after Wiwa,16 Emory Int'l L. Rev.187 (2002).
② See John F. Carella, Of Foreign Plaintiffs and Proper Fora:Forum Non Conveniens and ATCA Class Actions, 2003 U. Chi. Legal F.717,733-739 (2003).
③ Brief ofAmicus Curiae of the European Commission in Support of Neither Party at 24,124 S. Ct. 2739 (2004) (Nos.03-339,03-485).
① See, e.g., Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,697-99 (2004); Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.,488 U.S.428,432 (1989); Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,487 F.3d 1193,1223 (9th Cir.2007); Turedi v. Coca Cola Co.,460 F. Supp.2d 507,508-09,523-26 (S.D.N.Y.2006); Doe I v. Israel,400 F. Supp.2d 86,97 (D.D.C.2005); In re S. African Apartheid Litig.,346 F. Supp.2d 538,542-46 (S.D.N.Y.2004), vacated sub nom. Khulumani v. Barclay Nat'l Bank Ltd.,504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.2007); Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc.,303 F.3d 470,473,476-79 (2d Cir. 2002); Jama v. INS,22 F. Supp.2d 353,364 (D.N.J.1998).
② Doe v. Rafael Saravia,348 F. Supp.2d 1112,1157 (E.D. Cal.2004). See also Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.,244 F. Supp.2d 289,343 n.44 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
③ See Cabin v. Assasie-Gyimah,921 F. Supp.1189 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
④ Chiminya Tachiona v. Mugabe,216 F. Supp.2d 262 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
⑤ See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,96 CIV.8386 (KMW),2002 WL 319887, at * 17 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.28, 2002).
⑥ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,733 n.21 (2004).
① Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC,221 F. Supp.2d 1116,1127 (C.D. Cal.2002), affd in part, rev'd in part, vacated in part, 487 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.2007), reh'g en bane granted,499 F.3d 923 (9th Cir.2007).
② Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,487 F.3d 1193,1223 (9th Cir.2007).
③ Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,550 F.3d 822,08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.15,110,2008 Daily Journal D.A.R.18,345 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Dec 16,2008) (NO.02-56256,02-56390).
④ 435 F.Supp.2d 830 (N.D.Ill.2006.)
⑤ See, e.g., Eric Engle, The Torture Victim's Protection Act, The Alien Tort Claims Act, and Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge,67 Alb. L. Rev.501,504 (2003); Gregory G. A. Tzeutschler, Corporate Violator:The Alien Tort Liability of Transnational Corporations for Human Rights Abuses Abroad,30 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 359,396 (1999).
① See Sean D. Murphy, The ELSI Case:An Investment Dispute at the International Court of Justice,16 Yale J. Int'lL.391,413 n.97 (1991).
② See Collett v. Socialist Peoples' Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,362 F. Supp.2d 230,242 (D.D.C.2005).
③对于国际法上的用尽当地救济,有学者有专门的研究。See Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe, Local Remedies in International Law (2d ed.), Cambridge University Press,2004.
④在Sosa案中,最高法院在脚注中提到在合适的情形下要求用尽当地救济是合法的。See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,733 n.21 (2004).
⑤在涉及《酷刑受害人保护法》的《外国人侵权请求法》诉讼中,由于《酷刑受害人保护法》明确要求用尽当地救济,所以用尽当地救济则是一个必须要解决的问题。See, e.g., Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162, 178 (D. Mass.1995); Alomang v. Freeport-McMoran Inc., Civ. A. No.96-2139,1996 WL 601431, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct.17,1996); Cabiri v. Assasie-Gyimah,921 F. Supp.1189,1197 n.6 (S.D.N.Y.1996). ⑥ Jean v. Dorelien,431 F.3d 776,781 (11th Cir.2005).
①梁西主编：《国际法》,武汉大学出版社2000年修订版,第387页。
②梁西主编：《国际法》,武汉大学出版社2000年修订版,第396页。
③ See United States v. Lumumba,741 F.2d 12,15 (2d Cir.1984).
④ United States v. Enger, 472 F.Supp.490,506 (D.N.J.1978). See also Tabion v. Faris Mufti,73 F.3d 535,536 (4th Cir.1996),在该案中,外交豁免给予苏丹大使馆的一秘和顾问;Logan v. Dupuis,990 F.Supp.26,26 (D.D.C.1997),在该案中,外交豁免给予加拿大常驻美洲国家组织代表团的代表；Fatimeh Ali Aidi v. Amos Yaron,672 F.Supp.516,516 (D.D.C.1987),在该案中,外交豁免给予以色列大使馆的军事参赞。
⑤ 995 F.Supp.1469,1470(S.D.Fla.1997).
① 665 F.Supp.793,799 (N.D.Cal.1987).
②741 F.2d 1328,1329 (11th Cir.1984).
③ See generally Sir Arthur Watts, The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers,242 Recueil Des Cours 13 (1994-Ⅲ). See also Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law:Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2005, p.255.
④龚刃韧：《国家豁免问题的比较研究》,北京大学出版社2005年第2版,第1页；另见黄进：《国家及其财产豁免问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社1987年版,第1页。
⑤ 507 U.S.349,355,123 L. Ed.2d 47,113 S. Ct.1471 (1993).
⑥ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,963 F. Supp.880,886 (C.D. Cal.1997).
⑦ Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp. v Tamimi (In re Tamimi),176 F3d 274 (CA 4 1999). See also Adam C. Belsky, Mark Merva & Naomi Rhot-Arriaza, Implied Waiver under the FSIA:A Proposed Exception to Immunity for Violation of Peremptory Norms of International Law,77 Calif LR 365 (1989).
⑧ Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.,488 U.S.428,442-443 (1989).
⑨ Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany,26 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir.1994); Smith v Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,101 F.3d 239 (2d Cir.1996).
① Saudi Arabia v. Nelson,126 507 U.S.349 (1993).
② Letelier v. Republic nf Chile 748 F.2d 790(1983).
③ Republic of Argentina v. Weltover,504 U.S. 607 (1992).
④ Barry J. Martin v.The Republic of South Africa,836 F.2D 91 (1st Cir.1987).
⑤ Prinz v. Republic of Germany,26 F.3d 1166,1173 (D.C. Cir.1994).
⑥ 541 U.S.677,124 S. Ct.2240,159 L. Ed.2d 1,2004 U.S. LEXIS 4030.
⑦ Chuidian v. Philippine Nat'l Bank,912 F.2d 1095,1103,1106-1107 (9th Cir.1990).
⑧ United States v. Noriega,117 F.3d 1206,1212 (11th Cir.1997).
⑨ Spacil v. Crowe,489 F.2d 614,617 (5th Cir.1974); Isbrandtsen Tankers, Inc. v. President of India,446 F.2d 1198,1201 (2d Cir.1971); Rich v. Naviera Vacuba S.A.,295 F.2d 24,26 (4th Cir.1961); Ex Parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S.578,589,87 L. Ed.1014,63 S. Ct.793 (1943); Compania Espanola de Navegacion Maritima, S.A. v. The Navemar,303 U.S.68,74,82 L. Ed.667,58 S. Ct.432 (1938).
① 324 U.S.30,35,89 L. Ed.729,65 S. Ct.530 (1945).
② Tachiona v. Mugabe,169 F.Supp.2d 259 (S.D.N.Y.2001). See also Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law:Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2005, pp.265-266.
③ See generally Sir Arthur Watts, The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers,242 Recueil Des Cours 13 (1994-111). See also Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law:Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2005, pp.255-256.
④ See Shobha Varughese George, Head-of-State Immunity in the United States Courts:Still Confused after All These Years,64 Fordham L. Rev.1051 (1995); Michael A. Tunks, Diplomats or Defendants? Defining the Future of Head-of-State Immunity,52 Duke L.J.651 (2002); Daryl A. Mundis, Tachiona v. Mugabe:A US Court Bows to Personal Immunities of a Foreign Head of State,1 J Int'l Crim Justice 462 (2003)有学者提出,应该限制对于前
国家元首的豁免,以更符合美国的国内政策。See Peter E. Bass, Ex-Head of State Immunity:A Proposed Statutory Tool of Foreign Policy,97 Yale L.J.299 (1987).
⑤ Chuidian v. Philippine Nat'l Bank,912 F.2d 1095,1102 (9th Cir.1990).
⑥ Chuidian v. Philippine Nat'l Bank, 912 F.2d 1095,1106 (9th Cir.1990). See e.g., Jungquist v. Sheikh Sultan Bin Khalifa Al Nahyan,115 F.3d 1020 1028 (D.C.Cir.1997)(认为是个人行为，不能享受豁免); Doe v. Bolkiah,74 F.Supp.2d 969,974 (D.Haw.1998) (认为是职务行为，授予豁免).
⑦ 313 F.3d 1138,1144 (9th Cir.2002).
⑧ United States v. Yakima Tribal Court,806 F.2d 853,859 (9th Cir.1986); Chuidian v. PhilippineNat'l Bank,912 F.2d 1095,1106 (9th Cir.1990); Re Estate of FerdinandMarcos, Human Rights Litig.25 F.3d 1467,1472 (9th Cir.1994).
① Cabiri v. Assasie-Gyimah,921 F.Supp.1189,1198 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
② Re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Human Rights Litig.25 F.3d 1467,1471 (9th Cir.1994). See also Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos,862 F.2d 1355,1362 (9th Cir.1988).
③ 978 F.2d 493,498 (9th Cir.1992).
④ Lafontant v. Aristide,844 F.Supp.128 (E.D.N.Y.1994).
⑤本章第六节对政治问题理论有专门介绍。
⑥黄进：《国家及其财产豁免问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社1987年版,第140页。
① Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,958 (9th Cir.2002) vacated by reh'g en bane 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
② Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino,376 U.S.398,428 (1964).
③ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,959 (9th Cir.2002) vacated by reh'g en bane 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
④ 168 U.S.250,252,18 S.Ct.83,42 L.Ed.456 (1897).
⑤ 246 U.S.297,38 S.Ct.309,311,62 L.Ed.726 (1918).
⑥ 376 U.S.398,84 S.Ct.923,11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964).
⑦ 649 F.2d 1354,1359 (9th Cir.1981).
⑧ See e.g., Bernstein v. Van Heyghen Freres Societe Anonyme,163 F.2d 246 (2d Cir.1947) and Bernstein v. N. V. Nederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij,173 F.2d 71 (2d Cir.1949).
① Doe v. Unocal Corp.963 F. Supp.880,892 (C.D. Cal.1997).
② Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino,376 U.S.398,84 S.Ct. 923,11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964).
③ Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino,376 U.S.398,84 S.Ct.923,11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964).
④ Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of Am.,549 F.2d 597,607 (9th Cir.1976).
⑤ W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., Int'l.,493 U.S.400,405 (1990).
⑥ Louis Henkin, Act of State Today:Recollections in Tranquility,6 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.175,178(
⑦ Joel R. Paul, Comity in International Law,32 Harv. Int'l L. J.1,66-67 (1991).
⑧ Anne-Marie Burley, Law among Liberal States:Liberal Internationalism and the Act of State Doctrine,102 Colum. L. Rev.1907,1935-36 (1992).
⑨ Alfred Dunhill of London Inc. v. Republic of Cuba,425 U.S.682,694-95,96 S.Ct.1854,48 L.Ed.2d 301 (1976); see also Liu v. Republic of China,892 F.2d 1419,1432 (9th Cir.1989). ⑩ W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Envtl. Tectonics Corp.,493 U.S.400,405-406,110 S.Ct.701,107 L.Ed.2d 816 (1990).
11 Alfred Dunhill of London Inc. v. Republic of Cuba,425 U.S.682,695-696,96 S.Ct. 1854,48 L.Ed.2d 301 (1976).
12 Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. OPEC,649 F.2d 1354,1360 (9th Cir.1981).
① Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc.,403 F.Supp.2d 1019 (W.D.Wash.2005).
② Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,889 (2d Cir.1980).
③ Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC,221 F. Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal.2002).
④ See Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232 (2nd Cir.1995); Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,889 (2d Cir.1980); Sharon v. Time, Inc.,599 F.Supp.538,544 (S.D.N.Y.1984); Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos,862 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir.1988)(en banc).
⑤ Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.,381 F.Supp.2d 1164 (C.D.Cal.2005).
⑥ Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co.,239 F.3d 440,453 (2d Cir.2000).
⑦ Forti v. Suarez-Mason,672 F.Supp.1531 (N.D.Cal.1987).
① See Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.,244 F. Supp.2d 289,346 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
② Samuel A. Khalil, The Alien Tort Claims Act And Section 1983:The Improper Use Of Domestic Laws To "Create "And "Define " International Liability For Multi-National Corporations,31 Hofstra L. Rev.207 (2002).
③ Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC.,221 F.Supp.2d 1116,1181 (C.D.Cal.2002).
④ Joshua Gregory Holt, The International Law Exception to the Act of State Doctrine:Redressing Human Rights Abuses in Papua New Guinea,16 Pac. Rim L.& Pol'y J.459 (2007).
⑤ 376 U.S.398,84 S.Ct.923,11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964).
⑥ W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., Int'l,493 U.S.400,409(1990).
①See Michael J.Bazyler,Abolishing the of State Doctrine,134 U.Pa.L.Rev.325(1986).
②Hilton v.Guyot,159 U.S.113,164(1895).对于国际礼让的起源与发展,有学者专门作了研究。See Joel R. Paul,Comity in International Law,32 Harv.Int'l L.J.1(1991);Michael D.Ramsey,Escaping"International Comity,"83 Iowa L.Rev.893(1998);Spencer Weber Waller,The Twilight of Comity,38 Colum.J.Transnat'l L. 563(2000).
③Pravin Banker Assoc.v. Banco Popular Del Peru,109 F.3d 850,854(2d Cir.1997).
④Richard H.M.Maloy & Desamparados M.Nisi,A Message to the Supreme Court:Next Time You Get a Chance Please Look at Hilton v. Guyot;We Think it Needs Repairing,5 J.Int'l Legal Stud.1,15(1999).
⑤对于国家行为理论和国际礼让的区别与适用,see Jake S.Tyshow,Informa; Foreign Affairs Formalism:the Act of State Doctrine and the Reinterpretation of Inter national Comity,43 Va.Int'l L.275(2002).
① See Hartford Fire Ins. v. California,509 U.S.764,798 (1993)在该案中,最高法院要求国内法和外国法存在真实冲突时才能适用国际礼让原则。
② Sareiv. Rio Tinto PLC.,221 F.Supp.2d 1116 (C.D.Cal.2002).
③ Peter Little, What Are the Consequences of the Alien Tort Claims Act (US) on Mining and Petroleum Corporation Operating in the Third World States in the Asian Pacific Region,23 Australian Resources and Energy Law Journal 63 (2004).
④ Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co.,239 F.3d 440,453-54 (2d Cir.2001).
⑤ See Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy Inc., No.01 Civ.9882(DLC),2005 WL 2082846 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.30,2005).
⑥ 381 F. Supp.2d 1164,1182-1183 (C.D. Cal.2005). See also, Amy Apollo, Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation:A Case Study of the Role of the Executive Branch In International Human Rights Litigation,37 Rutgers L.J.855 (2006).
⑦ Doe v. Rafael Saravia,348 F.Supp.2d 1112 (E.D.Cal.2004).
① Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.,244 F.Supp.2d 289 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
② 250 F.3d 1145,1149 n.3 (7th Cir.2001).
③关于政治问题的历史发展,有几篇文章比较有参考价值。See Robert F. Nagel, Political Law, Legalistic Politics:A Recent History of the Political Question Doctrine,56 U. Chi. L. Rev.643 (1989); Mark Tushnet, Law and Prudence in the Law ofJusticiability:the Transformation and Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine,80 N.C. L. Rev.1203 (2002); Rachel E. Barkow, More Supreme than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise Of Judicial Supremacy,102 Colum. L. Rev.237 (2002). See also, Louis Henkin, Is There a "Political Question" Doctrine"?,85 Yale L.J.597 (1976); David J. Bederman, Deference or Deception: Treaty Rights As Political Questions,70 U. Colo. L. Rev.1439,1441-1445 (1999).
④ 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
⑤ See Marbury v. Madision,5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137,170 (1803).
⑥ See, e.g., Baker v. Carr,369 U.S.186,211 (1962); Chicago & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp.,333 U.S.103,111 (1948); United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp.,299 U.S.304,319-320 (1936).
⑦369 U.S.186(1962).
① See Russell J. Weintraub, Establishing Incredible Events By Credible Evidence:Civil Suits For Atrocities That Violate International Law,62 Brook. L. Rev.753,773 (1996).
② Louis Henkin, Is There a "Political Question" Doctrine?,85 Yale L. J.597,622 (1976); see also John Hart Ely, Suppose Congress Wanted a War Powers Act That Worked,88 Colum. L. Rev.1379,1407 (1988).
③ Michael E. Tigar, Judicial Power, the "Political Question Doctrine," and Foreign Relations,17 UCLA L. Rev. 1135,1156(1970).
④ See Japan Whaling Ass'n v. Am. Cetacean Soc'y,478 U.S.221,230 (1986).
⑤ Lucien J. Dhooge, The Alien Tort Claims Act and the Modern Transnational Enterprise:Deconstructing the Mythology of Judicial Activism,35 Geo. J. Int'l L.3,84-86 (2003). See also, Beth Stephens, Judicial Deference and the Unreasonable Views of the Bush Administration,33 Brook. J. Int'l L.773 (2008).
⑥ See Jennifer K. Elsea, The Alien Tort Statute:Legislative History and Executive Branch Views, CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL32118, CRS-1, http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-8433:1 (last visited August 18,2008).
⑦ Elliot J. Schrage, Judging Corporate Accountability in the Global Economy,42 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.153,161 (2003).
⑧ Lorelle Londis, The Corporate Face of the Alien Tort Claims Act:How an Old Statute Mandates a New Understanding of Global Interdependence,57 Me. L. Rev.141,188 (2005).
①221 F. Supp.2d 1116,1121(C.D.Cal.2002),rev'd,456 F.3d 1069(9th Cir.2006).
① Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,550 F.3d 822,08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.15,110,2008 Daily Journal D.A.R.18,345 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Dec 16,2008) (NO.02-56256,02-56390).
② 244 F. Supp.2d 289,296 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
③ Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.,381 F. Supp.2d 1164,1168-1169 (C.D. Cal.2005).
④ 393 F. Supp.2d 20 (D.D.C.2005).
⑤ See Adam Liptak, U.S. Courts'Role in Foreign Feuds Comes under Fire, N.Y. TIMES, Aug.3,2003, at N1.
① Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan,413 F.3d 45 (D.C. Cir.2005), cert, denied,126 S.Ct.1418 (2006).
② See The Center for Justice & Accountability, http:// www.cja.org/legalResources/StateDepartmentBriefdocs.shtml (last visited May 16,2008).
③ See Beth Stephens, Corporate Liability:Enforcing Human Rights through Domestic Litigation,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.401,401 (2001).
④ See Ralph G Steinhardt, Laying One Bankrupt Critique to Rest:Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Future of International Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts,57 VAND. L. REV.2241,2289-90 (2004).
⑤ See, e.g., Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.,374 F. Supp.2d 331,335-337 (S.D.N.Y.2005); Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp.,312 F. Supp.2d 1229,1247-1248 (N.D. Cal.2004); Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No.96 Civ.8386(KMW),2002 WL 319887 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.28,2002); Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp.2d 424,445 (D.N.J.1999).
① See Emeka Duruigbo, The Economic Cost of Alien Tort Litigation:A Response to Awakening Monster:The Alien Tort Statute of 1789,14 Minn. J. Global Trade 1,7 (2004).
② John E. Howard, Vice President of International Policy and Programs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Op-Ed., The Alien Tort Claims Act:Is Our Litigation-Run-Amok Going Global?, http:// www.uschamber.com/press/opeds/0210howarditigation.htm (last visited August 8,2008).
③ Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, Awakening Monster:The Alien Tort Statute of 1789, Institute for International Economics,2003, p.38.
④ See Daniel T. Griswold, USA Engage, Abuse of 18th Century Law Threatens U.S. Economic and Security Interests (Jan.25,2003), http://www.usaengage.org/legislative/2003/alientort/cato_griswold.html (last visited August 8,2008).
⑤ See Richard T. Marooney & George S. Branch, Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act:United States Court Jurisdiction over Torts,12 Currents:Int'l Trade L.J.3,11 (2003).
⑥ Kenny Bruno, De-Globalizing Justice:The Corporate Campaign To Strip Foreign Victims of Corporate-Induced Human Rights Violations of the Right To Sue in U.S. Courts, Multinat'l Monitor, Mar.1,2003, at 13
⑦ See Lawrence R. Jacobs & Benjamin I. Page, Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?,99 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.107, 120(2005).
① Brief for the National Foreign Trade Council et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner at 4, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692 (2004) (No.03-339), available at http://www.sdshh.com/Alvarez/NFTC □AmicusB□rief.pdf (last visited August 8,2008).
② See Terry Collingsworth, "Corporate Social Responsibility," Unmasked,16 ST. THOMAS L. REV.669,685 (2004).
③ S.1874,109th Cong. § 2(e) (2005), available at http://www.laborrights.org/projects/corporate/ATSFeisteinLetterOct05.pdf (last visited August 8,2008).当然,Feinstein后来撤回了该提案。See Letter from Senator Feinstein to Senator Specter, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Oct.25,2005, available at http://www.earthrights.org/content/view/126/56/(last visited August 8,2008). See also Anthony J. Sebok, Senator Feinstein's Now-Withdrawn Statute Limiting Non-Citizens' Tort Claims:How Would It Have Affected Abu-Ghraib-Related Civil Suits and Other Similar Civil Actions?, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20051031.html (last visited August 20,2008).
④ In re South African Apartheid Litigation,346 F. Supp.2d 538 (S.D.N.Y.2004).
⑤ 393 F. Supp.2d 20,22 (D.D.C.2005).
① 221 F. Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal.2002).
② Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC, Nos.02-56256,02-56390,2006 WL 2242146 (9th Cir. Aug.7,2006).
③ Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co.,67 F.Supp.2d 424 (D.N.J.1999).
④ Abebe-Jira v. Negewo,72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir.1996).
⑤ In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation,373 F.Supp.2d 7 (E.D.N.Y.2005).
⑥ Ibrahim v. Titan Corp.,391 F.Supp.2d 10 (D.D.C.2005).
⑦ 28 U.S.C. §517(2000).
① 542 U.S.692,728-729 (2004).
② Margarita S. Clarens, Deference, Human Rights and the Federal Courts:the Role of the Executive in Alien Tort Statute Litigation,17 Duke J. Comp.& Int'l L.415,431-432 (2007
③ See Republic of Austria v. Altmann,541 U.S.677,702 (2004).
④ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain.542 U.S.692.733 n.21 (2004).
⑤ See Whiteman v. Dorotheum GmbH & Co KG,431 F.3d 57,59-60 (2d Cir.2005); Ungaro-Benages v. Dresdner BankAG,379 F.3d 1227,1235-1236 (11th Cir.2004).
⑥ See Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC.,456 F.3d 1069,1082 (9th Cir.2006).
⑦ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,732-733 (2004).
⑧ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,726-728 (2004).
⑨ Beth Stephens, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain "The Door Is Still Ajar" For Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts, 70 Brook. L. Rev.533,566 (2004). See also Elliot J. Schrage, Judging Corporate Accountability in the Global Economy,42 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.153,161 (2003); Beth Stephens, U.S. Foreign Policy and Human Rights: Upsetting Checks and Balances:The Bush Administration's Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation,17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.169,170 (2004).
① See Lorelle Londis, The Corporate Face of the Alien Tort Claims Act:How an Old Statute Mandates a New Understanding of Global Interdependence,57 Me. L. Rev.141,191 (2005).
■ Beth Stephens, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain "The Door Is Still Ajar" For Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts, 70 Brook. L. Rev.533,567 (2004).
③ Beth Stephens, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain "The Door Is Still Ajar" For Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts, 70 Brook. L. Rev.533,567 (2004). See also Brief for the United States in Support of the Petition at 18, as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Jose Francisco Sosa, Petitioner v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain, et al.,542 U.S.692 (2004) (No.03-339).
④ Arlen Specter, The Court of Last Resort, N.Y. Times, Aug.7,2003, at A23.
⑤ See Sarah H. Cleveland, The Alien Tort Statute, Civil Society, and Corporate Responsibility,56 RUTGERS I REV.971,974 n.8 (2004).
⑥ Brief of Amici Curiae Career Foreign Service Diplomats in Support of Respondent at 11,13, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692 (2004) (No.03-339), available at http://www.sdshh.com/Alvarez/DiplomatsAmicusBrief$1).pdf(last visited August 17,2008).
⑦ See, e.g., Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., No.01 Civ.9882(DLC),2005 WL 2082846 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.30,2005).
⑧ See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig.,373 F. Supp.2d 7,64 (E.D.N.Y.2005).
① Brief of Professors of Federal Jurisdiction and Legal History as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents at 8, Sosa,542 U.S.692 (No.03-339), available at http://www.sdshh.com/Alvarez/SosaHistoriansAmicus$1).pdf(last visited December 4,2008).
② Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,789 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Edwards, J., concurring).
③ David D. Christensen, Corporate Liability for Overseas Human Rights Abuses:The Alien Tort Statute after Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,62 Wash.& Lee L. Rev.1219,1257-1265 (2005).
④ Jack L. Goldsmith, The New Formalism in United States Foreign Relations Law,70 U. Colo. L. Rev.1395,1413 (1999).
⑤ See Peter J. Spiro, Globalization and the (Foreign Affairs) Constitution,63 Ohio St. L.J.649,653 (2002).
⑥ See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Co.,299 U.S.304,320 (1936).
① Aron Ketchel, Deriving Lessons for The Alien Tort Claims Act From The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,32 Yale J. Int'l L.191,211 (2007).
② S.1874,109th Cong. 1350(e) (2005).
③ See Anthony J. Sebok, Senator Feins tein's Now-Withdrawn Statute Limiting Non-Citizens'Tort Claims:How Would It Have Affected Abu-Ghraib-Related Civil Suits and Other Similar Civil Actions?, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20051031.html (last visited August 20,2008).
④ Nancy S. Williams, Political Question or Judicial Query:An Examination of the Modern Doctrine and Its Inapplicability to Human Rights Mass Tort Litigation,28 Pepp. L. Rev.849 (2001).
⑤ J. Peter Mulhern, In Defense of the Political Question Doctrine,137 U. Pa. L. Rev.97 (1988).
⑥ Brian C. Free, Awaiting Doe V. Exxon Mobil Corp.:Advocating the Cautious Use of Executive Opinions in Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation,12 Pac. Rim L.& Pol'y J.467 (2003).
① Sandra Coliver, Jennie Green & Paul L. Hoffman, Holding Human Rights Violators Accountable By Using International Law in U.S. Courts:Advocacy Efforts and Complementary Strategies,19 EMORY INTL L. REV. 169,179(2005).
② Beth Van Schaack, The Civil Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in Domestic Courts,6 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L.295,298-299 (2000).
③ Anne-Marie Slaughter & David Bosco, Plaintiffs Diplomacy,79 Foreign Aff.102 (2000).
①Jeffrey Davis, Justice without Borders:Human Rights Cases in U.S. Courts,28 Law & Policy 60 (2006).
① See Charlotte Ku & Christopher J. Borgen, American Lawyers and International Competence,18 Dick. J. Int'l L. 493,499 (2000); see also Karen Knop, Here and There:International Law in Domestic Courts,32 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol.501,504(2000).
② See Melissa A. Waters, Mediating Norms and Identity:The Role of Transnational Judicial Dialogue in Creating and Enforcing International Law,93 Geo. L.J.487,494 (2005).
③ Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995).
④ Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait,107 I.L.R.536,538-39 (Eng. C.A.1996).
⑤ 226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000), cert, denied,121 S. Ct.1402 (2001).
⑥ See Dapo Akande, International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court.98 Am. J. Int'l. L.407. 408 (2004).
⑦即本章将讨论的Bouzari案、Jones案、Ferrini案和Voiotia案。
⑧ See Halina Ward, Securing Transnational Corporate Accountability through National Courts:Implications and Policy Options,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.451,456 (2001); see also Richard Meeran, Accountability of Transnational for Human Rights Abuses,148 New L.J.1686(1998).
⑨ See Halina Ward, Securing Transnational Corporate Accountability through National Courts:Implications and Policy Options,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.451,457-458 (2001).
⑩英国上议院拒绝撤销案件,认为如果撤销案件而在南非诉讼的话原告难以得到救济。See Lubbe v. Cape PLC(No.2),1 E.L.R.1545 (H.L.2000).
① See Caroline Kaeb, Emerging Issues of Human Rights Responsibility in the Extractive and Manufacturing Industries:Patterns and Liability Risks,6 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts.327,328 (2008).
② See Caroline Kaeb, Emerging Issues of Human Rights Responsibility in the Extractive and Manufacturing Industries:Patterns and Liability Risks,6 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts.327 (2008); Halina Ward, Securing Transnational Corporate Accountability through National Courts:Implications and Policy Options,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.451,457-458 (2001).
③ Halina Ward, Securing Transnational Corporate Accountability through National Courts:Implications and Policy Options,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.451,457 (2001).
④ See generally Beth Stephens, Translating Filartiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l 1,32 (2002).英国虽然从成文法上废除了双重可诉规则,但是在判例法上,通过实体与程序的识别、更密切联系地法的适用等方法,双重可诉规则实际上是在“复辟”的。参见宋晓：“双重可诉规则：进退之际”,载《改革开放三十年与中国国际私法2008年中国国际私法学会年会论文集》,第511-513页。
⑤ See Markus Rau, After Pinochet:Foreign Sovereign Immunity in Respect of Serious Human Rights Violations-The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Al-Adsani Case,3 Ger. L. J.6 (2002).
⑥ See Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, pp.187-194.
⑦ Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait,107 I.L.R.536,538-539 (Eng. C.A.1996).
①尽管可以对私人被告作出缺席判决,然而Al-Adsani的律师认为,当被告在英国没有可供扣押或者执行的财产时,缺席判决也没什么意义。Geoffrey Bindman, How Courts Condone Torture, The Times, Mar.25,1997, at 41.
② Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, App.35763/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov.21,2001).
① Lorna McGregor, State Immunity and Jus Cogens,55 ICLQ 437,444 (2006)
② See Ed Bates, The Al-Adsani Case, State Immunity and the International Legal Prohibition on Torture,3 Human Rights Law Review 193 (2003); Ed Bates, (Case Comment) Article 6:Right to A Fair Trial, E.L. Rev.2002,27 Supp (Human rights survey 2002); Emmanuel Voyiakis, Access to Court v State Immunity,52 ICLQ 297 (2003); Richard Garnett, Access to Justice; Right to Fair Trial; State Immunity. State Immunity Triumphs in the European Court of Human Rights,118 Law Quarterly Review 367 (2002).
③ Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955,956-957 (2007).
④ The Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Judgment of 10 Dec.1998, IT-95-17/I-T, at para.155; Prosecutor v. Morris Kallon & Brimma Bazzy Kamara, SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E) & SCSL-2004-16-AR72(E), Decision of 13 Mar. 2004, at para.71; Prosecutor v. Augustine Gbao, SCSL-2003-01-I, Decision of 31 May 2004, at para.9.
⑤ Adam C. Belsky, Mark Merva & Naomi Rhot-Arriaza, Implied Waiver under the FSIA:A Proposed Exception to Immunity for Violations of Peremptory Norms of International Law,77 California L Rev 365 (1989); Reinmann, A Human Rights Exception to Sovereign Immunity:Some Thoughts on Princz v Federal Republic of Germany,16 Michigan J Int'l L 403 (1995); Magdalini Karagiannakis, State Immunity and Fundamental Human Rights,11 Leiden J Int'l L 9 (1998); Katherine Reece Thomas & Joan Small, Human Rights versus State Immunity:Is there Immunity from Civil Liability for Torture?,50 Netherlands Int'l L Rev.1 (2003); Kerstin Bartsch & Bjorn Elberling, Jus Cogens vs. State Immunity, Round Two:The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulou et al. v. Greece and Germany Decision,4 German LJ 477 (2003); Christopher Keith Hall, UN Convention on State Immunity:The Need for a Human Rights Protocol,55 ICLQ 411 (2006); Lorna McGregor, State Immunity and Jus Cogens,55 ICLQ 437 (2006).
① Leandro de Oliveira Moll, Case Note:Al-Adsani v United Kingdom-State Immunity and Denial of Justice with respect to Violations of Fundamental Human Rights,4 Melbourne Journal of International Law 561 (2003).
② See Jones v. Saudi Arabia,2004 EWCA (Civ) 1394 (2004).
③ See Jean Allain & John R.W.D. Jones, A Patchwork of Norms:A commentary on the 1996 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind,18 Eur. J. I. L.1 (2003).
① [2006] UKHL 26.
② Lee M. Caplan, State Immunity, Human Rights, and jus cogens:A Critique of the Normative Hierarchy Theory, 97 Am. J. Int'l. L.741 (2003); Andrea Gattini, War Crimes and State Immunity in the Ferrini Decision,3 J. Int'l Crim. Just.224 (2005).
③ International Law Commission, Report of the Working Group on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, A/CN.4/L.576 (1999), Appendix at para.12.
④ Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium ('Case concerning Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000'),ICJ Reports (2002); Steffen Wirth, Immunity for Core Crimes? The ICJ's Judgment in the Congo v Belgium Case,13 Eur. J. Int'l L.877 (2002).
① Ed Bates, State Immunity for Torture,7 Hum. Rts. L. Rev.651 (2007). See also, Stacy Humes-Schulz, Limiting Sovereign Immunity in the Age of Human Rights,21 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.105 (2008).
② See Salvatore Zappala, Do Heads of State in Office Enjoy Immunity from Jurisdiction for International Crimes? The Ghaddafi Case Before the French Cour de Cassation,12 Eur. J. Int'l L.595 (2001). See also Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law:Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2005, pp.263-264.
③ Bouzari v Iran (Islamic Republic),2002 CarswellOnt 1469, [20021 O.J. No.1624, [2002] O.T.C.297 (Ont S.C.J. May 01,2002); Affirmed by Bouzari v Iran (Islamic Republic),243 D.L.R. (4th) 406,220 O.A.C.1,2004 CarswellOnt 2681,71 O.R. (3d) 675,122 C.R.R. (2d) 26, [2004] O.J. No.2800 (Ont. C.A. Jun 30,2004); Leave to appeal refused by Bouzari v Iran (Islamic Republic), [2005] 1 S.C.R. vi,204 O.A.C.399 (note),337 N.R.190 (note),2005 CarswellOnt 292,2005 CarswellOnt 293,122 C.R.R. (2d) 376 (note), [2004] S.C.C.A. No.410 (S.C.C. Jan 27,2005). Bouzari案作了简单评论。
① See Jutta Brunnee and Stephen J. Toope, A Hesitant Embrace:The Application of International Law by Canadian Courts,40 Canadian Journal of International Law 3 (2002).
② Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), [20021 OJ No.1624, Court File No. 00-CV-201372; Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Court of Appeal for Ontario),30 June 2004, Docket:C38295.
① Arar v. Syria (Arab Republic),2005 CarswellOnt 768,28 C.R. (6th) 187,127 C.R.R. (2d) 252. See also, J.-G. Castel, The Arar Case:Public and Private International Law Aspects, http://www.ccil-ccdi.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=76 (last visited August 20, 2008).
② Noah Benjamin Novogrodsky, Immunity for Torture:Lessons from Bouzari v. Iran,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.939,945 (2007).
③ Caroline Davidson, Tort Au Canadien:A Proposal for Canadian Tort Legislation on Gross Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law,38 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.1403 (2005).
④ See Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242, 248 (2005); Carlo Focarelli, Denying Foreign State Immunity for Commission of International Crimes:The Ferrini Decision,54 ICLQ 951 (2005).
⑤ See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,92 (2005).
⑥ See Andrea Gattini, War Crimes and State Immunity in the Ferrini Decision,3 J. Int'l Crim. Just.224 (2005). ⑦ See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,93 (2005); Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242,243 (2005). See also Maria Gavouneli & Ilias Banterkas, Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany. Case No.11/2000,95 Am. J. Int'l. L.198 (2001).
① See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,100-101 (2005).
② See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,101 (2005).
③ See 28 USC §1605 (a)(7)(2000); see also Argentina Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.,488 U.S.428, 434(1989).
④ See In re Estate of Marcos Human Rights Litig., No.91-15891,1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 26517,26523 (9th Cir. 1992).
⑤ See Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242, 244 (2005).
⑥ See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,194 (2005); See also Andrea Bianchi, International Decision: Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242,245 (2005).
① See generally Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,90 (2005).
② See Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242, 246 (2005).
③ See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,100 (2005).
④ See generally Andrea Gattini, War Crimes and State Immunity in the Ferrini Decision,3 J. Int'l Crim. Just.224 (2005).
⑤ See Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242, 246 (2005); see also Melissa A. Waters, Mediating Norms and Identity:The Role of Transnational Judicial Dialogue in Creating and Enforcing International Law,93 Geo. L.J.487,490 (2005).
⑥ See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, Stale Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Co Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,100 (2005).
⑦ See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,100(2005); Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242,245 (2005).
⑧ Hazel Fox, State Immunity and the International Crime of Torture,2006 EHRLR 142,144 (2006).
⑨ Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955,967 (2007).
① Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89 (2005).
② Xiaodong Yang, State Immunity in the European Court of Human Rights:Reaffirmations and Misconceptions, 74 BYIL 333,343 (2003).
③ http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/143/14923.pdf (last visited May 3,2009).
④ Case No.137/1997, Distorno Massacre, Multi-member Court ofLevadia,30 Oct.1997,50 Revue Hellenique de droit international (1997) 599, quoted in Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955,966 (2007). See also Sabine Pittrof, Compensation Claims for Human Rights Breaches Committed by German Armed Forces Abroad During the Second World War:Federal Court of Justice Hands Down Decision in the Distomo Case,5 German LJ 15 (2004); Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955,966 (2007).
⑤ Maria Gavouneli & Ilias Banterkas, Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany. Case No.11/2000, 95 Am. J. Int'l. L.198 (2001); Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955,966 (2007).
⑥ Kerstin Bartsch & Bjorn Elberling, Jus Cogens vs. State Immunity, Round Two:The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulou et al. v. Greece and Germany Decision,4 German LJ 478 (2003).
① Case No.6/2002, Distorno Massacre, Special Supreme Court,17 Sept.2002,56 Revue Hellenique de droit international (2003) 56, quoted in Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955,966 (2007). See also Andrea Gattini, To What Extent are State Immunity and Non-Justiciability Major Hurdles to Individuals'Claims for War Damages?,1 J. Int'l Crim. Just.348 (2003); Lee M. Caplan, State Immunity, Human Rights, and Jus Cogens:A Critique of the Normative Hierarchy Theory,97 Am. J. Int'l. L.741 (2003); Andrea Gattini, War Crimes and State Immunity in the Ferrini Decision,3 J. Int'l Crim. Just.224 (2005).
② Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, pp.178-180.
③ Markus Rau, State Liability for Violations of International Humanitarian Law-The Distomo Case Before the German Federal Constitutional Court,7 German LJ 701 (2005).
④ Sec e.g., Lorna McGregor, State Immunity and Jus Cogens,55 ICLQ 437 (2006); Rainer Hofmann, Compensation for Victims of War:German Practice after 1949 and Current Developments, Meeting of The Japanese Society for International Law, Sapporo,8 and 9 October 2005, http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsil/annual documents/2005/2005_autumn/Hofmann.pdf (last visited August 16,2008).See also Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law:Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2005, pp.271-272; Wolfgang Kaleck, Michael Ratner, Tobias Singelnstein and Peter Weiss (eds.), International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2007, pp.73-74.
⑤ Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Public Law Litigation,100 Yale L.J.2347,2366 (1991).
① Abram Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,89 Harv. L. Rev.1281,1284 (1976).
② Abram Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,89 Harv. L. Rev.1281,1302(1976).
③ Abram Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,89 Harv. L. Rev.1281,1292-1293 (1976).
④ See Mauro Cappelletti, Governmental and Private Advocates for the Public Interest in Civil Litigation:A Comparative Study,73 Mich. L. Rev.794,878 n.380 (1975).
⑤ Richard B. Cappalli & Claudio Consolo, Class Actions for Continental Europe? A Preliminary Inquiry,6 Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J.217,269-270 (1992).
⑥ Richard Azarnia, Tort Law in France:A Cultural and Comparative Overview,13 Wis. Int'l L.J.471,484-488 (1995).
⑦ See Maria Dakolias, Court Performance Around the World:A Comparative Perspective,2 Yale H.R.& Dev. L.J. 87(1999).
⑧ Joseph R. Thome, Heading South But Looking North:Globalization and Law Reform in Latin America,2000 Wis. L. Rev.691,705 (2000).
① Andreas F. Lowenfeld, International Litigation and the Quest for Reasonableness,245 Recueil Des Cours 9,81 (1994). See also Hans Smit, Common and Civil Law Rules of In Personam Adjudication Authority:An Analysis of Underlying Policies,21 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.335,336 (1972).
② Andreas F. Lowenfeld, International Litigation and the Quest for Reasonableness,245 Recueil Des Cours 9,87(1994).当然,过境管辖权在世界各国受到广泛的批评。
③ Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, p.134.
④有学者曾经在其博士论文中用整章的篇幅来论述欧洲各国的外国人侵权诉讼问题。See Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung dcr Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, pp.133-194.. See also, Beth Van Schaack, In Defense of Civil Redress:The Domestic Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in the Context of the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention,42 Harv. Int'l L.J.141,145-147 (2001).
⑤ See Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, pp.150-156.
⑥ Naomi Roht-Arriaza, The Pinochet Precedent and Universal Jurisdiction,35 New Eng. L. Rev.311,311-312 (2001).
① See Richard S. Frase, Comparative Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform:How Do the French Do It, How Can We Find Out, and Why Should We Carel,78 Calif. L. Rev.539,613 n.400,669-670 (1990).
② See Richard S. Frase, Comparative Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform:How Do the French Do It, How Can We Find Out, and Why Should We Core?,78 Calif. L. Rev.539,613 n.400 (1990).
③ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F.Supp.162,178 (D. Mass.1995).
④ See Consideration of Reports Submitted by State Parties under Article 19 of the Convention (The Netherlands), Committee against Torture, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/9/Add.1, at 31 (Mar.20 1990).
⑤ Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, reprinted in 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.129, 165-169(2001).
⑥ Werner Pfennigstorf, The European Experience with Attorney Fee Shifting,47 Law & Contemp. Probs.37,44 (1984).
⑦ Beth Stephens, Translating Filartiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2002).
⑧ See J. Robert S. Prichard, A Systemic Approach to Comparative Law:The Effect of Cost, Fee, and Financing Rules on the Development of the Substantive Law,17 J. Legal Stud.451,460-461 (1988). See also Hein Kotz, Civil Litigation and the Public Interest,1 Civ. Just. Q.237,248(1987).
① Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Dolctorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, p.174.
② Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
③ See Hilao v. Estate of Marcos,103 F.3d 789 (9th Cir.1996).
④ See George N. Stavis, Collecting Judgments in Human Rights Torts Cases--Flexibility for Non-Profit Litigators? 31 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV.209,214-15 (1999).
⑤ Tsuneo Matsumoto, Beyond Compensation,15 U. Haw. L. Rev.578 (1993).
⑥ See Sarei v. Rio Tinto,221 F. Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal.2002).
⑦ David M. Trubek, Yves Dezalay, Ruth Buchanan, John R. Davis, Global Restructuring and the Law:Studies of the Internationalization of Legal Fields and the Creation of Transnational Arenas,44 Case W. Res. L. Rev.407, 458-460(1994).
⑧ Robert C. Thompson, A Comparative Survey of Private Sector Liability for Grave Violations of International Law in National Jurisdictions:Survey of Laws in the United States of America, p.24, http:// www.fafo.no/liabilities/US.pdf (last visited August 14,2008).
⑨ See Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995), cert, denied,116 S. Ct.2524 (1996); Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,117 S. Ct.96 (1996); Doe v. Unocal Corp.,963 F. Supp.880 (C.D. Cal.1997); Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162 (D. Mass.1995); Todd v. Panjaitan, Civ.A-No.92-12255-PBS,1994 WL 827111 (D. Mass. Oct.26,1994); Paul v. Avril,812 F. Supp.207 (S.D. Fla.1993); Forti v. Suarez-Mason,694 F. Supp.707 (N.D. Cal.1988). See also, Joan Fitzpatrick, The Future of the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789:Lessons from In Re Marcos Human Rights Litigation,67 St. John's L. Rev.491,510 n.1 13 (1993); Jean-Marie Simon, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Justice or Show Trials?,11 B.U. INTL L.J.1,4-5(1993).
① See Jeffrey Davis, Justice without Borders:Human Rights Cases in U.S. Courts,28 Law & Policy 60 (2006). See also, Howard Tolley, Interest Group Litigation to Enforce Human Rights,105 Political Science Quarterly 617 (1990-1991).
② Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88,108 n.13 (2d Cir.2000).
③ Lubbe v. Cape Plc (No.2),1 W.L.R.1545 (H.L.2000).
④ See Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.,492 U.S.257,275 (1989); Beckwith v. Bean,98 U.S. (8 Otto) 266,277(1878).
⑤ Beth Stephens, Translating Filartiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2002).
⑥ See Fed. R. Civ. P.26.
⑦ Tsuneo Matsumoto, Beyond Compensation,15 U. Haw. L. Rev.578,578-579(1993).
① Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, reprinted in 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.129, 159-160(2001).
② Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, reprinted in 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.129,163 (2001).
③ See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88,100-101 (2d Cir.2000).
④ See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88,103-106 (2d Cir.2000).
⑤ Craig Scott (eds.), Torture as Tort:Comparative Perspectives on the Development of Transnational Human Rights Litigation, Hart Publishing,2001, pp.157-158.
⑥ John M. Walker, Jr., Domestic Adjudication of International Human Rights Violations under the Alien Tort Statute,41 St. Louis U. L.J.539,539 (1997).
① Michael J. Bazyler, Nuremberg in America:Litigating the Holocaust in United States Courts,34 U. Rich. L. Rev. Ⅰ,8(2000).
①有学者认为,在Sosa案中法院的认定实际上是认为《外国人侵权请求法》制定时自然法思想占据主导,而现在则是实证主义法学占据主导。See Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, p.73.
② See David Weissbrodt & Muria Kruger, Current Developments:Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights,97 Am. J. Int'l L.901 (2003)..
① See Beth Stephens, The Amorality of Profit:Transnational Corporations and Human Rights,20 Berkeley J. Int'l L.45,79 & n.191 (2002).
② See Dr. Isabella D. Bunn, Global Advocacy for Corporate Accountability:Transatlantic Perspectives from the NGO Community,19 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev.1265,1301-1304 (2004); Todd Weiter, Balancing Human Rights and Investor Protection:A New Approach for a Different Legal Order,27 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.429,440-444 (2004); Shaw W. Scott, Taking Riggs Seriously:The ATCA Case against a Corporate Abettor of Pinochet Atrocities,89 Minn. L. Rev.1497,1513 (2004).
③ See Lori Delaney, Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation:The Second Circuit Fails to Set a Threshold for Corporate Alien Tort Claims Act Liability,25 Nw. J. Int'l L.& Bus.205,208-209 n.26. (2004).
④ 197 F.3d 161 (5th Cir.1999).
⑤ No.02-9008,2003 WL 24049712 (2d Cir. Aug.29,2003).
⑥ See Brief of the National Foreign Trade Council, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S.Ct. 2739 (2004) (No.03-339), available at http://www.nosafehaven.org/_legal/atca_con_NFTCsupportingSosa.pdf (last visited March,9, 2008); Brief of National Association of Manufacturers, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S.Ct.2739 (2004) (No. 03-339), available at http://www.nosafehaven.org/legal/atca_con_NAMsupportsSosa.pdf (last visited March,9, 2008); Brief of the National Foreign Trade Council et al, Doe v. Unocal Corp., Nos.00-56603,00-57197, Nos. 00-56628,00-57195,2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2716 (2003), available at http://www.nftc.org/default/usa% 20engage/unocal%20amicus.pdf (last visited March,9,2008). ⑦ See Jenna Greene, Gathering Storm:Suits that Claim Overseas Abuse Are Putting U.S. Executives on Alert and Their Lawyers On Call, Legal Times, July 21,2003.
⑧ See Brief for the United States, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S.Ct.2739 (2004) (No.03-339), available at http://www.nosafehaven.org/_legal/atca_con_USsupportingSosa.pdf (last visited March,9,2008).
⑨ See generally Brian C. Free, Awaiting Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.:Advocating the Cautious Use of Executive Opinions in Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation,12 Pac. Rim L.& Pol'y 467 (2003).
① See Beth Van Schaack, With All Deliberate Speed:Civil Human Rights Litigation as A Tool for Social Change, 57 Vand. L. Rev.2305,2346 (2004).
② See Jacques de Lisle, Human Rights, Civil Wrongs and Foreign Relations:A "Sinical" Look at the Use of U.S. Litigation to Address Human Rights Abuses Abroad,52 DePaul L. Rev.473,481 (2002).
③ See Jonathan Birchall, The Limits of Human Rights Legislation, The Financial Times Ltd., Jan.20,2005, at 13.
④这是纽约东区地方法院法官Jack Weinstein的观点。See 373 F. Supp.2d 7,17 (EDNY 2005).
① See Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology,
Transnational Publishers,1999, p.3, p.28.
② See Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.6.
③ See Anne-Marie Slaughter, A Typology of Transjudicial Communication,29 U. RICH. L. REV.99 (1995).
④ See Philip R. Trimble, International Law, World Order, and Critical Legal Studies,42 STAN. L. REV.811,835 (1990).
⑤ See Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Legal Process,75 Neb. L. Rev.181,183-184(1996).
⑥ See Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Legal Process,75 Neb. L. Rev.181,203-205 (1996).
⑦ See Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction:The Scope of Universal Civil Jurisdiction, July 2007.
① See Kate Parlett, Universal Civil Jurisdiction for Torture,4 E.H.R.L.R.385 (2007).
② See Paul R. Dubinsky, Human Rights Law Meets Private Law Harmonization:The Coming Conflict,30 Yale J. Int'l L.211,302(2005).
③ See Eric Gruzen, The United States As A Forum for Human Rights Litigation:Is This the Best Solution?,14 Transnat'l Law.207 (2001).
④ See Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.45.
⑤ See Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwiirde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, p.134.
⑥ See Report on EU standards for European enterprises operating in developing countries:towards a European
Code of Conduct, Committee on Development and Cooperation,17 December 1998.
⑦该决议的原文用的是《布鲁塞尔公约》。鉴于《布鲁塞尔条例》已经生效,所以这里用《布鲁塞尔条例》代替《布鲁塞尔公约》。
① See European Parliament, Resolution A 5-0159/2002,30 May 2002, Social Responsibility of Companies. Resolution of the European Parliament on the Green Book of the Commission, para.50.
② See Brief ofAmicus Curiae the European Commission Supporting Neither Party, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, No. 03-339, U.S. Sup. Ct.,23 January 2004,21 n.48.
③ See Jan Wouters, Leen De Smet & Cedric Ryngaert, Tort Claims against Multinational Companies for Foreign Human Rights Violations Committed Abroad:Lessons from the Alien Tort Claims Act?, The Institute for International Law of the K.U.Leuven, Working Paper No 46-November 2003.
④ See John B. Bellinger, III, Enforcing Human Rights in U.S. Courts and Abroad:The Alien Tort Statute and Other Approaches, available at http://www.state.gov/s/l/rls/103506.htm (last visited August 4,2008).
1. M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼：《国际刑法导论》,赵秉志、王文华等译,法律出版社2006年版。
2. 陈致中：《国际法案例》,法律出版社1998年版。
3. 龚刃韧：《国家豁免问题的比较研究》,北京大学出版社2005年第2版。
4. 黄进：《国家及其财产豁免问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社1987年版。
5. 梁西主编：《国际法》,武汉大学出版社2000年修订版。
6. 路易斯·亨金：《国际法：政治与价值》,张乃根等译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版。
7. 王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版。
8. 张茂：《美国国际民事诉讼法》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
1. 陈弘毅：“‘从皮诺切特案’看国际刑法和国际人权法的发展”,载赵秉志、陈弘毅主编：《国际刑法与国际犯罪专题探索》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版。
2. 丁晓阳：“论跨国公司环境侵权责任的承担与追究”,武汉大学2004年硕士学位论文。
3. 管建强：“中国民间战争受害者对日索偿的法律基础”,华东政法学院2005年博士学位论文。
4. 胡城军： “评海盗罪的确立对普遍管辖制度的作用”,载《湖南社会科学》2007年第2期。
5. 林欣：“论酷刑案件与美国国际人权司法”,载《外国法译评》1994年第1期。
6. 刘满达：“跨国公司的人权责任”,载《法学》2003年第9期。
7. 宋永新、夏桂英：“跨国公司的国际人权责任”,载《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》2006年第6期。
8. 汪自勇：“恐怖主义受害者的救济与主权豁免——美国公民针对支持恐怖主义国家的诉讼评介”,载《武大国际法评论》(第五卷)。
9. 王炎： “从‘虐俘’谈‘帝国’内部的矛盾”,http://www.xschina.org/show.php?id=2945,2007年10月20日访问。
10.徐涛、张晨曦：“论跨国公司保护人权的社会责任”,载《政治与法律》2005年第2期。
11.朱伟一：“吾道无穷,吾愿无穷——谈公司社会责任”http://business.sohu.com/49/41/article206204149.shtml,2007年10月20日访问。
1. Beth Stephens & Michael Ratner, International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts, Transnational Publishers Inc.,1996.
2. Beth Stephens, Judith Chomsky, Jennifer Green, Paul Hoffrnan, Michael Ratner, International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2008.
3. Bryan Garner (eds.), Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), West Group,2004.
4. Craig Scott (eds.), Torture as Tort:Comparative Perspectives on the Development of Transnational Human Rights Litigation, Hart Publishing,2001.
5. Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law:Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2005.
6. Gary B. Born & Peter B. Rutledge, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts: Commentary & Materials, Fourth Edition, Aspen Publishers,2007.
7. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, Awakening Monster:the Alien Tort Statute of 1789, Institute for International Economics,2003.
8. Hazel Fox, The Law of State Immunity, Oxford University Press,2004.
9. Jeffrey Davis, Justice across Borders:the Struggle for Human Rights in U.S. Courts, Cambridge University Press,2008.
10. Jurgen Brohmer, State Immunity and the Violation of Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1997.
11. Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999.
12. William J. Aceves, The Anatomy of Torture:A Documentary History ofFilartiga v Pena Irala, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007.
13. William M. Richman & William L. Rieynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (3rd ed.), Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,2002.
14. Wolfgang Kaleck, Michael Ratner, Tobias Singelnstein and Peter Weiss (eds.), International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2007.
15. Ying-Jen Lo, Human Rights Litigation Promoting International Law in U.S. Courts, LFB Scholarly Pub.,2005.
1. Aaron Xavier Fellmeth, Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.:A New Standard for the Enforcement of International Law in U.S. Courts?,5 Yale Hum. Rts.& Dev. L.J.241 (2002).
2. Abigail Heng Wen, Suing the Sovereign's Servant:The Implications of Privatization for the Scope of Foreign Sovereign Immunities,103 COLUM. L. REV.1538 (2003).
3. Abram Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,89 Harv. L. Rev.1281 (1976).
4. Adam C. Belsky, Mark Merva & Naomi Rhot-Arriaza, Implied Waiver under FSIA:A Proposed Exception to Immunity for Violations of Peremptory Norms of International Law,77 Calif. L. Rev 365 (1989).
5. Adam Karp, Genitorts in the Global Context:Female Genital Mutilation as a Tort under the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture Victim Protection Act, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,18 WOMEN'S RTS. L. REP.315 (1997).
6. Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, Formulating Reparations Litigation through the Eyes of the Movement,58 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L.457 (2003).
7. Akhil Reed Amar, The Two-Tiered Structure of the Judiciary Act of 1789,138 U. Penn.L.Rev.1499 (1990).
8. Alan Frederick Enslen, Filartiga's Offspring:The Second Circuit Significantly Expands the Scope of the Alien Tort Claim Act With Its Decision in Kadic v. Karadzic,48 Ala. L. Rev.695 (1997).
9. Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955 (2007).
10. Alfred P. Rubin, Professor D'Amato's Concept of American Jurisdiction is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l L.105 (1985).
11. Alfred P. Rubin, U.S. Torts Suits by Aliens Based on International Law,18-FALL Fletcher F. World Aff.65 (1994).
12. Alvin H. Chu, Vindicating the Tiananmen Square Massacre "The Case against Li Peng,"20 Wis. Int'l L.J.199 (2001).
13. Amanda Sue Nichols, Alien Tort Statute Accomplice Liability Cases:Should Courts Apply the Plausibility Pleading Standard of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly?,76 Fordham L. Rev.2177 (2008).
14. Amy Apollo, Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation:A Case Study of the Role of the Executive Branch in International Human Rights Litigation,37 Rutgers L.J.855 (2006).
15. Amy E. Eckert, Kadic v. Karadzic:Whose International Law?,25 Denv. J. Int'l L.& Pol'y 173 (1996).
16. Andrea Bianchi, Denying State Immunity to Violators of Human Rights,46 Austrian Journal of Public and International Law 195 (1994).
17. Andrea Bianchi, Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens,19 Eur. J. Int'l L.491 (2008).
18. Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242 (2005).
19. Andrea Gattini, To What Extent are State Immunity and Non-Justiciability Major Hurdles to Individuals'Claims for War Damages?,1 J. Int'l Crim. Just.348 (2003)
20. Andrea Gattini, War Crimes and State Immunity in the Ferrini Decision,3 J. Int'l Crim. Just.224 (2005).
21. Andreas Zimmerman, Sovereign Immunity and Violations of International Jus Cogens—Some Critical Remarks,16 Mich. J. Int'l L.433 (1995).
22. Andrew Farrelly, Foreign Policy in the Courts-the ATCA and In Re South African Apartheid Litigation:What Sosa Makes Courts Do,30 Seton Hall Legis. J.437 (2006).
23. Andrew M. Scoble, Enforcing the Customary International Law of Human Rights in Federal Court,74 Cal.L.Rev.127 (1986).
24. Andrew Ridenour, Doe v. Unocal Corp., Apples and Oranges:Why Courts Should Use International Standards to Determine Liability for Violation of the Law of Nations under the Alien Tort Claims Act,9 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L.581 (2001).
25. Angela M. Higgins, "Else We Are Condemned to Go From Darkness to Darkness:"Victims of Gender-Based War Crimes and the Need for Civil Redress in U.S. Courts,70 UMKC L. Rev.677 (2002).
26. Anita Bernstein, Conjoining International Human Rights Law with Enterprise Liability for Accidents,40 Washburn L.J.382 (2001).
27. Anita Ramasastry, Corporate Complicity:From Nuremberg to Rangoon:An Examination of Forced Labor Cases and Their Impact on the Liability of Multinational Corporations,20 Berkeley J. Int'l. L.91 (2002).
28. Anita Ramasastry, Secrets and Lies? Swiss Banks and International Human Rights,31 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.325 (1998).
29. Anne Bayefsky & Joan Fitzpatrick, International Human Rights Law in United States Courts:A Comparative Perspective,14 Mich. J. Int'l L.1 (1992).
30. Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L.461 (1989).
31. Anne-Marie Slaughter & David Bosco, Plaintiffs Diplomacy,79 Foreign Aff.102 (2000).
32. Anthony D'Amato, Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken, 79Am.J. Int'l L.92(1985).
33. Anthony D'Amato, The Alien Tort Statute and the Founding of the Constitution,82 Am. J. Int'l L.62 (1988).
34. Anthony Jones, Jogi v. Voges:Has the Seventh Circuit Opened the Floodgates to Vienna Convention Litigation in U.S. Courts?,15 Minn. J. Int'l L.425 (2005).
35. Antonio Augusto Cancado Trindade, The Consolidation of the Procedural Capacity of Individuals in the Evolution of the International Protection of Human Rights:Present State and Perspectives at the Turn of the Century,30 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.1 (1998).
36. Antonio Cassese, When May Senior State Officials Be Tried for International Crimes? Some Comments on the Congo v. Belgium Case,13 EJIL 869 (2002).
37. Aric K. Short, Is the Alien Tort Statute Sacrosanct? Retaining Forum Non Conveniens in Human Rights Litigation,33 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1001 (2001).
38. Armin Rosencranz & Richard Campbell, Foreign Environmental and Human Rights Suits against U.S. Corporations in U.S. Courts,18 Stan. Envtl. L.J.1451 (1999).
39. Aron Ketchel, Deriving Lessons for The Alien Tort Claims Act From The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,32 Yale J. Int'l L.191 (2007).
40. Arthur M. Weisburd, State Courts, Federal Courts, and International Cases,20 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (1995).
41. Arthur M. Weisburd, The Executive Branch and International Law,41 Vand. L. Rev. 1205 (1988).
42. Arthur R. Miller, The Pretrial Rush to Judgment:Are the "Litigation Explosion," "Liability Crisis, "and Efficiency Cliches Eroding Our Day in Court and Jury Trial Commitments?,78 N.Y.U. L. REV.982 (2003).
43. Atif Rehman, The Court of Last Resort:king Redress for Victims of Abu-Ghraib Torture through the Alien Tort Claims Act,16 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.493 (2006).
44. August Reinisch, Developing Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Accountability of the Security Council for the Imposition of Economic Sanctions,95 AM. J. INT'L L.851 (2001).
45. Barbara A. Frey, The Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations in the Protection of International Human Rights,6 Minn. J. Global Trade 153 (1997).
46. Benjamin Berkowitz, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain:United States Courts as Forums for Human Rights Cases and the New Incorporation Debate,40 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV.289 (2005).
47. Beth Ann Isenberg, Genocide, Rape, and Crimes against Humanity:An Affirmation of Individual Accountability in the Former Yugoslavia in the Karadzic Actions,60 Alb. L. Rev.1051 (1997).
48. Beth Stephens, Conceptualizing Violence under International Law:Do Tort Remedies Fit the Crime?,60 Alb. L. Rev.579(1997).
49. Beth Stephens, Corporate Liability:Enforcing Human Rights through Domestic Litigation,24 Hastings Int'l & Com L. Rev.401 (2001).
50. Beth Stephens, Federalism and Foreign Affairs:Congress's Power To "Define and Punish... Offenses against The Law Of Nations",42 Wm.& Mary L. Rev.447 (2000).
51. Beth Stephens, Filartiga v. Pena-Irala:From Family Tragedy to Human Rights Accountability,37 Rutgers L.J.623 (2006).
52. Beth Stephens, Individuals Enforcing International Law:The Comparative and Historical Context,52 DePaul L. Rev.433 (2002).
53. Beth Stephens, Judicial Deference and the Unreasonable Views of the Bush Administration,33 Brook. J. Int'l L.773 (2008).
54. Beth Stephens, Litigating Customary International Human Rights Norms,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp.L.191(1996).
55. Beth Stephens, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain:"The Door is Still Ajar "for Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts,70 Brooklyn L. Rev.533 (2004).
56. Beth Stephens, Taking Pride in International Human Rights Litigation,2 Chi. J. Int'l L L. 485(2001).
57. Beth Stephens, The Amorality of Profit:Transnational Corporations and Human Rights, 20 BERKELEY J. INT'L L.45 (2002).
58. Beth Stephens, The Civil Lawsuit as a Remedy for International Human Rights Violations against Women,5 Hastings Women's L.J.143 (1994).
59. Beth Stephens, Translating Filartiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2002).
60. Beth Stephens, U.S. Foreign Policy and Human Rights:Upsetting Checks and Balances: The Bush Administration's Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation,17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.169 (2004).
61. Beth Stevens, The Law of Our Land:Customary International Law as Federal Law after Erie,66 Fordham L. Rev.393 (1997).
62. Beth Van Schaack, In Defense of Civil Redress:The Domestic Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in the Context of the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention,42 HARV. INT'L L.J. 141 (2001).
63. Beth Van Schaack, The Civil Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in Domestic Courts, 6 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L.295 (2000).
64. Beth Van Schaack, Unfulfilled Promise:The Human Rights Class Action,2003 U. Chi. Legal F.279 (2003).
65. Beth Van Schaack, With All Deliberate Speed:Civil Human Rights Litigation as A Tool for Social Change,57 Vand. L. Rev.2305 (2004).
66. Borchien Lai, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Temporary Stopgap Measure or Permanent Remedy?,26 Nw. J. Int'l L.& Bus.139 (2005).
67. Brad J. Kieserman, Profits and Principles:Promoting Multinational Corporate Responsibility by Amending the Alien Tort Claims Act,48 CATH. U. L. REV.881 (1999).
68. Brian C. Free, Awaiting Doe V. Exxon Mobil Corp.:Advocating the Cautious Use of Executive Opinions in Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation,12 Pac. Rim L.& Pol'y J.467 (2003).
69. Bruce A. Barenblat, Torture as a Violation of the Law of Nations:An Analysis of 28 U.S.C. § 1350,16 Tex. Int'l L. J.117 (1981).
70. Caleb Nelson, Sovereign Immunity as a Doctrine of Personal Jurisdiction,115 Harvard L. Rev.1559 (2002).
71. Caleb Nelson, The Persistance of General Law,106 Colum. L. Rev.503 (2006).
72. Carlo Focarelli, Denying Foreign State Immunity for Commission of International Crimes:The Ferrini Decision,54 ICLQ 951 (2005).
73. Carlos M. Vazquez, Direct vs. Indirect Obligations of Corporations under International Law,43 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.927 (2005).
74. Caroline Davidson, Tort Au Canadien:A Proposal for Canadian Tort Legislation on Gross Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law,38 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1403 (2005).
75. Caroline Kaeb, Emerging Issues of Human Rights Responsibility in the Extractive and Manufacturing Industries:Patterns and Liability Risks,6 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts.327 (2008).
76. Catharine A. MacKinnon, Collective Harms under the Alien Tort Statute:A Cautionary Note,6 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L.567 (2000).
77. Charles Curlett, International Law Weekend Proceedings, Introductory Remarks-Alien Tort Claims Act,6 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L.Q.273 (2000).
78. Charles D. Siegal, Deference and Its Dangers:Congress'Power to "Define... Offenses against the Law of Nations, "21 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.865 (1988).
79. Charles F. Hollis, Ⅲ, Perpetual Mistrial:The Impropriety of Transnational Human Rights Litigation in United States Courts,1 Santa Clara J. Int'l L.1 (2003).
80. Charles F. Marshall, Re-Framing the Alien Tort Act after Kadic v. Karadzic,21 N.C. J. Int'l L.& Com. Reg.591 (1996).
81. Charles Warren, New Light on the History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789,37 Harv. L. Rev.49 (1923).
82. Charlotte Ku & Christopher J. Borgen, American Lawyers and International Competence,18 Dick. J. Int'l L.493 (2000).
83. Christopher Keith Hall, The Duty of States Parties to the Convention against Torture to Provide Procedures Permitting Victims to Recover Reparations for Torture Committed Abroad,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.921 (2007).
84. Christopher Keith Hall, UN Convention on State Immunity:The Need for A Human Rights Protocol,55 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.411 (2006).
85. Christopher M. Marlowe, Forum Non Conveniens Dismissals and the Adequate Alternative Forum Question:Latin America,32 U Miami Inter-Am L Rev 295 (2001).
86. Christopher R. Chase, The Political Question Doctrine:Preventing the Challenge of U.S. Foreign Policy in 767 Third Avenue Associates v. Consulate General of Socialist Federal Republic Of Yugoslavia,50 Cath. U. L. Rev.1045 (2001).
87. Christopher W. Haffke, The Torture Victim Protection Act:More Symbol than Substance, 43 Emory L.J.1467(1995).
88. Claudia T. Salazar, Applying International Human Rights Norms in the United States: Holding Multinational Corporations Accountable in the United States for International Human Rights Violations under the Alien Tort Claims Act,19 ST. JOHN's J. LEGAL COMMENT.111 (2004).
89. Clyde H. Crockett, The Role of Federal Common Law in Alien Tort Statute Cases,14 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.29 (1991).
90. Courtney Shaw, Uncertain Justice:Liability of Multinationals under the Alien Tort Claims Act,54 Stan. L. Rev.1359 (2002).
91. Craig Forcese, ATCA's Achilles Heel:Corporate Complicity, International Law and the Alien Tort Claims Act,26 YALE. J. INT'L. L.487 (2001).
92. Craig Forcese, De-Immunizing Torture:Reconciling Human Rights and State Immunity, 52 McGill L.J.127(2007).
93. Craig Scott, The Alien Tort Claims Act under Attack,98 ASIL PROC.58 (2004).
94. Cristopher Haffke, The Torture Victim Protection Act:More Symbol Than Substance,43 Emory L.J.1467(1994).
95. Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Customary International Law as Federal Common Law:A Critique of the Modern Position,110 Harv. L. Rev.815 (1997).
96. Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Federal Courts and the Incorporation of International Law,111 Harv. L. Rev.2260 (1998).
97. Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, The Current Illegitimacy of International Human Rights Litigation,66 Fordham L. Rev.319(1997).
98. Curtis A. Bradley, Customary International Law and Private Rights of Action,1 CHI. J. INT'L L.421 (2000).
99. Curtis A. Bradley, The Alien Tort Statute and Article Ⅲ,42 Va. J. Int'l L.587 (2002). 100. Curtis A. Bradley, The Costs of International Human Rights Litigation,2 Chi. J. Int'l L. 457 (2001).
101. Curtis A. Bradley, Universal Jurisdiction and U.S. Law,2001 U. Chi. Legal F.323 (2001).
102. D'Amore, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Alien Tort Statute:How Wide Has the Door to Human Rights Litigation Been Left Open?,39 Akron L. Rev.593 (2006).
103. Dana Howard, The Consistency of Sosa:A Comparison of the Supreme Court's Treatment of Customary International Law with Other Types of Federal Common Law,94 Ky. L.J. 669 (2005-2006).
104. Daniel Diskin, The Historical and Modern Foundations for Aiding and Abetting Liability under the Alien Tort Statute,47 Ariz. L. Rev.805 (2005).
105. Daniel J. Meltzer, The History and Structure of Article Ⅲ,138 U. Penn L.Rev.1569 (1990).
106. Daryl A. Mundis, Tachiona v. Mugabe:A US Court Bows to Personal Immunities of a Foreign Head of State,1 J Int'l Crim Justice 462 (2003).
107. David Cole, Jules Lobel & Harold Hongju Koh, Interpreting the Alien Tort Statue: Amicus Curiae Memorandum of International Law Scholars and Practitioners in Trajano v. Marcos,12 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.1 (1988).
108. David D. Christensen, Corporate Liability for Overseas Human Rights Abuses:The Alien Tort Statute after Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,62 Wash.& Lee L. Rev.1219 (2005).
109. David E. Chawes, Time Is Not on Your Side:Establishing A Consistent Statute of Limitations for the Alien Tort Claims Act,27 Seattle U. L. Rev.191,218-231 (2003).
110. David Friedman, Beyond the Tort/Crime Distinction,76 B.U. L. Rev.103 (1996).
111. David H. Moore, An Emerging Uniformity for International Law,75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1(2006)
112. David I. Becker, A Call for the Codification of the Unocal Doctrine,32 CORNELL INT'L L.J.183(1998).
113. David J. Bederman, Dead Man's Hand:Reshuffling Foreign Sovereign Immunities in U.S. Human Rights Litigation,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.255 (1996).
114. David J. Bederman, Deference or Deception:Treaty Rights As Political Questions,70 U. Colo. L.Rev.1439(1999).
115. David J. Bederman, International Law Advocacy and its Discontents,2 Chi. J. Int'l L. 475(2001)
116. David M. Trubek, Yves Dezalay, Ruth Buchanan, John R. Davis, Global Restructuring and the Law:Studies of the Internationalization of Legal Fields and the Creation of Transnational Arenas,44 Case W. Res. L. Rev.407 (1994).
117. David Mackusick, Human Rights vs. Sovereign Rights:The State Sponsored Terrorism Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,10 Emory Int'l L. Rev.741 (1996).
118. David P. Kunstle, Kadic v. Karadzic:Do Private Individuals Have Enforceable Rights and Obligations under the Alien Tort Claims Act?,6 Duke J. Comp.& Int'l L.319 (1995—1996).
119. David S. Bloch, Dangers of Righteousness:Unintended Consequences of Kadic v. Karadzic,4 Tulsa J. Comp.& Int'l L.35 (1996).
120. David S. Mitchell, The Prohibition of Rape in International Humanitarian Law As a Norm of Jus Cogens:Clarifying the Doctrine,15 Duke J. Comp.& Int'l L.219 (2005).
121. David Sweis, The Availability of Damages to Foreign Nationals for Violation of the Consular Relations Treaty,19 N.Y. Int'l L. Rev.63 (2006).
122. David W. Robertson & Paula K. Speck, Access to State Courts in Transnational Personal Injury Cases:Forum Non Conveniens and Antisuit Injunctions,68 Tex L. Rev.937 (1990).
123. Deborah J. Karet, Privatizing Law on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands:Is Litigation the Best Channel for Reforming the Garment Industry?,48 Buffalo L. Rev. 1047(2000).
124. Deborah R. Hensler, Money Talks:Searching for Justice through Compensation for Personal Injury and Death,53 De Paul L. Rev.417 (2003).
125. Demian Betz, Holding Multinational Corporations Responsible for Human Rights Abuses Committed by Security Forces in Conflict-Ridden Nations:An Argument against Exporting Federal Jurisdiction for the Purposes of Regulating Corporate Behavior Abroad,14 DePaul Bus. L.J.163 (2001).
126. Derek P. Jinks, The Federal Common Law of Universal, Obligatory, and Definable Human Rights Norms,4 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L.465 (1998).
127. Dinah Shelton, Hierarchy of Norms and Human Rights:of Trumps and Winners,65 Sask. L. Rev.301 (2002).
128. Donald Francis Donovan & Anthea Roberts, The Emerging Recognition of Universal Civil Jurisdiction,100 A.J.1.L.142(2006).
129. Donald Francis Donovan, Universal Civil Jurisdiction--The Next Frontier?,99 ASIL PROC.117(2005).
130. Donald J. Carney, Forum Non Conveniens in the United States and Canada,3 Buff. Jour. Int'l L.117(1996).
131. Donald J. Kochan, Constitutional Structure as a Limitation on the Scope of the "Law of Nations "in the Alien Tort Claims Act,31 Cornell Int'l L. J.153 (1998).
132. Donald J. Kochan, No Longer Little Known But Now a Door Ajar:An Overview of the Evolving and Dangerous Role of the Alien Tort Statute in Human Rights and International Law Jurisprudence,8 Chap. L. Rev.103 (2005).
133. Doug Cassel, Corporate Aiding and Abetting of Human Rights Violations:Confusion in the Courts,6 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts.304 (2008).
134. Ed Bates, (Case Comment) Article 6:Right to A Fair Trial, E.L. Rev.2002,27 Supp (Human rights survey 2002).
135. Ed Bates, State Immunity for Torture,7 Hum. Rts. L. Rev.651 (2007).
136. Ed Bates, The Al-Adsani Case, State Immunity and the International Legal Prohibition on Torture,3 Human Rights Law Review 193 (2003).
137. Edward A. Amley, Jr., Sue and Be Recognized:Collecting § 1350 Judgments Abroad, 107 Yale L.J.2177 (1998).
138. Edward J. Schoen, Joseph S. Falchek & Margaret M. Hogan, The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789:Globalization of Business Requires Globalization of Law and Ethics,62 Journal of Business Ethics 41 (2005).
139. Edwin D. Dickinson, Is the Crime of Piracy Obsolete?,38 Harv. L. Rev.334 (1925).
140. Edwin D. Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States,101 U. Pa. L. Rev.26 (1952).
141. Edwin L. Gorham, The Alien Torts Statute and the Search for Energy in Difficult Political Environments,29 Hous. J. Int'l L.289 (2007).
142. Ehren J. Brav, Opening the Courtroom Doors to Non-Citizens:Cautiously Affirming Filartiga for the Alien Tort Statute,46 Harv. Int'l L.J.265 (2005).
143. Eileen Rice, Doe v. Unocal Corporation:Corporate Liability for International Human Rights Violations,33 U.S.F. L. Rev.153 (1998).
144. Ellen L. Lutz, The Marcos Human Rights Litigation:Can Justice Be Achieved In U.S. Courts For Abuses That Occurred Abroad?,14 B.C. Third World L.J.43 (1994).
145. Ellen L. Lutz & Kathryn Sikkink, The Justice Cascade:The Evolution and Impact of Foreign Human Rights Trials in Latin America,2 Chi. J. Int'l L.1 (2001).
146. Elliot J. Schrage, Judging Corporate Accountability in the Global Economy,42 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.153(2003).
147. Emeka Duruigbo, Exhaustion of Local Remedies in Alien Tort Litigation:Implications for International Human Rights Protection,29 Fordham Int'l L.J.1245 (2006).
148. Emeka Duruigbo, The Economic Cost of Alien Tort Litigation:A Response to Awakening Monster:The Alien Tort Statute of 1789,14 Minn. J. Global Trade 1 (2004).
149. Emmanuel Voyiakis, Access to Court v State Immunity,52 ICLQ 297 (2003).
150. Eric B. Fastiff, The Proposed Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments:A Solution to Butch Reynolds's Jurisdiction and Enforcement Problems,28 Cornell Intl. L.J.469 (1995).
151. Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwude, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006.
152. Eric Gruzen, The United States as a Forum for Human Rights Litigation:Is This the Best Solution? 14 Transnat'l L.207 (2001).
153. Erika de Wet, The Prohibition of Torture as An International Norm of Jus Cogens and Its Implications for National and Customary Law,15 Eur. J. Int'l L.97 (2004).
154. Erin Talati, An Open Door to Ending Exploitation:Accountability for Violations of Informed Consent under the Alien Tort Statute,155 U. Pa. L. Rev.231 (2006).
155. Ernest A. Young, Federal Suits and General Laws:A Comment on Judge Fletcher's Reading of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,93 VA. L. REV. IN BRIEF 33 (2007).
156. Ernest A. Young, Foreign Law and the Denominator Problem,119 Harv. L. Rev.148 (2005).
157. Ernest A. Young, Sorting Out the Debate over Customary International Law,42 Va. J. Int'l L.365 (2002).
158. Ernest A. Young, Sosa and the Retail Incorporation of International Law,120 Harv. L. Rev. F.28 (2007).
159. Ethan Early, Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act:Is Peace of Mind Enough?,14 Conn. J. Int'l L.203 (1999).
160. Eugene Kontorovich, Implementing Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain:What Piracy Reveals About the Limitsof the Alien Tort Statute,80 Notre Dame L. Rev.111 (2004).
161. Francisco Forrest Martin, The International Human Rights & Ethical Aspects of the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine,35 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev.101 (2003-2004).
162. G. Michael Ziman, Holding Foreign Governments Accountable for their Human Rights Abuses:A Proposed Amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976,21 Loy. L.A. Int'1 & Comp. L.J.185(1999).
163. Gabriel D. Pinilla, Corporate Liability for Human Rights Violations on Foreign Soil:A Historical and Prospective Analysis of the Alien Tort Claims Controversy,16 St. Thomas L. Rev. 687(2004).
164. Gabriel M. Bruce Telles, Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:Overcoming the Defense of Foreign Sovereign Immunity in Cases under the Alien Tort Claims Act,10 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L.R.343(1987).
165. Gabriel M. Wilner, Filartiga v. Pena-Irala:Comments on Sources of Human Rights Law and Means of Redress for Violations of Human Rights,11 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.317 (1981).
166. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Nicholos K. Mitrokostas, International Implications of the Alien Tort Statute,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.607 (2004).
167. Gary Clyde Hufbauer, The Supreme Court Meets International Law:What's the Sequel to Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain?,12 TULSA J. COMP.& INT'L L.77 (2004).
168. Gene Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of the Law of Nations in the Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193 (2005).
169. George Norris Stavis, Collecting Judgments in Human Rights Torts Cases:Flexibility for Non-Profit Litigators?,31 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.209 (1999).
170. Gerald Fitzmaurice, The General Principles of International Law,92 Recueil Des Cours 1 (1957).
171. Gerald L. Neuman, Sense and Nonsense about Customary International Law:A Response to Professors Bradley and Goldsmith,66 Fordham L. Rev.371 (1997).
172. Gerald L. Neuman, The Uses of International Law in Constitutional Interpretation,98 Am. J. Int'l L.82 (2004).
173. Gerald P. McGinley, Of Pirates and Privateers:The Historical Background of the Alien Tort Claims Act with Some Suggestions for its Future Use,21 Anglo-Am. L. Rev.138 (1992).
174. Gordon A. Christenson, Customary International Human Rights Law in Domestic Court Decisions,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.225 (1995-1996).
175. Grace C. Spencer, Her Body Is A Battlefield:the Applicability of the Alien Tort Statute to Corporate Human Rights Abuses In Juarez, Mexico,40 Gonz. L. Rev.503 (2004-2005).
176. Gregory G. A. Tzeutschler, Corporate Violator:The Alien Tort Liability of Transnational Corporations for Human Rights Abuses Abroad,30 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.359 (1999).
177. Gregory H. Fox, Reexamining the Act of State Doctrine:An Integrated Conflicts Analysis,33 Harv. Int'l L.J.521 (1992).
178. Guy Stessens, Corporate Criminal Liability:A Comparative Perspective,43 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.493 (1994).
179. Halina Ward, Securing Transnational Corporate Accountability through National Courts: Implications and Policy Options,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.451 (2001).
180. Hannah R. Bornstein, The Alien Tort Claims Act In 2007:Resolving The Delicate Balance Between Judicial and Legislative Authority,82 Ind. L.J.1077 (2007).
181. Harlan Grant Cohen, Supremacy and Diplomacy:The International Law of the U.S. Supreme Court,24 Berkeley J. Int'l L.273 (2006).
182. Harold G. Maier, The Role of Experts in Proving International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts:A Commentary,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.205(1995/1996).
183. Harold Hongju Koh, Civil Remedies for Uncivil Wrongs:Combating Terrorism through Transnational Public Law Litigation,22 Tex. Int'l L.J.169 (1987).
184. Harold Hongju Koh, International Law as Part of Our Law,98 Am. J. Int'l L.43 (2004).
185. Harold Hongju Koh, Is International Law Really State Law,111 Harv. L. Rev.1824 (1998).
186. Harold Hongju Koh, The 1998 Frankel Lecture:Bringing International Law Home,35 Hous. L. Rev.623 (1998).
187. Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Public Law Litigation,100 Yale L.J.2347 (1991).
188. Harold Hongju Koh, Why Do Nations Obey International Law?,106 Yale L.J.2599 (1997).
189. Harold J. Berman, The Alien Torts Claim Act and The Law of Nations,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.69 (2005).
190. Harold J. Berman, World Law,18 Fordham Int'l L. J.1617 (1995).
191. Harvard Law Review Association, Developments in the Law—International Criminal Law:Corporate Liability for Violations of International Human Rights Law,114 Harv. L. Rev. 2025 (2001).
192. Hazel Fox, State Immunity and the International Crime of Torture,2006 EHRLR 142 (2006).
193. Hein Kotz, Civil Litigation and the Public Interest,1 Civ. Just. Q.237 (1987).
194. Helen C. Lucas, The Adjudication of Violations of International Law under the Alien Tort Claims Act:Allowing Alien Plaintiffs Their Day in Federal Court,36 De Paul L.Rev.209 (1987).
195. Helen E. Mardirosian, Forum Non Conveniens,37 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1643(2004)
196. Helena Lynch, Liability for Torts in Violation of International Law:No Hook under Sosa for Secondary, Complicit Actors,50 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev.757 (2005-2006).
197. Henry J. Bourguignon, Incorporation of the Law of Nations During the American Revolution--The Case of the San Antonio,71 Am. J. Int'l L.270 (1977).
198. Henry J. Richardson Ⅲ, Excluding Race Strategies from International Legal History: The Self-Executing Treaty Doctrine and the Southern Africa Tripartite Agreement,45 Vill. L. Rev. 1091 (2000).
199. Howard S. Fredman, The Offenses Clause:Congress' International Penal Power,8 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.279 (1969).
200. Howard Tolley, Interest Group Litigation to Enforce Human Rights,105 Political Science Quarterly 617 (1990-1991).
201. Hugh King, Sosa v Alvarez-Machain and the Alien Tort Claims Act,37 Vict.U. Wellington L. Rev.1 (2006).
202. Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, reprinted in 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.129 (2001).
203. Igor Fuks, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Future of ATCA Litigation:Examining Bonded Labor Claims and Corporate Liability,106 Colum. L. Rev.112 (2006).
204. Ivan Poullaos, The Nature of the Beast:Using the Alien Tort Claims Act to Combat International Human Rights Violations,80 Wash. U. L.Q.327 (2002).
205. Jack Alan Levy, As between Princz and King:Reassessing the Law of Foreign Sovereign Immunity as Applied to Jus Cogens Violators,86 Geo. L.J.2703 (1998).
206. Jacques de Lisle, Human Rights, Civil Wrongs and Foreign Relations:A "Sinical" Look at the Use of U.S. Litigation to Address Human Rights Abuses Abroad,52 DePaul L. Rev.473 (2002).
207. Jacques Semmelman, Due Process, International Law, and Jurisdiction over Criminal Defendants Abducted Extraterritorially:The Ker-Frisbie Doctrine Reexamined,30 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.513(1992).
208. Jake S. Tyshow, Informal Foreign Affairs Formalism:the Act of State Doctrine and the Reinterpretation of International Comity,43 Va. J. Int'l L.275 (2002).
209. James Paul George, Defining Filartiga:Characterizing International Torture Claims in United States Courts,2 Dick. J. Int'l L.1 (1984).
210. Janice D. Villiers, Closed Borders, Closed Ports:The Plight of Haitians king Political Asylum in the United States,60 Brook. L. Rev.841 (1994).
211. Jay M. Lewis Humphrey, A Legal Lohengrin:Federal Jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789,14 U.S.F. L. REV.105 (1979).
212. Jaykumar A. Menon, The Alien Tort Statute:Blackstone and Criminal/Tort Law Hybridities,4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 372 (2006).
213. Jean Allain & John R.W.D. Jones, A Patchwork of Norms:A commentary on the 1996 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind,18 Eur. J. I. L.1 (2003).
214. Jean Wu, Pursuing International Environmental Tort Claims under the ATCA:Beanal v. Freeport-Mcmoran,28 Ecology L.Q.487 (2001).
215. Jean-Marie Simon, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Justice or Show Trials?,11 B.U. Int'l L.J. 1 (1993).
216. Jeffrey Davis, Human Rights in US Courts:Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation after Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,8 Human Rights Review 341 (2007).
217. Jeffrey Davis, Justice without Borders:Human Rights Cases in U.S. Courts,28 Law & Policy 60 (2006).
218. Jeffrey E. Baldwin, International Human Rights Plaintiffs and the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens,40 Cornell Int'l L.J.749 (2007).
.219. Jeffrey M. Blum & Ralph G. Steinhardt, Federal Jurisdiction over International Human Rights Claims:the Alien Tort Claims Act after Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,22 Harv. Int'l L.J.53 (1981).
220. Jeffrey Rabkin, Universal Justice:The Role Federal Courts in International Civil Litigation,95 Colum. L. Rev.2120 (1995).
221. Jennifer A. Gergen, Human Rights and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,36 Virginia J Int'l L 765 (1995).
222. Jennifer Correale, The Torture Victim Protection Act:A Vital Contribution To International Human Rights Enforcement Or Just A Nice Gesture?,6 Pace Int'l L. Rev.197 (1994).
223. Jennifer Moore, From Nation State to Failed State:International Protection from Human Rights Abuses by Non-State Agents,31 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV.81 (1999).
224. Jeremy D. Morley, Forum Non Conveniens:Restraining Long-Arm Jurisdiction,68 Nw. U.L. Rev.24 (1973).
225. Jeremy Sarkin, Reparations for Historical Human Rights Violations:The International and Historical Dimensions of the Alien Torts Claims Act Genocide Case of the Herero of Namibia, 9 Human Rights Review 331 (2008).
226. Jeremy Waldron, Foreign Law and the Modern Ius Gentium,119 Harv. L. Rev.129 (2005).
227. Jessica Priselac, The Requirement of State Action in Alien Tort Statute Claims:Does Sosa Matter?,21 Emory Int'l L. Rev.789 (2007).
228. Jing-Wei Lu, Implied or Constructive Waiver? Effect of Participation in Litigation under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976,6 J. Int'l L.& Practice 63 (1997).
229. Joan Fitzpatrick, The Future of the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789:Lessons from In re Marcos Human Rights Litigation,67 St. John's L. Rev.491 (1993).
230. Joel R. Paul, Comity in International Law,32 Harv. Int'l L. J.1 (1991).
231. Joel Slawotsky, Doing Business around the World:Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act,2005 Mich. St. L. Rev 1065 (2005).
232. John B. Bellinger, Ⅲ, Enforcing Human Rights in U.S. Courts and Abroad:The Alien Tort Statute and Other Approaches, available at http://www.state.gov/s/l/rls/103506.htm (last visited August 4,2008).
233. John F. Carella, Of Foreign Plaintiffs and Proper Fora:Forum Non Conveniens and ATCA Class Actions,2003 U. Chi. Legal F.717 (2003).
234. John F. Murphy, Civil Liability for the Commission of International Crimes as an Alternative to Criminal Prosecution,12 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.1 (1999).
235. John Haberstroh, The Alien Tort Claims Act & Doe v. Unocal:A Paquete Habana Approach to the Rescue,32 Denv. J. Int'l L.& Pol'y 231 (2003).
236. John M. Rogers, The Alien Tort Statute and How Individuals "Violate"International Law,21 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.47 (1988).
237. John M. Walker, Jr., Domestic Adjudication of International Human Rights Violations under the Alien Tort Statute,41 ST. LOUIS L.J.539(1997).
238. John O. McGinnis, Foreign to Our Constitution,100 Nw. U. L. Rev.303 (2006).
239. John Quigley, Toward More Effective Judicial Implementation of Treaty-Based Rights, 29 Fordham Int'l L.J.552 (2006).
240. John R. Wilson, Coming to America to File Suit:Foreign Plaintiffs and the Forum Non Conveniens Barrier in Transnational Litigation,65 Ohio State LJ 659 (2004).
241. Jonathan L. Zittrain, An Objection to Sosa—and to the New Federal Common Law,119 Harv. L. Rev.2077 (2006).
242. Jordan J. Paust, Litigating Human Rights:A Commentary on the Comments,4 Houston J. Int'l L.59(1981).
243. Jorge Cicero, The Alien Tort Statute of 1789 as a Remedy for Injuries to Foreign Nationals Hosted by the United States,23 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.315 (1992).
244. Jose E. Alvarez, Rush to Closure:Lessons of the Tadic Judgment,96 MICH. L. REV. 203 (1998).
245. Josef Rohlik, Filartiga v. Pena-Irala:International Justice in a Modern American Court?,11 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.325 (1981).
246. Joseph Bergen, Princz v. The Federal Republic of Germany:Why the Courts Should Find that Violating Jus Cogens Norms Constitutes an Implied Waiver of Sovereign Immunity,14 Conn. J. Int'l L.169(1999).
247. Joseph Dainow, The Inappropriate Forum,29 U.Ill. L. Rev.867 (1935).
248. Joseph Modeste Sweeney, A Tort Only in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.445 (1995).
249. Joseph R. Thome, Heading South But Looking North:Globalization and Law Reform in Latin America,2000 Wis. L. Rev.691 (2000).
250. Joshua Gregory Holt, The International Law Exception to the Act of State Doctrine: Redressing Human Rights Abuses in Papua New Guinea,16 Pac. Rim L.& Pol'y J.459 (2007).
251. Joshua L. Bettridge, The Alien Tort Statute:Judicial Activism and Its Impact on International Law,1 Regent J. Int'l L 65 (2003).
252. Joshua Ratner, Back to the Future:Why a Return to the Approach of the Filartiga Court is Essential to Preserve the Legitimacy and Potential of the Alien Tort Claims Act,35 COLUM. J.L. & SOC. PROBS.83 (2002).
253. Jules Lobel, The Limits of Constitutional Power:Conflicts Between Foreign Policy and International Law,71 Va. L. Rev.1071 (1985).
254. Julian G. Ku, The Third Wave:The Alien Tort Statute and the War on Terrorism,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.105 (2005).
255. Justin Lu, Jurisdiction over Non-State Activity under the Alien Tort Claims Act,35 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.531 (1997).
256. Justin Prociv, Incorporating Specific International Standards into ATCA Jurisprudence: Why the Ninth Circuit Should Affirm Unocal,34 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev.515 (2003).
257. Karen Knop, Here and There:International Law in Domestic Courts,32 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.501 (2000).
258. Kate Parlett, Universal Civil Jurisdiction for Torture,4 E.H.R.L.R.385 (2007).
259. Katherine C. Sheehan, Predicting the Future:Personal Jurisdiction for the Twenty-First Century,66 U. Cin. L. Rev.385 (1998).
260. Katherine Reece Thomas & Joan Small, Human Rights and State Immunity:Is there Immunity from Civil Liability for Torture?,50 Netherlands Int'l L Rev.1 (2003).
261. Kathryn L. Pryor, Does The Torture Victim Protection Act Signal the Imminent Demise of the Alien Tort Claims Act?,29 Va. J. Int'l L.969 (1989).
262. Kathryn Lee Boyd, The Inconvenience of Victims:Abolishing Forum Non Conveniens in U.S. Human Rights Litigation,39 Va. J. Int'l L.41 (1998).
263. Kelsy Deye, Can Corporations be Held Liable under the Alien Tort Claims Act?,94 Ky. L.J.649 (2005-2006).
264. Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction Over International Law Claims:Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1 (1985).
265. Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Questions and the Human Rights Paradigm,73 Minn. L. Rev.349 (1988).
266. Kenneth C. Randall, Further Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute and A Recommendation,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.473 (1986).
267. Kenneth C. Randall, Universal Jurisdiction under International Law,66 Tex. L. Rev. 785 (1988).
268. Kenneth M. Schneider, Hanoch Tel-Oren:The Retreat from Filartiga,4 Cardozo L.Rev. 665(1983).
269. Kerstin Bartsch & Bjorn Elberling, Jus Cogens vs. State Immunity, Round Two:The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulou et al. v. Greece and Germany Decision,4 German LJ 478 (2003).
270. Kevin M. McDonald, Corporate Civil Liability under the U.S. Alien Tort Claims Act for Violations of Customary International Law During the Third Reich,1997 ST. LOUIS-WARSAW TRANSATLANTIC L.J.167(1997).
271. Kevin R. Carter, Amending the Alien Tort Claims Act:Protecting Human Rights or Closing off Corporate Accountability?,38 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L.629 (2006-2007).
272. Kevin R. Johnson, Why Alienage Jurisdiction? Historical Foundations and Modern Justifications for Federal Jurisdiction over Disputes Involving Noncitizens,21 YALE J. INT'L L.1 (1996).
273. Kevin Scott Prussia, NAFTA & the Alien Tort Claims Act:Making a Case for Actionable Offenses Based on Environmental Harms and Injuries to the Public Health,32 Am. J.L.& Med. 381 (2006).
274. Kristen D.A. Carpenter, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:A Toothless Tiger?,26 N.C. J. Int'l L.& Com. Reg.1 (2000).
275. Laura A. Dickinson, Filartiga's Legacy in An Era of Military Privatization,37 Rutgers L.J.703 (2006).
276. Laura Bowersett, Doe v. Unocal:Torturous Decision for Multinationals Doing Business in Politically Unstable Environments,11 TRANSNAT'L LAW.361 (1998).
277. Laurence R. Helfer, Forum Shopping for Human Rights,148 U. Pa. L. Rev.285 (1999).
278. Lawrence R. Jacobs & Benjamin I. Page, Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?,99 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.107 (2005).
279. Leandro de Oliveira Moll, Case Note:Al-Adsani v United Kingdom-State Immunity and Denial of Justice with respect to Violations of Fundamental Human Rights,4 Melbourne Journal of International Law 561 (2003).
280. Lee M. Caplan, State Immunity, Human Rights and Jus Cogens:A Critique of the Normative Hierarchy Theory,97 Am. J. Int'l L.741 (2003).
281. Logan Michael Breed, Regulating Our 21st Century Ambassadors:A New Approach to Corporate Liability for Human Rights Violations Abroad,42 VA. J. INT'L. L.1005 (2002).
282. Lonny Sheinkopf Hoffman & Keith A. Rowley, Forum Non Conveniens in Federal Statutory Cases,49 Emory L.J.1137 (2000).
283. Lorelle Londis, The Corporate Face of the Alien Tort Claims Act:How an Old Statute Mandates a New Understanding of Global Interdependence,57 Me. L. Rev.141 (2005).
284. Lorna McGregor, State Immunity and Jus Cogens,55 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.437 (2006).
285. Louis B. Sohn, The New International Law:Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather than States,32 Am. U. L. Rev.1 (1982).
286. Louis B. Sohn, Torture as a Violation of the Law of Nations,11 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 307(1981).
287. Louis Henkin, Act of State Today:Recollections in Tranquility,6 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 173(1972).
288. Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United States,82 Mich. L. Rev.1555 (1984).
289. Louis Henkin, Is There a "Political Question"Doctrine?,85 Yale L.J.597 (1976).
290. Louis Henkin, The Constitution and United States Sovereignty:A Century of Chinese Exclusion and Its Progeny,100 HARV. L. REV.853 (1987).
291. Louis Henkin, The President and International Law,80 Am. J. Int'l L.930 (1986).
292. Luciana Reali, Alvarez-Machain v. United States:How Should the Ninth Circuit Determine Which Torts Are Actionable under the Alien Tort Claims Act?,17 N.Y. Int'l L. Rev.51 (2004).
293. Lucien J. Dhooge, A Modest Proposal to Amend the Alien Tort Statute to Provide Guidance to Transnational Corporations,13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L.& Pol'y 119 (2007).
294. Lucien J. Dhooge, The Alien Tort Claims Act and the Modern Transnational Enterprise: Deconstructing the Mythology of Judicial Activism,35 Geo. J. Int'l L.3 (2003).
295. Lucinda Saunders, Rich and Rare are the Gems They War:Holding De Beers Accountable for Trading Conflict Diamonds,24 Fordham Int'l L. J.1402 (2001).
296. Luis Enrique Cuervo, The Alien Tort Statute, Corporate Accountability, and the New Lex Petrolea,19 Tul. Envtl. L.J.151 (2006).
297. Magdalini Karagiannakis, State Immunity and Fundamental Human Rights,11 Leiden J Int'l L 9 (1998).
298. Micaela Frulli, When are States Liable towards Individuals for Serious Violations of Humanitarian Law? The Markovic Case,1 J Int'l Crim Justice 406 (2003).
299. M.W. Janis, Jeremy Bentham and the Fashioning of "International Law, "78 Am. J. Int'l L.405 (1984).
300. Marcia Coyle, Justices Open Door with Alien Tort Case; What Kind of Claims Remain is Contested,26 Nat'l L. J.1 (2004).
301. Margaret G. Perl, Not Just Another Mass Tort:Using Class Actions to Redress International Human Rights Violations,88 Georgetown L J 773 (2000).
302. Margarita S. Clarens, Deference, Human Rights and the Federal Courts:the Role of the Executive in Alien Tort Statute Litigation,17 Duke J. Comp.& Int'l L.415 (2007).
303. Maria A. Mazzola, Forum Non Conveniens and Foreign Plaintiffs:Addressing the Unanswered Questions ofReyno,6 Fordham Int'l L.J.577 (1983).
304. Maria Dakolias, Court Performance Around the World:A Comparative Perspective,2 Yale H.R.& Dev. L.J.87 (1999).
305. Maria Gavouneli & Ilias Banterkas, Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany. Case No.11/2000,95 Am. J. Int'l. L.198 (2001).
306. Maria Gavouneli, War Reparation Claims and State Immunity,50 Revue hellenique de droit international 595 (1997).
307. Marina Spinedi, State Responsibility v Individual Responsibility for International Crimes:Tertium Non Datur,13 Eur. J. Int'l L.895 (2002).
308. Marisa Anne Pagnattaro, Enforcing International Labor Standards:The Potential of the Alien Tort Claims Act,37 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.203 (2004).
309. Mark E. Rosen, The Alien Tort Statute:An Emerging Threat to National Security,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.627 (2004).
310. Mark Jacobsen, Case Comment,28 U.S.C.1350:A Legal Remedy for Torture in Paraguay?,69 Geo. L.J.833 (1981).
311. Mark S. Zaid, Military Might Versus Sovereign Right:The Kidnaping of Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain and the Resulting Fallout,19 Hous. J. Int'l L.829 (1997).
312. Mark Tushnet, Law and Prudence in the Law of Justiciability:the Transformation and Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine,80 N.C. L. Rev.1203 (2002).
313. Markus Rau, Domestic Adjudication of International, Human Rights Abuses and the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens,61 ZaoRV 177 (2001).
314. Markus Rau, State Liability for Violations of International Humanitarian Law-The Distomo Case Before the German Federal Constitutional Court,7 German LJ 701 (2005).
315. Martin S. Flaherty, Human Rights Violations against Defense Lawyers:The Case of Northern Ireland,7 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.87(1994).
316. Martin S. Flaherty, The Future and Past of U.S. Foreign Relations Law,67 Law & Contemp. Probs.169 (2004).
317. Mathias Reimann, A Human Rights Exception to Sovereign Immunity:Some Thoughts on Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany,16 Mich J Int'l L 403 (1995).
318. Matthew H. Murray, The Torture Victim Protection Act:Legislation to Promote Enforcement of the Human Rights of Aliens in U.S. Courts,25 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L.673 (1987).
319. Matthew R. Skolnik, The Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in Alien Tort Claims Act Cases:A Shell of Its Former Self after Wiwa,16 Emory Int'l L. Rev.187 (2002).
320. Mauro Cappelletti, Governmental and Private Advocates for the Public Interest in Civil Litigation:A Comparative Study,73 Mich. L. Rev.794 (1975).
321. Melissa A. Waters, Mediating Norms and Identity:The Role of Transnational Judicial Dialogue in Creating and Enforcing International Law,93 Geo. L.J.487 (2005).
322. Michael A. Tunks, Diplomats or Defendants? Defining the Future of Head-of-State Immunity,52 Duke L.J.651 (2002).
323. Michael C. Small, Enforcing International Human Rights Law in Federal Courts:The Alien Tort Statute and the Separation of Powers,74 Geo. L.J.163 (1985).
324. Michael D. Ramsey, Escaping "International Comity, "83 Iowa L. Rev.893 (1998).
325. Michael D. Ramsey, Multinational Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act: Some Structural Concerns,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.361 (2001).
326. Michael Danaher, Torture as a Tort in Violation of International Law:Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,33 Stan. L.Rev.353 (1981).
327. Michael Dwayne Pettyjohn, "Bring Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Egregious Torts Yearning to See Green":The Alien Tort Statute,10 Tulsa J. Comp.& Int'l L.513 (2003).
328. Michael E. Tigar, Judicial Power, the "Political Question Doctrine, "and Foreign Relations,17 UCLA L. Rev.1135 (1970).
329. Michael G. Collins, The Federal Courts, the First Congress, and the Non-Settlement of 1789,91 Va. L. Rev.1515 (2005).
330. Michael Giuseppe Congiu, From Rights to Remedies:the Alien Tort Claims Act, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the State Action Requirement,2 S.C. J. Int'l L.& Bus.127 (2005-2006).
331. Michael Goldsmith & Vicki Rinne, Civil RICO, Foreign Defendants, and "ET",73 Minn. L. Rev.1023(1989).
332. Michael J. Bazyler, Abolishing the Act of State Doctrine,134 U. Pa. L. Rev.325 (1986).
333. Michael J. Bazyler, Nuremberg in America:Litigating the Holocaust in United States Courts,34 U. Rich. L. Rev.1 (2000).
334. Michael J. Bazyler, The Holocaust Restitution Movement In Comparative Perspective, 20 Berkeley J. Int'l. L.11 (2002).
335. Michael J. Glennon, Process Versus Policy in Foreign Relations:Foreign Affairs and the United States Constitution,95 Mich. L. Rev.1542 (1997).
336. Michael J. Glennon, Raising The Paquete Habana:Is Violation of Customary International Law by the Executive Unconstitutional?,80 Nw. U. L. Rev.321 (1985).
337. Michael T. Morley, The Law of Nations and the Offenses Clause of the Constitution:A Defense of Federalism,112 Yale L.J.109 (2002).
338. Michele Brandt, Doe v. Karadzic:Redressing Non-State Acts of Gender-Specific Abuse under the Alien Tort Statute,79 Minn. L. Rev.1413 (1995).
339. Michelle M. Meloni, The Alien Tort Claims Act:A Mechanism for Alien Plaintiffs to Hold Their Foreign Nations Liable for Tortious Conduct,5 J. Int'l L.& Prac.349 (1996).
340. Nancy Morisseau, Seen But Not Heard:Child Soldiers Suing Gun Manufacturers under The Alien Tort Claims Act,89 Cornell L. Rev.1263 (2004).
341. Nancy S. Williams, Political Question or Judicial Query:An Examination of the Modern Doctrine and Its Inapplicability to Human Rights Mass Tort Litigation,28 Pepp. L. Rev. 849 (2001).
342. Naomi Roht-Arriaza, The Pinochet Precedent and Universal Jurisdiction,35 New Eng. L. Rev.311 (2001).
343. Natalie L. Bridgeman, Human Rights Litigation under ATCA as a Proxy for Environmental Claims,6 YALE HUM. RTS.& DEV. L.J.1 (2003).
344. Nathan Levy, Jr., Mense Process in Personal Actions at Common Law and the Power Doctrine,78 Yale L.J.52(1968).
345. Noah Benjamin Novogrodsky, Immunity for Torture:Lessons from Bouzari v. Iran,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.939 (2007).
346. Note, A Legal Lohengrin:Federal Jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, 14 U.S.F.L.Rev.105(1979).
347. Note, Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation:Adjudicating on "Foreign Territory",30 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev.101 (2006).
348. Note, An Objection to Sosa—And to the New Federal Common Law,119 Harv. L. Rev. 2077 (2006).
349. Note, Enforcement of International Human Rights in the Federal Courts after Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,67 Va.L.Rev.1379 (1981).
350. Note, Forum Non Conveniens:Whose Convenience and Justice?,86Texas Law Review 1079(2008).
351. Note, International Law and Human Rights-Alien Tort Claims under 28 U.S.C.§1350, 66 Minn.L.Rev.357(1982).
352. Note, Judicial Enforcement of International Law against the Federal and State Governments,104 Harv. L. Rev.1269(1991).
353. Note, Limiting the Scope of Federal Jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute,24 Va.J. Int'l L.941(1984).
354. Note, Remedying Foreign Repression through U.S. Courts:Forti v. Suarez-Mason and the Recognition of Torture, Summary Execution, Prolonged Arbitrary Detention and Causing Disappearance As Cognizable Claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act,20 N.Y.U.J.Int'l L.& Pol. 405 (1988).
355. Note, Separation of Powers and Adjudication of Human Rights Claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act,60 Wash.L.Rev.697 (1985).
356. Note, Terrorism as a Tort in Violation of the Law of Nations,6 Fordham & Int'l L.J.236 (1982).
357. Note, The Alien Tort Statute, Forum Shopping, and the Exhaustion of Local Remedies Norm,121 Harv. L. Rev.2110 (2008).
358. Note, The Alien Tort Statute:Implications of Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,15 Ga.L.Rev.504 (1981).
359. Note, The Law of Nations in the District Courts:Federal Jurisdiction over Tort Claims by Aliens under 28 U.S.C. § 1350,1 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.71(1977).
360. Owen M. Fiss, The Forms of Justice,93 Harv. L. Rev.1(1979).
361. P.K. Menon, The International Personality of Individuals in International Law:A Broadening of the Traditional Doctrine,1 J. Transnat'l L.& Pol'y 151 (1992).
362. Pamala Brondos, International Law--The Use of the Torture Victim Protection Act as an Enforcement Mechanism,32 Land & Water L. Rev.221 (1997)
363. Pamela J. Stephens, Spinning Sosa:Federal Common Law, the Alien Tort Statute, and Judicial Restraint,25 B.U. Int'l L.J.1 (2007).
364. Paola Gaeta, Ratione Materiae Immunities of Former Heads of State and International Crimes:The Hissene Habre Case,1 J. Int'l Crim. Just.186 (2003).
365. Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89 (2005).
366. Patrick J. Borchers, The Death of the Constitutional Law of Personal Jurisdiction:From Pennoyer to Burnham and Back Again,24 U.C. Davis L. Rev.19(1990).
367. Paul B. Stephan, Export/Import:American Civil Justice in a Global Context:A Becoming Modesty--U.S. Litigation in the Mirror of International Law,52 DePaul L. Rev.627 (2002).
368. Paul L. Hoffman & Daniel Zaheer, The Rules of the Road:Federal Common Law and Aiding and Abetting under the Alien Tort Claims Act,26 Loyola L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.47 (2003).
369. Paul L. Hoffman, The "Blank Stare Phenomenon":Proving Customary International Law in U.S. Courts,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.181(1995/1996).
370. Paul R. Dubinsky, Human Rights Law Meets Private Law Harmonization:The Coming Conflict,30 YALE J. INT'L L.211 (2005).
371. Pauline Abadie, A New Story of David and Goliath:The Alien Tort Claims Act Gives Victims of Environmental Injustice in the Developing World a Viable Claim against Multinational Corporations,34 Golden Gate U. L. Rev.745 (2004).
372. Peggy Rodgers Kalas, The Implications of Jota v. Texaco and the Accountability of Transnational Corporations,12 PACE INT'L L. REV.47 (2000).
373. Peter E. Bass, Ex-Head of State Immunity:A Proposed Statutory Tool of Foreign Policy, 97 Yale L.J.299 (1987).
374. Peter Little, What Are the Consequences of the Alien Tort Claims Act (US) on Mining and Petroleum Corporation Operating in the Third World States in the Asian Pacific Region,23 Australian Resources and Energy Law Journal 63 (2004).
375. Peter Schuyler Black, Kadic v. Karadzic:Misinterpreting the Alien Tort Claims Act,31 Ga. L. Rev.281 (1996).
376. Philip A. Scarborough, Rules of Decision for Issues Arising under The Alien Tort Statute, 107 Colum. L. Rev.457 (2007).
377. Philip C. Jessup, The Doctrine of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins Applied to International Law,33 Am J. Int'l L.740 (1939).
378. Philip Mariani, Assessing the Proper Relationship Between the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act,156 U. Pa. L. Rev.1383 (2008).
379. Phillip J. Blumberg, American Law in a Time of Global Interdependence:U.S. National Reports to the XVIth International Congress of Comparative Law:Section Ⅳ Asserting Human Rights against Multinational Corporations under United States Law:Conceptual and Procedural Problems,50 Am. J. Comp. L.493 (2002).
380. Pia Zara Thadhani, Regulating Corporate Human Rights Abuses:Is Unocal the Answer?, 42 WM.& MARY L. REV.619 (2000).
381. Quincy Wright, National Courts and Human Rights:The Fujii Case,45 Am. J. Int'L. L. 62(1951).
382. Racheal E. Schwartz, "And Tomorrow? "The Torture Victim Protection Act,11 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L.271 (1994).
383. Rachel Bart, Using the American Courts to Prosecute International Crimes against Women:Jane Doe v. Radovan Karadzic and S. Kadic v. Radovan Karadzic,3 Cardozo Women's L.J.467 (1996).
384. Rachel E. Barkow, More Supreme than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy,102 Colum. L. Rev.237 (2002).
385. Ralph G. Steinhardt, Fulfilling the Promise of Filartiga:Litigating Human Rights Claims against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos,20 Yale J. Int'l L.65 (1995).
386. Ralph G. Steinhardt, Laying One Bankrupt Critique to Rest:Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Future of International Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts,57 Vand. L. Rev.2241 (2004).
387. Rene Provost, Judging in Splendid Isolation,56 Am. J. Comp. L.125 (2008).
388. Rhonda V. Magee, The Master's Tools, From the Bottom Up:Responses to African-American Reparations Theory in Mainstream and Outsider Remedies Discourse,79 Va. L. Rev.863 (1993).
389. Richard A. Conn, Jr., The Alien Tort Statute:International Law as the Rule of Decision, 49 Fordham L. Rev.874 (1981).
390. Richard Azarnia, Tort Law in France:A Cultural and Comparative Overview,13 Wis. Int'l L.J.471 (1995).
391. Richard B. Cappalli & Claudio Consolo, Class Actions for Continental Europe? A Preliminary Inquiry,6 Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J.217 (1992).
392. Richard B. Lillich, Damages for Gross Violations of International Human Rights Awarded by US Courts,15 Hum. Rts. Q.207 (1993).
393. Richard B. Lillich, Invoking International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts,54 U. Cin. L. Rev.367(1985).
394. Richard B. Lillich, The Growing Importance of Customary International Human Rights Law,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.1(1996).
395. Richard Falk, Re-framing International Law for the 21st Century:Re-framing the Legal Agenda of World Order in the Course of a Turbulent Century,9 Transnat'l L.& Contemp. Probs. 451 (1999).
396. Richard Garnett, Access to Justice; Right to Fair Trial; State Immunity. State Immunity Triumphs in the European Court of Human Rights,118 Law Quarterly Review 367 (2002).
397. Richard H.M. Maloy & Desamparados M. Nisi, A Message to the Supreme Court:Next Time You Get a Chance, Please Look at Hilton v. Guyot; We Think it Needs Repairing,5 J. Int'l Legal Stud.1(1999).
398. Richard Henry Seamon, U.S. Torture as A Tort,37 Rutgers L.J.715 (2006).
399. Richard Meeran, Accountability of Transnationals for Human Rights Abuses,148 New L.J.1686(1998).
400. Richard Pierre Claude, The Case ofJoelito Fildrtiga and the Clinic of Hope,5 Hum. Rts. Q.275(1983).
401. Richard S. Frase, Comparative Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: How Do the French Do It, How Can We Find Out, and Why Should We Care?,78 Calif. L. Rev. 539(1990).
402. Richard T. Marooney & George S. Branch, Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act:United States Court Jurisdiction over Torts,12 Currents:Int'l Trade L.J.3 (2003).
403. Robert Braucher, The Inconvenient Federal Forum,60 Harv. L. Rev.908 (1947).
404. Robert F. Nagel, Political Law, Legalistic Politics:A Recent History of the Political Question Doctrine,56 U. Chi. L. Rev.643 (1989).
405. Robert J. Delahunty & John Choon Yoo, Against Foreign Law,29 Harv. J.L.& Pub. Pol'y 291(2005).
406. Robert J. Peterson, Political Realism and the Judicial Imposition of International Secondary Sanctions:Possibilities from John Doe v. Unocal and the Alien Tort Claims Act,5 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable 277 (1998).
407. Robert L. Rabin, Lawyers for Social Change:Perspectives on Public Interest Law,28 Stan. L. Rev.207 (1976).
408. Roger P. Alford, Arbitrating Human Rights,83 Notre Dame L. Rev.505 (2008).
409. Roger P. Alford, Misusing International Sources To Interpret the Constitution,98 Am. J. Int'l L.57 (2004).
410. Roger S. Clark, Offenses of International Concern:Multilateral State Treaty Practice in the Forty Years Since Nuremberg,57 Nordic J. Int'l L.49 (1988).
411. Roger S. Clark, Steven Spielberg's Amistad and Other Things I Have Thought About in the Past Forty Years:International (Criminal) Law, Conflict of Laws, Insurance and Slavery,30 Rutgers L.J.371(1999).
412. Ronald G. Haron, Alien Tort Claims Act-Act of State Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Human Rights Claims Brought against Former Philippine President Residing in the Unites States, 27 Va. J. Int'l L.434 (1987).
413. Ronen Shamir, Between Self-Regulation and the Alien Tort Claims Act:On the Contested Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility,38 Law & Society Review 635 (2004).
414. Rosemary Nagy, Post-Apartheid Justice:Can Cosmopolitanism and Nation-Building Be Reconciled?,40 Law & Soc'y Rev.623 (2006).
415. Russell A Miller, Much Ado, But Nothing:California's New World War II Slave Labor Law Statute of Limitations and Its Place in the Increasingly Futile Effort to Obtain Compensations from American Courts,23 Whittier L. Rev.121 (2001).
416. Russell G. Donaldson, Construction and Application of Alien Tort Statute, Providing for Federal Jurisdiction over Alien's Action for Tort Committed in Violation of Law of Nations or Treaty of the United States,116 A.L.R. Fed.387 (2003).
417. Russell J. Weintraub, Establishing Incredible Events by Credible Evidence:Civil Suits for Atrocities that Violate International Law,62 Brook. L. Rev.753 (1996).
418. Russell J. Weintraub, International Litigation and Forum Non Conveniens,29 Tex. Int'l L.J.321 (1994).
419. Ryan Goodman & Derek P. Jinks, Filartiga's Firm Footing:International Human Rights and Federal Common Law,66 Fordham L. Rev.463 (1997).
420. Ryan Micallef, Liability Laundering and Denial of Justice Conflicts between the Alien Tort Statute and the Government Contractor Defense,71 Brook. L. Rev.1375 (2006).
421. Saad Gul, The Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away:An Assessment of Corporate Liability under § 1350,109 W. Va. L. Rev.379 (2007).
422. Sabine Pittrof, Compensation Claims for Human Rights Breaches Committed by German Armed Forces Abroad During the Second World War:Federal Court of Justice Hands Down Decision in the Distomo Case,5 German LJ 15 (2004).
423. Salvatore Zappala, Do Heads of State in Office Enjoy Immunity from Jurisdiction for International Crimes? The Ghaddafi Case Before the French Cour de Cassation,12 Eur. J. Int'l L. 595(2001).
424. Samuel A. Khalil, The Alien Tort Claims Act and Section 1983:The Improper Use of Domestic Laws to "Create "and "Define"International Liability for Multi-National Corporations, 31 Hofstra L. Rev.207 (2002).
425. Sandra Coliver, Bringing Human Rights Abusers to Justice in U.S. Courts:Carrying Forward the Legacy of the Nuremberg Trials,27 Cardozo L. Rev.1689 (2006).
426. Sandra Coliver, Jennie Green & Paul L. Hoffman, Holding Human Rights Violators Accountable by Using International Law in U.S. Courts:Advocacy Efforts and Complementary Strategies,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.169 (2005).
427. Sarah C. Rispin, Implications of Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium on the Pinochet Precedent:A Setback For International Human Rights Litigation?,3 Chi. J. Int'l L.527 (2002).
428. Sarah H. Cleveland, Global Labor Rights and the Alien Tort Claims Act,76 Tex. L. Rev. 1533(1998).
429. Sarah H. Cleveland, Our International Constitution,31 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2006).
430. Sarah H. Cleveland, The Alien Tort Statute, Civil Society, and Corporate Responsibility, 56 RUTGERS L. REV.971 (2004).
431. Sarah M. Hall, Multinational Corporations'Post-Unocal Liabilities for Violations of International Law,34 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev.401 (2002).
432. Scott A. Richman, Siderman De Blake v. Republic of Argentina:Can the FSIA Grant Immunity for Violations of Jus Cogens Norms?,19 Brook. J. Int'L L.967 (1993).
433. Scott A. Rosenberg, The Theory of Protective Jurisdiction,57 N.Y.U. L. Rev.933 (1982).
434. Scott Holwick, Transnational Corporate Behavior and Its Disparate and Unjust Effects on the Indigenous Cultures and the Environment of Developing Nations,11 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L.& POL'Y 183 (2000).
435. Sean D. Murphy, The ELSI Case:An Investment Dispute at the International Court of Justice,16 Yale J. Int'l L.391 (1991).
436. Shanaira Udwadia, Corporate Responsibility For International Human Rights Violations, 13 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J.359 (2004).
437. Sharon K. Hom, Re-positioning Human Rights Discourse on "Asian"Perspectives,3 Buff. J. Int'l L.209(1996).
438. Shaw W. Scott, Taking Riggs Seriously:the ATCA Case against A Corporate Abettor of Pinochet Atrocities,89 Minn. L. Rev.1497 (2005).
439. Shirin Sinnar, Book Torture as Tort:Comparative Perspectives on the Development of Transnational Human Rights Litigation,38 Stan. J. Int'l L.331 (2002).
440. Shobha Varughese George, Head-of-State Immunity in the United States Courts:Still Confused after All These Years,64 Fordham L. Rev.1051 (1995).
441. Sir Arthur Watts, The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers,242 Recueil Des Cours 13 (1994-Ⅲ).
442. Sonia Jimenez, The Alien Tort Claims Act:A Tool for Repairing Ethically Challenged U.S. Corporations,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.721 (2004).
443. Spencer Weber Waller, The Twilight of Comity,38 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.563 (2000).
444. Stacy Humes-Schulz, Limiting Sovereign Immunity in the Age of Human Rights,21 Harv. Hum. Rts.J.105(2008).
445. Steffanie Bevington, Requiring Exhaustion:An International Law Perspective of the Alien Tort Claims Act in Sarei v. Rio Tinto,38 Golden Gate U. L. Rev.461 (2008).
446. Steffen Wirth, Immunity for Core Crimes? The ICJ's Judgment in the Congo v Belgium Case,13 Eur. J. Int'l L.877 (2002).
447. Stephen G. Wood & Brett Scharffs, Applicability of Human Rights Standards to Private Corporations:An American Perspective,50 Am. J. Comp. L.531 (2002).
448. Stephen Reisenfeld, The Doctrine of Self-Executing Treaties and U.S. v. Postal:Win at Any Price?,74 Am. J. Int'l L.892 (1980).
449. Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, The Exhaustion of Local Remedies Rule and Forum Non Conveniens in International Litigation in U.S. Courts,13 Cornell Int'l L.J.351 (1980).
450. Steve Kuan, Alien Tort Claims Act--Classifying Peacetime Rape as an International Human Rights Violation,22 Hous. J. Int'l L.451 (2000).
451. Steven Fogelson, The Nuremberg Legacy:An Unfulfilled Promise,63 S. Cal. L. Rev. 833(1990).
452. Steven M. Schneebaum, Human Rights in the United States Courts:The Role of Lawyers,55 WASH & LEE L. REV.737(1998).
453. Steven R. Ratner, Belgium's War Crimes Statute:A Postmortem,97 AJIL 888 (2003).
454. Steven R.Ratner, Corporations and Human Rights:A Theory of Legal Responsibility, 111 Yale L.J.443 (2001).
455. Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law:Part Two,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1231 (1985).
456. Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev. 819(1989).
457. Sung Teak Kim, Adjudicating Violations of International Law:Defining the Scope of Jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute--Trajano v. Marcos,27 Cornell Int'l L. J.387 (1994).
458. Symeon C. Symeonides, Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2002:Sixteenth Annual Survey,51 Am. J. Comp. L.1 (2003).
459. Tarek F. Maassarani, Four Counts of Corporate Complicity:Alternative Forms of Accomplice Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act,38 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.39 (2005-2006).
460. Terry Collingsworth, "Corporate Social Responsibility "Unmasked,16 ST. THOMAS L. REV.669 (2004).
461. Terry Collingsworth, the Key Human Rights Challenge:Developing Enforcement Mechanisms,15 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.183 (2002).
462. Thomas E. Vanderbloemen, Assessing the Potential Impact of the Proposed Hague Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention on Human Rights Litigation in the United States,50 Duke L.J.917(2000).
463. Thomas H. Lee, The Safe-Conduct Theory of the Alien Tort Statute,106 Colum. L. Rev. 830 (2006).
464. Tim Kline, A Door Ajar or a Floodgate? Corporate Liability after Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,94 Ky. L.J.691 (2005-2006).
465. Tina Garmon, Domesticating International Corporate Responsibility:Holding Private Military Firms Accountable under the Alien Tort Claims Act,11 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L.325 (2003).
466. Tom Lininger, Overcoming Immunity Defenses to Human Rights Suits in the United States,7 Harv. Hum. Rights J.177 (1994).
467. Tom R. Tyler & Hulda Thorisdottir, A Psychological Perspective on Compensation for Harm:Examining the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund,53 DePaul L. Rev.355 (2003).
468. Toni M. Massaro, Empathy, Legal Storytelling, and the Rule of Law:New Words, Old Wounds,87 Mich. L. Rev.2099 (1989).
469. Tracy Bishop Holton, Cause of Action to Recover Civil Damages Pursuant to the Law of Nations and/or Customary International Law,21 Causes of Action 2d 327 (2005).
470. Trevor C.W. Farrow, Globalization, International Human Rights, and Civil Procedure, 41 Alberta L. Rev.671 (2003).
471. Tsuneo Matsumoto, Beyond Compensation,15 U. Haw. L. Rev.577 (1993).
472. Ved P. Nanda, Human Rights and Sovereign and Individual Immunities (Sovereign Immunity, Act of State, Head of State Immunity and Diplomatic Immunity)-Some Reflections,5 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L.467 (1999).
473. Vicki C. Jackson, Constitutional Comparisons:Convergence, Resistance, Engagement, 119 Harv. L. Rev.109 (2006).
474. Victor A. Pappalardo, Isolationism or Deference? the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Separation of Powers,10 Mich. J. Int'l L.886 (1989).
475. Viktor Mayer-Schonberger & Teree E. Foster, More Speech, Less Noise:"Amplifying Content-Based Speech Regulations through Binding International Law",18 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.59 (1995).
476. Virginia A. Melvin, Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic:Redefining the Alien Tort Claims Act,70 Minn. L. Rev.211 (1985).
477. Virginia Monken Gomez, The Sosa Standard:What Does It Mean For Future ATS Litigation? 33 PEPP. L. REV.469 (2006).
478. Wayne A. Logan, The Ex Post Facto Clause and the Jurisprudence of Punishment,35 Am. Crim. L. Rev.1261 (1998).
479. Werner Pfennigstorf, The European Experience with Attorney Fee Shifting, 47 Law & Contemp. Probs.37 (1984).
480. William H. Meyer, Human Rights and MNCs:Theory Versus Quantitative Analysis,18 Hum. Rts.Q.368 (1996).
481. William J. Aceves, Actio Popularis? The Class Action in International Law,2003 U. Chi. Legal F.353 (2003).
482. William J. Aceves, Affirming the Law of Nations in U.S. Courts:the Karadzic Litigation and the Yugoslav Conflict,14 Berkeley J. Int'1 L.137 (1996).
483. William J. Aceves, Relative Normativity:Challenging the Sovereignty Norm through Human Rights Litigation,25 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.261 (2002).
484. William R. Casto, Correspondence,83 Am. J. Int'l L.901 (1989).
485. William R. Casto, Regulating the New Privateers of the Twenty-First Century,37 Rutgers L.J.671 (2006).
486. William R. Casto, The Federal Courts'Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467 (1986).
487. William R. Casto, The First Congress's Understanding of its Authority over the Federal Courts'Jurisdiction,26 B.C. L. Rev.1101 (1985).
488. William S. Dodge, Bridging Erie:Customary International Law in the U.S. Legal System after Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,12 Tulsa J. Comp.& Int'l L.87 (2004).
489. William S. Dodge, Congressional Control of Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction: Why the Original Jurisdiction Clause Suggests an "Essential Role, "100 Yale L.J.1013 (1991).
490. William S. Dodge, The Constitutionality of the Alien Tort Statute:Some Observations on Text and Context,42 Va. J. Int'l L.687 (2002).
491. William S. Dodge, The Historical Origins of the Alien Tort Statue:A Response to the "Originalists, "19 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.221 (1996).
492. William S. Dodge, Which Torts in Violation of the Law of Nations?,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.351 (2001).
493. William Webster, Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. v. Argentine Republic:Denying Sovereign Immunity to Violators of International Law,39 Hastings L.J.1109(1988).
494. Gabriel M. Wilner, Filartiga v. Pena-Irala:Comments on Sources of Human Rights Law and Means of Redress for Violations of Human Rights,11 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.317 (1981).
495. Winston P. Nagan & Lucie Atkins, The International Law of Torture:From Universal Proscription to Effective Application and Enforcement,14 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.87 (2001).
496. Wythe Holt, "To Establish Justice":Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts,1989 Duke L.J.1421 (1989).
497. Xiaodong Yang, State Immunity in the European Court of Human Rights:Reaffirmations and Misconceptions,74 BYBIL 333 (2003).
498. Yoav Gery, The Torture Victim Protection Act:Raising Issues of Legitimacy,26 Geo. Wash. J. Int'l L.& Econ.597(1993).
499. Yolanda S. Wu, Genocidal Rape in Bosnia:Redress in United States Courts under the Alien Tort Claims Act,4 UCLA Women's L.J.101(1993).
500. Zachary S. Kahn, How Far is the 'Door Ajar'? Whether Rape as Torture is Actionable under the Alien Tort Statute after Sosa,12 Cardozo J.L.& Gender 685 (2006).
② See Edward A. Amley, Jr., Sue and Be Recognized:Collecting § 1350 Judgments Abroad,107 Yale L.J.2177 (1998).
① See KeyCite_28_USCA_S_1350_2_1_09_2140.
② See William J. Aceves, The Anatomy of Torture:A Documentary History ofFilartiga v Pena Irala, Martinus Nijhoff,2007.
③ See Beth Stephens & Michael Ratner, International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts, Transnational Publishers Inc.,1996.2008年,该书出了修订版。See Beth Stephens, Judith Chomsky, Jennifer Green, Paul Hoffman, Michael Ratner, International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2008.
④ See Craig Scott (eds.), Torture as Tort:Comparative Perspectives on the Development of Transnational Human Rights Litigation, Hart Publishing,2001.
⑤ See Jeffrey Davis, Justice across Borders:the Struggle for Human Rights in U.S. Courts, Cambridge University Press,2008.
⑥ See Ralph G Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999.
⑦ See Chandra Lekha Sriram, Globalizing Justice for Mass Atrocities, Routledge,2005.
①英文原文是"the district courts... shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."
②英文原文是"The district courts shall have jurisdiction... [o]f all suits brought by any alien for a tort 'only' in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States."
① William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev,467(1986).
② Act of March 3d,1911, ch.231,§24,36 Stat.1087,1093英文原文是"The district courts shall have jurisdiction... [o]f all suits brought by any alien for a tort only, in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States."
③ 62 Stat.934(1948).英文原文是"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of 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."
④ Pub. L. No.102-256,106 Stat.73,73(1992).
⑤ Torture Victim Protection Act, Pub. L. No.102-256,106 Stat.73 (1992) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 1350(2000)).
① Rasul v. Bush,542 U.S.466 (2004).
② 126 S.Ct.2749 (2006).
③ Pub. L. No.109-366,120 Stat.2600 (codified at 10 U.S.C.§§948a to 950w & 42 U.S.C.§2000dd-0).
④ See Amnesty International, United States of America, Military Commissions Act of 2006-Turning Bad Policy Into Bad Law, http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511542006 (last visited April 19,2008).
⑤ Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No.109-366,120 Stat. 2600,2633-2634, §6(b).
⑥ Boumediene v. Bush,128 S.Ct.2229 (2008).
① Sosa v.Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct. 2739 (2004).
② Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461,464(1989).
③ See William R. Casto, The First Congress's Understanding of its Authority over the Federal Courts'Jurisdiction, 26 B.C. L. Rev.1101,1114 (1985); see also Wythe Holt, "To Establish Justice":Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts,1989 Duke L.J.1421,1458; Kevin R. Johnson, Why Alienage Jurisdiction? Historical Foundations and Modern Justifications for Federal Jurisdiction over Disputes Involving Noncitizens, 21 Yale J. Int'l L.1,6-8(1996).
④ William S. Dodge, The Historical Origins of the Alien Tort Statue:A Response to the "Originalists," 19 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.221(1996).
① Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461,477 (1989); William R. Casto, The Federal Courts'Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,490-491 (1986); Scott A. Rosenberg, The Theory of Protective Jurisdiction,57 N.Y.U. L. Rev.933,1017(1982).
② Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461,477(1989).
③ William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,499 n.179 (1986).
④ William R. Casto, Correspondence,83 Am. J. Int'l L.901,903 (1989).
⑤ William S. Dodge, The Historical Origins of the Alien Tort Statue:A Response to the "Originalists," 19 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.221(1996).
⑥ See Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction over International Law Claims:Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1,24-26 (1985); William R. Casto, The Federal Courts'Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,490-491 (1986);
⑦ Respublicav. De Longchamps,1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 111 (1784).
⑧根据Casto教授的研究,当时很多杰出的政治家在相互通信时经常讨论Marbois事件。See William R. Casto,
The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,492 n.143 (1986).
① See Aric K. Short, Is the Alien Tort Statute Sacrosanct? Retaining Forum Non Conveniens in Human Rights
Litigation,33 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1001,1008-1011 (2001).
② Respublica v. De Longchamps,1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 111,116 (1784).
③ William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,492 n.144 (1986).
④ William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,494 (1986).
⑤ Jorge Cicero, The Alien Tort Statute of 1789 as a Remedy for Injuries to Foreign Nationals Hosted by the United States,23 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.315,336 (1992).
⑥ William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,494(1986).
⑦ See Curtis Bradley, The Alien Tort Statute and Article Ⅲ,42 Va J. Int'L L.586,641-42 (2002).
⑧ Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461(1989).
① Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,825 (1989).
② Respublicav. De Longchamps,1 U.S. (1 Dall.)111,116(1784).
③ See Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,842-849 (1989); Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law:Part One,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1003,1042-53 (1985)
④ Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461,479 (1989).
⑤ See generally Edwin D. Dickinson, Is the Crime of Piracy Obsolete?,38 Harv. L. Rev.334 (1925).
① See Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction Over International Law Claims:Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1 (1985).
② See Joseph Modeste Sweeney, A Tort Only in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 445,465-475 (1995); see also Le Caux v. Eden,99 Eng. Rep.375 (K.B.1781).
③ See Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,842-849 (1989); Stewart Jay, Origins ofFederal Common Law:Part One,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1003,1039-1111(1985).
④ 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812).
⑤ Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law:Part Two,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1231,1276 (1985).
⑥有学者曾经对1789年《司法法》与联邦法院的创立背景、埃尔斯沃思提出的方案、弗吉尼亚方案以及各方的妥协等都有详细研究,比较有参考价值。See Wythe Holt, "To Establish Justice"':Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts,1989 Duke L.J.1421 (1989).
① The Federalist No.3 (John Jay), http://thomas. loc. gov/home/histdox/fedpaper. txt (last visited December 4,2008).
② See Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L.461,479 (1989).
③ See William S. Dodge, Congressional Control of Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction:Why the Original Jurisdiction Clause Suggests an "Essential Role, " 100 Yale L.J.1013,1017 n.19 (1991).
④ William S. Dodge, The Historical Origins of the Alien Tort Statue:A Response to the "Originalists, "19 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.221 (1996).
⑤ The Federalist No.80 (Alexander Hamilton), http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpaper.txt (last visited December 4,2008).
⑥ See Wythe Holt, "To Establish Justice ":Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts,1989 Duke L.J.1421,1440-1453 (1989); see also William R. Casto, The First Congress's Understanding of Its Authority over the Federal Courts' Jurisdiction,26 B.C. L. Rev.1101,1111-1113 (1985); Kevin R. Johnson, Why Alienage Jurisdiction? Historical Foundations and Modern Justifications for Federal Jurisdiction over Disputes Involving Noncitizens,21 Yale J. Int'l L.1,6-8 (1996); Dunlop v. Ball,6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 180 (1804).
⑦ See William R. Casto, The First Congress's Understanding of Its Authority Over the Federal Courts' Jurisdiction,26 B.C. L. Rev.1101,1114 (1985).
⑧关于该事件,参见本文第二章第二节第四部分的论述。
⑨ William R. Casto, The Federal Courts'Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,497 & n.168 (1986).
① See 1 Op. Att'y Gen.57,59 (1795).
② Moxon v. The Fanny,17 F. Cas.942 (D. Pa.1793) (No.9,895).
③ Bolchos v. Darrell,3 F. Cas.810 (D.S.C.1795) (No.1,607).
④ Bruce A. Barenblat, Torture as a Violation of the Law of Nations:An Analysis of28 U.S. C. § 1350,16 Tex. Int'l L.J.117,124(1981).
①Moxon v.The Fanny,17.F. Cas.942(D.Pa.1793)(No.9,895).
②3 F. Cas.810,811(D.S.C.1795)(No.1607).
③O'Reilly de Camara v.Brooke,209 U.S.45(1908).
① Pauling v. McElroy,164 F.Supp.390 (D.D.C.1958).
② Khedivial Line, S.A.E. v. Seafarers'Intern. Union,278 F.2d 49 (2d Cir.1960).
③ 195 F.Supp.857 (D. Md.1961).
④ 225 F. Supp.292 (E.D. Pa.1963).
①255 F. Supp.919 (S.D.N.Y.1966).
②Valanga v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,259 F. Supp.324 (E.D. Pa.1966).
③255 F.Supp.919 (S.D.N.Y.1966).
④Abiodun v.Martin Oil Serv., Inc.,475 F.2d 142 (7th Cir.,1973)
⑤Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger,528 F.2d 1194,1201 n.13 (9th Cir.1975).
⑥Huynh Thi Anh v. Levi,586 F.2d 625,630 (6th Cir.1978).
① IIT v. Vencap, Ltd.,519 F.2d 1001 (2d Cir.1975).
② Dreyfus v. Van Fink,534 F.2d 24 (2d Cir.1976).
③ Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,884 (2d Cir.1980).
④ Benjamins v. British European Airways,572 F.2d 913 (2d Cir.1978).
⑤ 225 F. Supp.292 (E.D. Pa.1963).
⑥ Ivan Poullaos, The Nature of the Beast:Using the Alien Tort Claims Act to Combat International Human Rights Violations,80 Wash. U. L.Q.327,333 (2003).
⑦ Russell G. Donaldson, Construction and Application of Alien Tort Statute, Providing for Federal Jurisdiction over Alien's Action for Tort Committed in Violation of Law of Nations or Treaty of the United States,116 A.L.R. Fed.387 (2003).
① 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.1980).
②有学者对该案的前因后果作了详细描述。See Richard Pierre Claude, The Case ofJoelito Fildrtiga and the Clinic of Hope,5 Hum. Rts. Q.275 (1983)该案判决作出后,曾经有学者专门发表文章来评论该案。See, e.g., Jeffrey M. Blum & Ralph G. Steinhardt, Federal Jurisdiction over International Human Rights Claims:The Alien Tort Claims Act after Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,22 HARV. INTL L. J.53 (1981); Symposium:Federal Jurisdiction, Human Rights and the Law of Nations:Essays on Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,11 GA. J. INTL & COMP. L.305 (1981); Michael Danaher, Case Comment, Torture as a Tort in Violation of International Law:Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,33 STAN. L. REV.353 (1981); Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Customary International Law as Federal Common Law:A Critique of the Modern Position,110 Harv. L. Rev.815,832-34(1997); Deborah R. Gerstel & Adam G. Segall, Conference Report:Human Rights in American Courts,1 Am. U.J. Int'l. L.& Pol'y 137, 157-60 (1986); Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United States,82 Mich. L. Rev.1555,1560-62 (1984); Richard B. Lillich, The Role of Domestic Courts in Enforcing International Human Rights Law,74 Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc.20,24 (1980); Ralph G. Steinhardt, Fulfilling the Promise of Filartiga:Litigating Human Rights Claims against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos,20 Yale J. Int'l L.65 (1995).
③ 175 U.S.677,700 (1900).
④ See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins,304 U.S.64 (1938).
① 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.1980).这一点,法院吸取了美国政府的意见。See Memorandum for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Fildrtiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.1980) (No.79-6090),1980 WL 340146.
② Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,577 F. Supp.860 (E.D.N.Y.1984).
③ Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,776 (D.C. Cir.1984).
④详细的分析,see Anthony D'Amato, What Does Tel-Oren Tell Lawyers? Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l L.92 (1985). See also Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, pp.105-118.
①有人对Bork法官的意见深表赞同。See Virginia A. Melvin, Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic:Redefining the Alien Tort Claims Act,70 Minn. L. Rev.211 (1985).
② Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2734,2739 (2004).
③ Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,779 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Edwards, J., concurring).
④ Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,823 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Robb, J., concurring).
⑤ Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan,770 F.2d 202 (D.C. Cir.1985).
⑥ 369 U.S.186,217(1962).
⑦ Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan,770 F.2d 202,206-207 (D.C. Cir.1985).
⑧ See Peter Schuyler Black, Kadic v. Karadzic:Misinterpreting the Alien Tort Claims Act,31 Ga.L. Rev.281 (1996).
① In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation (Marcos Ⅰ),978 F.2d 493,502 (9th Cir.1992), cert.denied,508 U.S.972,113 S.Ct. 2960,125 L.Ed.2d 661 (1993).
② Paul v. Avril,812 F. Supp.207,211 (S.D. Fla.1993).
③ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,180 (D. Mass.1995).
④ Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232,237 (2d Cir.1995).
⑤ Doe v. Karadzic,866 F. Supp.734,739 (S.D.N.Y.1994).
① Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232,237 (2d Cir.1995).
② Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232,250 (2d Cir.1995).
③ See William J. Aceves, Affirming the Law of Nations in U.S. Courts:the Karadzic Litigation and the Yugoslav Conflict,14 Berkeley J. Int'l L.137,166-168 (1996).
④ Peter Schuyler Black, Kadic v. Karadzic:Misinterpreting the Alien Tort Claims Act,31 Ga. L. Rev.281(1996).
⑥ See Julian G Ku, The Third Wave:The Alien Tort Statute and the War on Terrorism,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.105, 108 (2005). See generally Anthony D'Amato, What Does Tel-Oren Tell Lawyers? Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l. L.92 (1985).
⑦ See Beth Stevens, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain "The Door is Still Ajar" For Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts,
① U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain,541 U.S.930,124 S.Ct.1627,158 L.Ed.2d 263,72 USLW 3597 (U.S. Mar 19,2004) (NO.03-485).
② Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2734,2768 (2004).
① Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2734,2743-2744 (2004).
② Richard Hermar & Martyn Day, Helping Bush Bushwhack Justice, The Guardian, Apr.4,2004, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/27/usa.humanrights (last visited May 13,2008).
③ 542 U.S.692,739-751 (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring).
① Brief ofAmici Curiae National Foreign Trade Council, et al. at 5, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2739 (2004).
② See generally William R. Casto, The Federal Courts'Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,479-480 (1986).
③ National Foreign Trade Council petition for Writ of Certiorari Amicus Brief in Sosa v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain (Oct.6,2003).
④ In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Human Rights Litigation,25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir.1994).
⑤ Gabriel D. Pinilla, Corporate Liability for Human Rights Violations on Foreign Soil:A Historical and Prospective Analysis of the Alien Tort Claims Controversy,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.687 (2004).
⑥ 517 F.Supp.542 (D.D.C.1981), affd 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir.1984).
⑦ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2739,2755 (2004).
① William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467 (1986).
② The Paquete Habana,175 U.S.677 (1900).
③ Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law§§ 111 & 112 (2003).
④ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,180 (D. Mass.1995); Abebe-Jira v. Negewo,72 F.3d 844,847 (11th Cir. 1996).
⑤ See Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria,461 U.S.480,495 (1983)正如美国联邦最高法院所指出的,美国《宪法》第3条第2款的管辖权比《美国法典》第1331条的联邦问题管辖权要宽泛的多。
⑥ 255 U.S.180,202(1921).
⑦ 463 U.S.1,13(1983).
① Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2739,2757 (2004).
② See William Spiegelberger, The Door is Ajar for Alien Tort suits, But How Far?, available at http:// www.whitecase.ru/articles/alientort.pdf (last visited December 4,2008).
③ See, e.g., Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,816 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Bork, J., concurring); Joseph Modeste Sweeney, A Tort Only in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.445,477 (1995).
④ Davis v. Passman,442 U.S.228,237 (1979) (quoting 1848 N.Y. Laws, ch.379, s 120(2)).
① See Anthony D'Amato, Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l L.92, 95(1985).
② See Anthony D'Amato, Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l L.92, 100(1985).
③ See Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,810 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Bork, J., concurring).
④ See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins,304 U.S.64 (1938); Henry J. Friendly, In Praise of Erie--and of the New Federal Common Law,39 N.Y.U. L. Rev.383,405-422(1964).
⑤ Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino,376 U.S.398,425 (1964); Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United States,82 Mich. L. Rev.1555,1559-60 (1984).
⑥ Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law:Part Two,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1231,1270(1985).
⑦ Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law:Part Two,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1231,1263-1264 (1985).
⑧ Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law:Part Two,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1231,1274-1275 (1985); see, e.g., Respublica v. De Longchamps,1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 111,116 (1784).
⑨ Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United States,82 Mich. L. Rev.1555,1557 (1984).
⑩之后的很多案例都不同意Bork法官的看法。See, e.g., Abebe-Jira v. Negewo,72 F.3d 844,847 (11th Cir. 1996); Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232,236 (2d Cir.1995); Hilao v. Estate of Marcos,25 F.3d 1467,1475 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,115 S. Ct.934 (1995); Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,179 (D. Mass.1995); Paul v. Avril,812 F. Supp.207,212 (S.D. Fla.1993); Forti v. Suarez-Mason,672 F. Supp.1531,1539 (N.D. Cal.1987).
① See Jaykumar A. Menon, The Alien Tort Statute:Blackstone and Criminal/Tort Law Hybridities,4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 372 (2006).
② See Jaykumar A. Menon, The Alien Tort Statute:Blackstone and Criminal/Tort Law Hybridities,4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 372 (2006).
③ Fortiv. Suarez-Mason,672 F.Supp.1531 (N.D.Cal. Oct 06,1987) (NO. C-87-2058 DLJ), Reconsideration Granted in Part by, Forti v. Suarez-Mason,694 F.Supp.707 (N.D.Cal. Jul 06,1988) (NO. C-87-2058-DLJ).
④ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,725 (2004).
⑤ Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, preface, p. x.
⑥ Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, preface, p. x.
① See generally Lockwood, The United Nations Charter and United States Civil Rights Litigation:1946-1955,69 IOWA L. REV.901 (1984); Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Public Law Litigation,100 Yale L.J.2347, 2360-2361 (1991).
② Christina Whitman, Constitutional Torts,79 Mich. L. Rev.5 (1980).
① Warren Richey, When Can Foreigners Sue in US Courts?, Christian Sci. Monitor, Mar.30,2004, at 2.
② See generally Beth Stephens, Translating Filartiga:A Comparative and International Law Analaysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l L.1,2-4 (2002).
③ Bryan Garner (eds.), Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), West Group,2004, p.903.《美国法学》上的定义与此类似,See 45 Am. Jur.2d International Law § 1 (2005).
④ Bryan Garner (eds.), Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), West Group,2004, p.835.
①对于国际法的名称和定义,王铁崖先生曾经有过细致的探讨,参见王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版,第13-17页。
②王铁崖教授认为,格劳修斯所借用的“万民法”一词指的是“习惯国际法”,以区别于自然国际法,后者是关于国际关系的自然法。参见王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版,第14页。
③参见王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版,第15页。
④ See Michael T. Morley, The Law of Nations and the Offenses Clause of the Constitution:A Defense of Federalism,112 Yale L.J.109 (2002). See also, Genc Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of the Law of Nations in the Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193 (2005).
⑤ See Michael T. Morley, The Law of Nations and the Offenses Clause of the Constitution:A Defense of Federalism,112 Yale L.J.109 (2002). See also, Genc Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of the Law of Nations in the Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193 (2005).
① See Michael T. Morley, The Law of Nations and the Offenses Clause of the Constitution:A Defense of Federalism,112 Yale L. J.109 (2002). See also, Genc Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of the Law of Nations in the Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193 (2005).
① Mortimer Sellers, Ethics and Authority in International Law,12 Emory Int'L L. Rev.1597,1600 (1998) (book review).
② Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, p.52.
③ Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, p.48.
④ See Edwin D. Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States,101 U. Pa. L. Rev.26,27(1952).
⑤ M. W. Janis, Jeremy Bentham and the Fashioning of "International Law," 78 Am. J. Int'l L.405,417(1984); see also Anthony D'Amato, What Does Tel-Oren Tell Lawyers?:Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l L.92,92(1985).
⑥ Anthony D'Amato, What Does Tel-Oren Tell Lawyers?:Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l L.92,94 (1985).
⑦布莱克斯通的著作可以通过网络免费下载,
① Harold J. Berman, World Law,18 Fordham Int'l L.J.1617,1617(1995).
② See Michael T. Morley, The Law of Nations and the Offenses Clause of the Constitution:A Defense of Federalism,112 Yale L.J.109 (2002). See also, Genc Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of the Law of Nations in the Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193 (2005).
③ See Michael T. Morley, The Law of Nations and the Offenses Clause of the Constitution:A Defense of Federalism,112 Yale L.J.109 (2002). See also, Genc Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of the Law of Nations in the Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193,220-221 (2005).
④ See generally Edwin D. Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States,101 U. PA. L. REV.26 (1952).
⑤ Beth Stephens, Federalism and Foreign Affairs:Congress's Power To "Define and Punish... Offenses against The Law Of Nations",42 Wm.& Mary L. Rev.447 (2000).
① The Nereide,13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 388,423 (1815).法院认定：“法院受作为国法一部分的万国法的约束”。See also Gordon A. Christenson, Federal Courts and World Civil Society,6 J. Trans. L.& Pol'y 405,427 (1997).
② Philip C. Jessup, The Doctrine of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins Applied to International Law,33 Am J. Int'l L.740, 742(1939).
③ Harold J. Berman, The Alien Torts Claim Act and The Law of Nations,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.69,75 (2005).
④ Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United States,82 Mich. L. Rev.1555 (1984).
⑤ Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins,304 U.S.64 (1938).
⑥ Philip C. Jessup, The Doctrine of Erie v. Tompkins Applied to International Law,33 Am. J. Int'l L.740,741-7 (1939).
⑦ Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 102 (1987).
⑧ See, e.g., Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819 (1989); Harold H. Sprout, Theories as to the Applicability of International Law in the Federal Courts of the United States, 26 Am. J. Int'l L.280 (1932). Harold Hongju Koh, The 1998 Frankel Lecture:Bringing International Law Home, 35 Hous. L. Rev.623 (1998).
⑨ See Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Customary International Law as Federal Common Law:A Critique of the Modern Position,110 Harv. L. Rev.815 (1997); Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, The Current Illegitimacy of International Human Rights Litigation,66 Fordham L. Rev.319 (1997); Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Federal Courts and the Incorporation of International Law,111 Harv. L. Rev.2260 (1998); Russell J. Weintraub, Establishing Incredible Events by Credible Evidence:Civil Suits for Atrocities that Violate International Law,62 Brook. L. Rev.753 (1996); Arthur M. Weisburd, State Courts, Federal Courts, and International Cases,20 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (1995).
⑩ See, e.g., F. Giba-Matthews, Customary International Law Acts As Federal Common Law in U.S. Courts,20 Fordham Int'l L.J.1839,1845 (1997); Michael J. Glennon, Process Versus Policy in Foreign Relations:Foreign
Affairs and the United States Constitution,95 Mich. L. Rev.1542,1551-53 (1997); Ryan Goodman & Derek P. Jinks, Filartiga's Firm Footing:International Human Rights and Federal Common Law,66 Fordham L. Rev.463, 468-69 (1997); Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Nationalizing International Law:Essay in Honor of Louis Henkin,36 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.121,126 n.23 (1997); Gerald L. Neuman, Sense and Nonsense about Customary International Law:A Response to Professors Bradley and Goldsmith,66 Fordham L. Rev.371,371-73 (1997); Beth Stephens, The Law of Our Land:Customary International Law as Federal Law after Erie,66 Fordham L. Rev.393,396-97 (1997); See Harold Hongju Koh, Is International Law Really State Law"?, 111 Harv. L. Rev.1824 (1998).
① See Ernest A. Young, Sorting Out the Debate over Customary International Law,42 Va. J. Int'l L.365,467-84 (2002).
② 376 U.S.398 (1964).
③ 126 S. Ct.2669 (2006).
④ See Ernest A. Young, Sosa and the Retail Incorporation of International Law,120 Harv. L. Rev. F.28 (2007). See also, See Ernest A. Young, Federal Suits and General Laws:A Comment on Judge Fletcher's Reading of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,93 VA. L. REV. IN BRIEF 33,35 (2007).
⑤ See Arthur M. Weisburd, The Executive Branch and International Law,41 Vand. L. Rev.1205,1239 (1988); Arthur M. Weisburd, State Courts, Federal Courts, and International Cases,20 Yale J. Int'l L.1,38-44 (1995).
⑥ Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United States,82 Mich. L. Rev.1555,1561 (1984).
⑦ 175 U.S.677,700 (1900). See Edwin D. Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States,101 U. PA. L. REV.26,26-27 (1952).
⑧最近几年的代表性判例参见Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd.,125 S.Ct. 2169,2185 (2005).
⑧ See Swift v. Tyson,41 U.S.1 (1842), Huntington v. Attrill,146 U.S.657 (1892), The Paquete Habana,175 U.S. 677(1900).
① See Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,824,834 (1989).
② See Edwin D. Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States,101 U. Pa. L. Rev.26,35(1952); see also William S. Dodge, The Historical Origins of the Alien Tort Statue:A Response to the "Originalists," 19 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.221,232 (1996).
③ Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 111 n.3 (1987).
④ Trans-Continental Inv. Corp., S. A. v. Bank of Commonwealth,500 F.Supp.565 (C.D.Cal.1980).
⑤ See Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp.,343 F.3d 140,160 (2d Cir.2003).
① Aldana v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.,305 F. Supp.2d 1285 (S.D. Fla.2003), affd in part and vacated in part, 416 F.3d 1242(11th Cir.2005).
② See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,963 F. Supp.880 (C.D. Cal.1997), affd in part and rev'd in part sub nom, Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2003), affd en bane,403 F.3d 708 (9th Cir.2005).
③ Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No.96-C8386,2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3293 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.22,2002).
④ 305 F. Supp.2d 1297 (S.D. Fla.2003).
⑤ 124 S.Ct.2755 (2004).
⑥ Sarei v. Rio Tinto Plc.,221 F. Supp:2d 1116 (C.D. Cal.2002).
⑦ Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., No.93-C7527,1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4718 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.11,1994), dismissed,945 F. Supp.625 (S.D.N.Y.1996), remanded sub nom, Jota v. Texaco, Inc.,157 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.1998), mandamus denied,241 F.3d 194 (2d Cir.2001), dismissed,142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001), modified and affd,303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir.2002).
①221 F. Supp.2d 1159 (C.D. Cal.2002).
② See Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,815-816 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Bork, J., concurring).
③ Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney (May 7,1793), quoted in Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,846 (1989)..
④ 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199,281 (1796).
⑤ See United States v. La Jeune Eugenie,26 F. Cas.832,846 (C.C.D. Mass.1822) (No.15,551), overruled on other grounds,23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 66 (1825).
① See Charles D. Siegal, Deference and Its Dangers:Congress'Power to "Define... Offenses against the Law of Nations," 21 Vand. J.Transnat'l L.865,874-879(1988).
② See United States v. La Jeune Eugenie,26 F. Cas.832,846 (C.C.D. Mass.1822) (No.15,551), overruled on other grounds,23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 66 (1825).
③ See Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,833(1989).
④ See Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev.819,827(1989).
⑤ Judiciary Act, ch.20, s 9,1 Stat.73,77(1789).
⑥ Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995).
⑦ See Armin Rosencranz & Richard Campbell, Foreign Environmental and Human Rights Suits against U.S. Corporations in U.S. Courts,18 Stan. Envt'l L.J.145,206 (1999);Sonia Jimenez, The Alien Tort Claims Act:A Tool for Repairing Ethically Challenged U.S. Corporations,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.721,736 (2004).
⑧ See 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (2000); Craig Forcese, ATCA's Achilles Heel:Corporate Complicity, International Law and the Alien Tort Claims Act,26 Yale J. Int'l L.487,502-510 (2001).
⑨ 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3293 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.22,2002).
① See Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co.,457 U.S.922,939(1982).
② Natalie Bridgeman, Human Rights Litigation Under the ATCA as a Proxy for Environmental Claims,6 Yale Hum. Rts.& Dev. L.J.1,8(2003).
③ 124 S.Ct.2739 (2004).
④ Natalie Bridgeman, Human Rights Litigation under the ATCA as a Proxy for Environmental Claims,6 Yale Hum. Rts.& Dev. L.J.1,5 (2003).
⑤ See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins,304 U.S.64(1938).
⑥ See Kristen D.A. Carpenter, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:A Toothless Tiger?,26 N.C. J. Int'l L.& Com. Reg.1 (2000).
① Fernandez-Roque v. Smith,622 F. Supp.887,903 (N.D. Ga.1985); Jama v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Serv.,22 F. Supp.2d 353,365 (D.N.J.1998)
② Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,884-885 (2d. Cir.1980); Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,185-186
(D. Mass.1995).
③ Abebe-Jiri v. Negewo,72 F.3d 844,848 (11th Cir.1996).
④ Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,623 F.Supp.246 (D.D.C. Oct 15,1985) (NO. CIV.A. 84-0353).
⑤ Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,736 F.Supp.1 (D.D.C. Mar 09,1990) (NO. CIV A 84-0353-AER).
⑥ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F.Supp.162 (D.Mass.1995).
⑦ Jogi v. Piland,131 F.Supp.2d 1024 (C.D.I11.2001).
⑧ Valanga v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,259 F.Supp.324 (E.D.Pa.1966).
⑨ See, e.g., Edye v. Robertson,112 U.S.580,598-599 (1884).在该案中,法院界定了非自动执行条约理论,要求条约必须明示或者默示地规定了私人诉权。虽然这一点遭到很多学者的批评,但是实践中法院仍然是这么做的。See, e.g., Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Public Law Litigation,100 Yale L.J.2347,2360-61 (1991); Stephen Reisenfeld, The Doctrine of Self-Executing Treaties and U.S. v. Postal:Win at Any Price?,74 Am. J. Int'l L.892,895(1980).
① See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.1980), on remand,577 F.Supp.860 (S.D.N.Y.1984).
② See Jordan J. Paust, Litigating Human Rights:A Commentary on the Comments,4 Houston J. Int'l L.59,83-84 (1981).
③ Joseph Modeste Sweeney, A Tort Only in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.445, 475 (1995).
④ 7 F. Cas.418,426 (C.C.D. Mass.1815) (No.3776). See also Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 335 (1816) (Story, J.).
⑤ See, e.g., Whittemore v. Cutter,29 F. Cas.1120,1123 (C.C.D. Mass.1813) (No.17,600); Meeker v. Wilson,16 F. Cas.1311,1312 (C.C.D. Mass.1813) (No.9392).
⑥ Moxon v. The Fanny,17. F. Cas.942 (D. Pa.1793) (No.9,895).
⑦ See 17 F. Cas.942,947 (D. Pa.1793) (No.9895).
① See 1 Op. Att'y Gen.57 (1795).
② 1 Op. Att'y Gen.57 (1795).没有证据表明在塞拉利昂发生的这起事件最终导致了诉讼。See Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction Over International Law Claims:Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1,41 n.185 (1985).
③ 1 Op. Att'y Gen.141(1804).
④ 26 Op. Att'y Gen.250(1907).
① See Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction Over International Law Claims:Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1,28-31 (1985); William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,507-508 (1986).
② Wythe Holt, "To Establish Justice ":Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts, 1989 Duke L.J.1421,1458 (1989).
③ See Wythe Holt, "To Establish Justice ":Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts,1989 Duke L.J.1421,1487-1488 (1989).
④ See Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction Over International Law Claims:Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1,28-31 (1985); William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,507-508 (1986).
⑤ Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front,257 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.D.C.2003).
① Beanal v. Freeport-McMoRan, Inc.,969 F.Supp.362 (E.D.La.1997).
② Cabello Barrueto v. Fernandez Larios,205 F.Supp.2d 1325 (S.D.Fla.,2002).
③ 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.1992).
④ 488 F. Supp.665 (D.D.C.1980).
⑤ Domingo v. Republic of the Philippines,808 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir.1987)(判决赔偿300万美元)；Jerry Large, A Life of Justice, Seattle Times, Aug.24,1995.
① Greenham Women against Cruise Missiles v. Reagan,591 F. Supp.1332,1338 (S.D.N.Y.1984).
② Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan,770 F.2d 202,206-07 (D.C. Cir.1985).
③ 22 F. Supp.2d 353 (D.N.J.1998).
④ 343 F. Supp.2d 338 (D.N.J.2004).
⑤ See 124 S. Ct.2739,2747-2754 (2004).
⑥ Al Odah v. U.S.,321 F.3d 1134 (C.A.D.C.2003), on remand 103 Fed.Appx.676,2004 WL 1613572.
⑦ Rasul v. Bush, U.S.2004,124 S.Ct.2686,542 U.S.466,159 L.Ed.2d 548, on remand 103 Fed.Appx.676,2004 WL 1613572. see also, Atif Rehman, The Court of Last Resort:Seeking Redress for Victims ofAbu-Ghraib Torture through the Alien Tort Claims Act,16 Ind. Int'1 & Comp. L. Rev.493 (2006).
⑧ See Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1916 (FSIA) (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330,1332(a)(2)-(4),1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602-1611); 28 U.S.C.§1604 (2005).
⑨ See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346,2671-2680 (2005).
⑩ See, e.g., Ickes v. Fox,300 U.S.82,96 (1937); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895A(1) (1979).
①Restatement(Second)of Torts § 895A cmt.b(1979).
②28 U.S.C.§2680(k).(2005).
③28 U.S.C.§2680(j)(2005).
④28 U.S.C.§2680(a),(h),(j),(k)(2005)；Ibrahim v.Titan Corp.,391 F. Supp.2d 10,18.19 & n.6(D.D.C. 2005).
⑤See Harlow v. Fitzgerald,457 U.S.800,806,102 S.Ct 2727,73 L.Ed.2d 396(1982).
⑥Bieregu v.Ashcroft,259 F.Supp.2d 342(D.N.J.2003).
⑦Rosner v. U.S.,231 F.Supp.2d 1202(S.D.Fla.2002).
⑧5 U.S.C.A.§702.
⑨Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan,770 F.2d 202(D.C.Cir. 1985).
⑩Canadian Transport Co.v. U.S.,663 F.2d 1081(C.A.D.C.1980).
① Schneider v. Kissinger,310 F.Supp.2d 251 (D.D.C.2004).
② In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases,355 F.Supp.2d 443 (D.D.C.2005).
③ 487 U.S.500,512(1988).
④ See Boyle v. United Techs. Corp.,487 U.S.500,510 (1988).
⑤ See Boyle v. United Techs. Corp.,487 U.S.500,512 (1988).
⑥ See Abigail Heng Wen, Suing the Sovereign's Servant:The Implications of Privatization for the Scope of Foreign Sovereign Immunities,103 COLUM. L. REV.1538,1562-1563 (2003). See also Ibrahim v. Titan Corp., 391 F. Supp.2d 10,12 (D.D.C.2005); Saleh v. Titan Corp.,353 F. Supp.2d 1087,1088 (S.D. Cal.2004); Jama v. INS,343 F. Supp.2d 338,345-346 (D.N.J.2004).
① See Mark Jacobsen, Case Comment,28 U.S.C.1350:A Legal Remedy for Torture in Paraguay?,69 Geo. L.J. 833,835(1981).
② 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995).
③ Justin Lu, Jurisdiction over Non-State Activity under the Alien Tort Claims Act,35 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.531 (1997).
④ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,963 F. Supp.880,891 (C.D. Cal.1997). See also Nat'l Coalition Gov't of Burma v. Unocal Corp.,176 F.R.D.329 (C.D. Cal.1997); Doe v. Unocal Corp.,110 F. Supp.2d 1294 (C.D. Cal.2000), affd in part, rev'd in part,395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2002), reh'g en banc granted,395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003). See also Doe v. Unocal Corp.,403 F.3d 708 (9th Cir.2005).
① Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,947-953 (9th Cir.2002).
② See, e.g., Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.,381 F. Supp.2d 1164 (C.D. Cal.2005); Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy Inc.,453 F. Supp.2d 633 (S.D.N. Y.2006); Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum,226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000).
③ See Khulumani v. Barclay Nat. Bank Ltd,504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.2007), affd due to lack of a quorum sub nom., American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza,2008 WL 117862,76 U.S.L.W.3405 (May 12,2008) (No.07-919); Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,487 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.2007), reh'g granted,499 F.3d 923 (9th Cir.2007); Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc.,416 F.3d 1242,1247-48 (11th Cir.2005); Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2002), reh'g en bane granted,395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
④ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2002).
⑤ See Khulumani v. Barclay Nat. Bank Ltd.,504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.2007).
⑥ 169 F. Supp.2d 259,315 (S.D.N. Y.2001).
⑦ Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and Shell Transp. and Trading Co., PLC, No.96 CIV.8386 (KMW),2002 WL 319887 *2 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
⑧ Ntsebeza v. Citigroup, Inc. (In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig.),346 F. Supp.2d 538 (S.D.N.Y.2004).
① 238 F. Supp.2d 1379 (JPML 2002).
② In re South African Apartheid Litig.,346 F. Supp.2d 538,542 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
③ Khulumani v. Barclay Nat'l Bank Ltd.,504 F.3d 254,260 (2d Cir.2007).
④ Khulumani v. Barclay Nat. Bank Ltd.,509 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.,2007).
⑤ American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza,128 S.Ct.2424,171 L.Ed.2d 225,76 USLW 3405,76 USLW 3603,76 USLW 3608 (U.S. Mav 12.2008) (NO.07-919).
⑥ Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp.,312 F. Supp.2d 1229,1243 (N.D. Cal.2004).
① Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp., No. C 99-02506 SI,2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59374 (N.D. Cal.2007).
② Terry Collingsworth, The Key Human Rights Challenge:Developing Enforcement Mechanisms,15 HARV. HUM. RTS. J.183,198 (2002).
③ Michael Giuseppe Congiu, From Rights to Remedies:the Alien Tort Claims Act, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the State Action Requirement,2 S.C. J. Int'l L.& Bus.127,156 (2005-2006).
④ See, e.g., Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc.,303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir.2002) (秘鲁和厄瓜多尔); Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., 273 F.3d 120 (2d Cir.2001)(印度)；Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co.,239 F.3d 440 (2d Cir.2000)(埃及)；Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000) (尼日利亚)；Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc.,197 F.3d 161 (5th Cir.1999)(印度尼西亚)；Hamidv. Price Waterhouse,51 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir.1995); Carmichael v. United Techs. Corp.,835 F.2d 109 (5th Cir.1988)(沙特阿拉伯)；Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.,381 F. Supp.2d 1164 (C.D. Cal.2005) (哥伦比亚)；Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp.,312 F. Supp.2d 1229 (N.D. Cal.2004) (尼日利亚)；Villeda v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.,305 F. Supp.2d 1285 (S.D. Fla.2003), affd,416 F.3d 1242 (11th
① See Kenny Bruno, De-Globalizing Justice:The Corporate Campaign to Strip Foreign Victims of Corporate-Induced Human Rights Violations of the Right to Sue in U.S. Courts, Multinational Monitor, available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/2003/03justice.htm (last visited August 16,2008); see also Marcel Herbke, US Bill Puts Oil Before Human Rights, Ohmy News, available at http:www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/atca/2005/1026oil.htm (last visited August 16,2008).
② Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law §101 (1987).
③ See Terry Collingsworth, "Corporate Social Responsibility," Unmasked,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.669,673(2004). World Pol. J.1 (Spring 2004), available at http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-1/kurlantzick.htm (last visited August 16,2008); Jacqueline Koch, Not in Their Backyard, CorpWatch, available at http://www. globalpolicy.org/intljustice/atca/2004/0714backyard.htm (last visited August 16,2008).
① See Donald J. Kochan, No Longer Little Known But Now a Door Ajar:An Overview of the Evolving and Dangerous Role of the Alien Tort Statute in Human Rights and International Law Jurisprudence,8 Chap. L. Rev. 103,132(2005).
② See Mark E. Rosen, The Alien Tort Statute:An Emerging Threat to National Security,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.627 (2004).
① Beth Stephens, Individuals Enforcing International Law:The Comparative and Historical Context,52 DePaul L. Rev.433 (2002).
② Anne-Marie Slaughter & David L. Bosco, Alternative Justice, Global Policy Forum, available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/intliustice/atca/2001/altjust.htm (last visited December 4,2008).
③ Curtis A. Bradley, The Costs of International Human Rights Litigation,2 Chi. J. Int'l L.457,460 (2001).
① Anne-Marie Slaughter & David Bosco, Plaintiff's Diplomacy,79 Foreign Aff.102,108 (2000).
② Mark S. Zaid, Military Might Versus Sovereign Right:The Kidnaping of Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain and the Resulting Fallout,19 Hous. J. Int'l L.829 (1997).
③ Letter of Michael J. Matheson, Acting Legal Advisor (July 8,1997), reprinted in Nat'l Coalition Gov. of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc.,176 F.R.D.329,362 (C.D. Cal.1997).
④ Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC.,221 F. Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal.2002).
① Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No.96-C8386,2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3293(S.D.N.Y. Feb.22,2002).
② 124 S.Ct.2762(2004).
③ See David J. Bederman, International Law Advocacy and its Discontents,2 Chi. J. Int'l L.475 (2001); Curtis A. Bradley, The Costs of International Human Rights Litigation,2 Chi. J. Int'l L.457 (2001); Beth Stephens, Taking Pride in International Human Rights Litigation,2 Chi. J. Int'l L.485 (2001).
④ Edward J. Schoen, Joseph S. Falchek & Margaret M. Hogan, The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789:Globalization of Business Requires Globalization of Law and Ethics,62 Journal of Business Ethics 41 (2005).
⑤ See Donald J. Kochan, No Longer Little Known But Now a Door Ajar:An Overview of the Evolving and Dangerous Role of the Alien Tort Statute in Human Rights and International Law Jurisprudence,8 Chap. L. Rev. 103,130-132(2005).
① See 542 U.S.692,748-749 (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring).
② See Donald J. Kochan, No Longer Little Known But Now a Door Ajar:An Overview of the Evolving and Dangerous Role of the Alien Tort Statute in Human Rights and International Law Jurisprudence,8 Chap. L. Rev. 103,131 (2005).
③ See Charles F. Hollis, Ⅲ, Perpetual Mistrial:The Impropriety of Transnational Human Rights Litigation in United States Courts,1 Santa Clara J. Int'l L.1 (2003).
④ Note, Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation:Adjudicating on "Foreign Territory",30 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev.101, 140(2006).
⑤ Borchien Lai, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Temporary Stopgap Measure Or Permanent Remedy?,26 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus.139,160(2005).
⑥ 124 S.Ct.2755 (2004).
① See generally Jenna Greene, Use of 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act against Business Growing,44 Broward Daily Bus. Rev.158, July 24,2003.
② Borchien Lai, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Temporary Stopgap Measure Or Permanent Remedy?,26 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus.139,161(2005).
③ Borchien Lai, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Temporary Stopgap Measure or Permanent Remedy?,26 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus.139,161 (2005).
① See William M. Richman & William L. Rieynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (3rd ed.), Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,2002, p.121. 《布莱克法律辞典》(第八版)的解释是:A court's power to bring a person into its adjudicative process; jurisdiction over a defendant's personal rights, rather than merely over property interests.-- Also termed in personam jurisdiction; jurisdiction in personam; jurisdiction of the person; jurisdiction over the person. Bryan Garner (eds.). Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), West Group,2004, p.870.
②《布莱克法律辞典》(第八版)的解释是:A court's power to adjudicate the rights to a given piece of property, including the power to seize and hold it.-- Also termed jurisdiction in rem. Bryan Garner (eds.), Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), West Group,2004, p.869. See William M. Richman & William L. Rieynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (3rd ed.), Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,2002, pp.19-20.
③ See William M. Richman & William L. Rieynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (3rd ed.), Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,2002, pp.19-20.
① See William M. Richman & William L. Rieynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (3rd ed.), Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,2002, pp.24-25.
② See Nathan Levy, Jr., Mense Process in Personal Actions at Common Law and the Power Doctrine,78 Yale L.J.52,58 (1968).
③ Hart v. Granger,1 Conn.154,168(1814).
④ Bigelow v. Stearns,19 Johns.39,40-41 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1821).
⑤详细的考证参见Caleb Nelson, Sovereign Immunity as a Doctrine of Personal Jurisdiction,115 Harvard L. Rev.1559 (2002).
⑥ 466 U.S.408 (1984).
⑦ 495 U.S.604,109 L. Ed.2d 631,110 S. Ct.2105 (1990).
⑧ GTE New Media Servs. v. BellSouth Corp.,199 F.3d 1343,1347 (D.C.Cir.2000).
① Burnham v. Superior Court,495 U.S.604,109 L. Ed.2d 631,110 S. Ct.2105 (1990).
② See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k).
③ 70 F.3d 232 (9th Cir.1995).
④ Henderson v. United States,517 U.S.654,672,116 S.Ct.1638,134 L.Ed.2d 880 (1996).
⑤ United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co.,736 F.2d 1371,1382 (9th Cir.1984); Chan v. Soc'y Expeditions, Inc.39 F.3d 1398,1404 (9th Cir.1994); Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,339 U.S. 306,314,70 S.Ct.652,94 L.Ed.865 (1950).
⑥ Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink,284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir.2002).
⑦ See Errion v. Connell,236 F.2d 447,457 (9th Cir.1956); Novak v. World Bank,703 F.2d 1305,1310 n.14 (D.C.Cir.1983); Doe v. Karadzic,1996 WL 194298 (S.D.N.Y. Apr 22,1996); Trujillo v. Trujillo,71 Cal.App.2d 257,162 P.2d 640,641-42 (1945); In re Ball,2 Cal.App.2d 578,38 P.2d 411,412 (1934).
⑧ 792 F. Supp.215 (S.D.N.Y.1992).
① 120 U.S. App. D.C.288,345 F.2d 978,980-81 (D.C. Cir.1965).
② Tachiona v. Mugabe,169 F.Supp.2d 259 (S.D.N.Y. Oct 30,2001) (NO.00 CIV.6666 (VM)).
③ Tachiona ex rel. Tachiona v. Mugabe,186 F.Supp.2d 383 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 14,2002) (NO.00 CIV 6666 VM).
④ Tachiona v. U.S.,386 F.3d 205 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Oct 06,2004) (NO.03-6033(L),03-6043(XAP)). Certiorari Denied by Tachiona v. U.S.,547 U.S.1143,126 S.Ct.2020,164 L.Ed.2d 806,74 USLW 3425,74 USLW 3636,74 USLW 3640 (U.S. May 15,2006) (NO.05-879).
⑤ Slater v. Mexican National R. Co.,194 US 120 (1904). See also McKenna v. Fisk,42 U.S.241,248-249 (1843).
⑥ Ruti Teitel, The Alien Tort And The Global Rule of Law, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/i.1468-2451.2005.570.x?cookieSet=1(last visited August 16, 2008).
⑦ 630 F.2d 876,885 (2d Cir.1980).
① McKenna v. Fisk,42 U.S.241,248-249 (1843). See also Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.80.
② Ralph G Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.80.
③ 67 F. Supp.2d 1140 (C.D. Cal.1999).
④ See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington,326 U.S.310,316(1945).
⑤ No.96-35971,1998 WL 31494 (9th Cir. Jan.28,1998), cert, denied,525 U.S.816 (1998).
① Adam Liptak, Florida:Judge Dismisses Child Slavery Case, New York Times, July 31,2007, p.15.
② Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front,257 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.D.C.2003).
③ Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum,226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000).
④ 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.2005).
⑤ See Rein v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,995 F. Supp.325,330 (E.D.N.Y.1998).
⑥ See Tachiona v. Mugabe,234 F.Supp.2d 401 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
⑦ Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler AG,2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 31929, at * 61 (N.D. Cal. Nov.22,2005).
⑧ See William M. Richman & William L. Rieynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (3rd ed.), Matthew Bender
& Company, Inc.,2002, pp.1(?)-17.翻译为对事管辖权更妥当,但是考虑到国内的习惯,所以本文仍然使用事
项管辖权一词。《布莱克法律辞典》(第八版)的解释是：Jurisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of
relief sought; the extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things.--Also termed jurisdiction of the subject matter; jurisdiction of the cause; jurisdiction over the action. Bryan Garner (eds.), Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), West Group,2004, p.870.
① See Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo,353 U.S.138,146-147 (1957); Blackmer v. United States,284 U.S.421, 437 (1932). See also American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.,213 U.S.347,357 (1909).
② Curtis A. Bradley, The Alien Tort Statute and Article 111,42 Va. J. Int'l L.587 (2002).
① See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,885-886 (2d Cir.1980).
② See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,885 (2d Cir.1980).
③ 630 F.2d 876,887 (2d Cir.1980).
④ 239 F.3d 440,447-450 (2d Cir.2000).
① 229 F.3d 1155 (6th Cir.2000).
② Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.,488 U.S.428(1989).
③ See Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.,256 F. Supp.2d 1345 (S.D. Fla.2003).
④ Beanalv. Freeport-McMoran, Inc.,197 F.3d 161 (5th Cir.1999).
⑤ Estate of Rodriquez v. Drummond Co., Inc.,256 F. Supp.2d 1250 (N.D. Ala.2003).
⑥ 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (note) (1994).
⑦ 18 U.S.C.§2333(a) (1994).
⑧28 U.S.C.§§1330,1602-1611 (1994).
⑨ See Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.,488 U.S.428 (1989).
⑩ See Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina,965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.1992).
① Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany,26 F.3d 1166,1176-1184 (D.C. Cir.1994) (Wald, J., dissenting).
② See Kimberly J. McLarin, Holocaust Survivor Will Share $2.1 Million in Reparations, N.Y. Times, Sept.20, 1995, at B5.
③ 28 U.S.C.§§1605(a)(7)(A), (B)(ii) (Supp. V.1999). See 22 C.F.R. §126.1(d) (2000).其中,伊朗、古巴、叙利亚、伊拉克、利比亚、苏丹和朝鲜被认为是支持恐怖主义的国家。相关内容,还可以参见本文第五章第三节的论述。
④ Soudavar v. Islamic Republic of Iran,67 Fed.Appx.618 (C.A.D.C.2003).
⑤ Goldstar (Panama) S.A. v. U.S.,967 F.2d 965 (C.A.4 (Va.) 1992).
⑥ Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232,236 (2d Cir.1995).
⑦ See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,887-88 (1980); see also Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232,238 (2d Cir. 1995)
⑧ Khulumani v. Barclay Nat'l Bank Ltd.,504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.2007).
① In Vietnam Ass'n for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chemical Co.,517 F.3d 104 (2d. Cir.2008).
② Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,487 F.3d 1193,1200-01 (9th Cir.2007).
③ Roe v. Bridgestone Corp.,492. F. Supp.2d 988,1004-06 (S.D. Ind.2007).
④ Steel Co. v.Citizens for a Better Env't,523 U.S.83,89(1998)
⑤ Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,546 U.S.500,511 (2006).
⑥ Cisneros v. Aragon,485 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir.2007).
⑦ Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't,523 U.S.83,91 (1998).
① Jeffrey Davis, Justice without Borders:Human Rights Cases in U.S. Courts,28 Law & Policy 60,65 (2006).
② Jean-Marie Simon, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Justice or Show Trials?,11 B.U. Int'l L.J.1,4-5 (1993).
③ Forti v. Suarez-Mason,672 F. Supp.1531 (N.D. Cal.1987).
④ Genc Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of The Law Of Nations in The Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193 (2005).
① Saleh v. Titan Corp.,361 F. Supp.2d 1152 (S.D. Cal.2005).
② In re South African Apartheid Litigation,238 F.Supp.2d 1379 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. Dec 16,2002) (NO.1499).
① International Law Association, Final Report on the Exercise of Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences 3 n.6 (2000), quoted in Beth Stephens, Translating Filartiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2002).
② The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 404 cmt. a (1987). See Roger S. Clark, Offenses of International Concern:Multilateral State Treaty Practice in the Forty Years Since Nuremberg, 57 Nordic J. Int'l L.49 (1988).
③ International Law Association, Final Report on the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences 4-9 (2000), quoted in Beth Stephens, Translating Fildrtiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2002); Kenneth C. Randall, Universal Jurisdiction under International Law,66 Tex. L. Rev.785,788 (1988).
① The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 402 cmt. B (1987).
② S. Rep. No.102-249,5 (1992).
③ Beth Van Schaack, In Defense of Civil Redress:The Domestic Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in the Context of the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention,42 Harv. Int'l L.J.141,195 (2001).
④ James Paul George, Defining Fildrtiga:Characterizing International Torture Claims in United States Courts,2 Dick. J. Int'l L.1,32(1984).
⑥ The Case of The S.S. Lotus. (France v. Turkey). Permanent Court of International Justice,1927.1927 P.C.I.J. (ser.A) No.9. http://www.law.nyu.edu/kingsburyb/fall01/intl law/PROTECTED/unit5/ss lotus edit.htm (last visited August 16,2008).另见陈致中：《国际法案例》,法律出版社1998年版,第41页。
⑥ Gerald Fitzmaurice, The General Principles of International Law,92 Recueil Des Cours 1,218 (1957).
① Jennifer Kaylin, Yale Law School Team Takes on an Alumnus, N.Y. Times, Apr.11,1993, at 6.
② Doe v. Lumintang, Civ. Action No.00-674 (GK)(AK), Sept.10,2001, decision, available at http://www.cja.org/cases/Luminiang_Docs/Lumintang_DefM2Vacate.pdf(last visited August.10,2008).
③ Abebe-Jira v. Negewo,72 F.3d 844(11th Cir.1996).
④ Bernard Fernandez, Retired Colonel Retreats to Chile Ahead of Suit, Phila. News, Aug.18,1987, at 76.
⑤ Beth Van Schaack, With All Deliberate Speed:Civil Human Rights Litigation as A Tool for Social Change,57 Vand. L. Rev.2305,2339 (2004).
⑥ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,110 F. Supp.2d 1294,1296 (C.D. Cal.2000); rev'd, Doe v. Unocal Corp., Nos.00-56603, 00-57197, Nos.00-56628,00-57195,2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 19263 (9th Cir. Sept.18,2002), en banc review granted, Doe v. Unocal Corp., Nos.00-56603,00-57197, Nos.00-56628,00-57195,2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2716, 2-3 (9th Cir. Feb.14,2003).
⑦ See Paul Magnusson, A Milestone For Human Rights, BusinessWeekly, Jan.24,2005, at 63.
⑧ In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litig.,105 F. Supp.2d 139,142-43 (E.D.N.Y.2000).
① See Complaint and Jury Trial Demand, Khulumani v. Barclays Nat'l Bank, Ltd (Nov.11,2001), available at http://www.cmht.com/casewatch/cases/apartheid-cmpl.pdf (last visited Feb.7,2008)..
② Deborah J. Karet, Privatizing Law on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands:Is Litigation the Best Channel for Reforming the Garment Industry?,48 Buffalo L. Rev.1047,1080-85 (2000).
③ See Jonathan Birchall, The Limits of Human Rights Legislation, The Financial Times Ltd., Jan.20,2005, at 13.
④ Verite, About Us, Our Mission, http://verite.org/aboutus/main.html (last visited Feb.7,2008).
⑤ Robert J. Peterson, Political Realism and the Judicial Imposition of International Secondary Sanctions: Possibilities from John Doe v. Unocal and the Alien Tort Claims Act,5 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable 277,292-294 (1998).
⑥ Nicholas Keung, U of T Human Rights Clinic Makes Law School A Crusade, Toronto Star, Jan.4,2004, at A4. Caroline Davidson, Tort Au Canadien:A Proposal for Canadian Tort Legislation on Gross Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law,38 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.1403,1423 (2005).
⑦ Jose E. Alvarez, Rush to Closure:Lessons of the Tadic Judgment,96 MICH. L. REV.2031,2101-2 (1998).
① Statement of Juan Romagoza, available at http://www.cja.org/forSurvivors/reflect.doc (last visited August.10, 2008).
② See Jeffrey Davis, Justice across Borders:the Struggle for Human Rights in U.S. Courts, Cambridge University Press,2008, p.2.
③ Fabri, Torture and Impunity:Legal Recourse May Lead to Healing, Traumatic Strcss Points, Vol.16, No.2, Spring 2002, available at http://www.istss.org/Pubs/TS/Spring02/torture.htm (last visited August.10,2008).
④ See Jeffrey Davis, Justice across Borders:the Struggle for Human Rights in U.S. Courts, Cambridge University Press,2008, p.2.
⑤ Tom R. Tyler & Hulda Thorisdottir, A Psychological Perspective on Compensation for Harm:Examining the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund,53 DePaul L. Rev.355,361 (2003).
⑥ Tom R. Tyler & Hulda Thorisdottir, A Psychological Perspective on Compensation for Harm:Examining the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund,53 DePaul L. Rev.355,367-368 (2003); see also Deborah R. Hensler, Money
Talks:Searching for Justice through Compensation for Personal Injury and Death,53 De Paul L. Rev.417, 432-437 (2003).
① See Detlev F. Vagts & Peter Murray, Litigating the Nazi Labor Claims:The Path Not Taken,43 Harv. Int'l L. J. 503,522 (2002).
② Tom R. Tyler & Hulda Thorisdottir, A Psychological Perspective on Compensation for Harm:Examining the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund,53 DePaul L. Rev.355,369 (2003). See also Deborah R. Hensler, Money Talks: Searching for Justice through Compensation for Personal Injury and Death,53 De Paul L. Rev.417,424-425 (2003).
③ Rhonda V. Magee, The Master's Tools, From the Bottom Up:Responses to African-American Reparations Theory in Mainstream and Outsider Remedies Discourse,79 Va. L. Rev.863,906-907 (1993).
④ See Center for Justice & Accountability, Carlos Mauricio's Story, http://www.cja.org/forSurvivors/CarlosforSurvivors.shtml (last visited Feb.7,2008).
⑤ See, e.g., Doe v. Saravia,2004 WL 2913256 (E.D.Cal. Nov.24,2004).
⑥ Paul B. Stephan, Export/Import:American Civil Justice in a Global Context:A Becoming Modesty-U.S. Litigation in the Mirror of International Law,52 DePaul L. Rev.627,644 (2002).
⑦ See, e.g., Bigio v. Coca Cola,239 F.3d 440,455 (2d Cir.2000); ⅡTv. Vencap,519 F.2d 1001,1015 (2d Cir. 1975); Abiodun v. Martin Oil Serv., Inc.,475 F.2d 142,145 (7th Cir.1973); Valanga v. Metropolitan Life Ins.,259 F. Supp.324,327 (E.D. Pa.1966); De Wit v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, N.V.,570 F. Supp.613,618 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). See also Guinto v. Marcos,654 F. Supp.276,280 (S.D. Cal.1986); Nat'l Coalition Gov't of Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc.,176 F.R.D.329,345 (C.D. Cal.1997).
⑧ See Beth Stephens, Taking Pride in International Human Rights Litigation,2 Chi. J. Int'l L.485,487-488 (2001).
① See Sandra Coliver, Jennie Green & Paul L. Hoffman, Holding Human Rights Violators Accountable By Using International Law In U.S. Courts:Advocacy Efforts And Complementary Strategies,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.169, 185 (2005).
② Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.95.
③ Joshua L. Bettridge, The Alien Tort Statute:Judicial Activism and Its Impact on International Law,1 Regent J Int'l L 65,74 (2003).
④ Hannah R. Bornstein, The Alien Tort Claims Act In 2007:Resolving The Delicate Balance Between Judicial And Legislative Authority,82 Ind. L.J.1077,1081 (2007).
① Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.45.
② Kevin R. Carter, Amending the Alien Tort Claims Act:Protecting Human Rights or Closing off Corporate Accountability?,38 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L.629 (2006-2007).
① Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88,105 n.12 (2d Cir.2000).
② See Tachiona v. Mugabe,216 F. Supp.2d 262,269 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
③ Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of (Ala),353 U.S.448 (1957).
④有学者探讨了行为地法以及国际法作为裁判规则的可能性及其利弊,Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, pp.88-94.
⑤ See Jeffrey Rabkin, Universal Justice:The Role of Federal Courts in International Civil Litigation,95 Colum. L. Rev.2120,2142 (1995).
⑥ See Edward A. Amley, Jr., Sue and Be Recognized:Collecting 1350 Judgments Abroad,107 Yale L.J.2177, 2190-2191 (1998).
⑦ Note, Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation:Adjudicating on "Foreign Territory",30 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev.101 (2006).
① See Tachiona v. Mugabe,234 F.Supp.2d 401 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
② Symeon C. Symeonides, Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2002:Sixteenth Annual Survey,51 Am. J. Comp. L.1,47(2003).
③ 28 U.S.C.§1652(2000).
①41 U.S.(16 Pet.)1(1842).
②304 U.S.64,77.78(1938).
③41 U.S.(16 Pet.)1,12(1842).
④Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co.v.Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co.,276 U.S.518,533(1928).
① Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S. Ct.2734 (2004).
② See William R. Casto, The Federal Courts'Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467,477 (1986). But see G. Edward White, A Customary International Law of Torts, available at http://law.bepress.com/uvalwps/uva_publiclaw/art34 (last visited September 3,2008).
③ Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino,376 U.S.398 (1964).
④ See, e.g., United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc.,440 U.S.715,726-727(1979).
⑤ See, e.g., Atherton v. FDIC,519 U.S.213,217-220 (1997); O'Melveny & Myers v. FDIC,512 U.S.79,83-86 (1994).
⑥ See, e.g., Semtek Int'l Corp. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,531 U.S.497,508 (2001).
⑦ See, e.g., Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88,105 n.12 (2d Cir.2000); Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 403 F. Supp.2d 1019,1027 (W.D. Wash.2005); Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,179-180 (D. Mass.1995).
① See, e.g., In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litig.,978 F.2d 493,503 (9th Cir.1992)(赞同地方法院利用内国法来裁定《外国人侵权请求法》诉讼的结果,而根据传统的冲突法原则一般都是适用损害地法)；Adra v. Clift,195 F. Supp.857,866 (D. Md.1961)(适用州法,但是没有明示这样做是否构成创设新的联邦普通法抑或州法通过RDA而得以适用)。类似的,在Unocal案中,多数意见虽然认为要受国际法约束,但是仍然适用州法作为联邦普通法的裁判规则。See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,949 & n.25 (9th Cir.2002)(采用国际法作为裁判规则,但也承认在不同的事实上可能采用不同的规则)。
② Marbury v. Madison,5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137,177 (1803).
③ See The Paquete Habana,175 U.S.677,700 (1900).
④ See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6 (1971); see also Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,949 (9th Cir.2002); Cruz v. United States,387 F. Supp.2d 1057,1070 (N.D. Cal.2005).
⑤ Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6(2); see also Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 6(1).
⑥ See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws§ 6 cmt. c.
⑦ Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §145(1).
⑧ Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145(2).
⑨ See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,949 (9th Cir.2002).
① 630 F.2d 876.889 (2d Cir.1980).
② Doe v. Rafael Saravia.348 F.Supp.2d 1112 (E.D.Cal.2004).
③ 195 F. Supp.857,860-861 (D. Md.1961).
④ Adra v. Clift,195 F. Supp.857,866 (D. Md.1961).
⑤ Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,788 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Edwards, J., concurring).
⑥ See 397 F. Supp.2d 908,913-16 (S.D. Ohio 2005).
⑦ See In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litig.,978 F.2d 493,503 (9th Cir.1992).
① Paul J. Mishkin, The Variousness of Federal Law':Competence And Discretion in The Choice of National and State Rules for Decision,105 U. PA. L. REV.797 (1957).
② Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.95.
③ Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, reprinted in 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.129,140 (2001).
④ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F3d 932,948 (9th Cir 2002).
⑤ Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,456 F.3d 1069,1090 (9th Cir.2006).
⑥ S. Rep. No.102-249,9-10(1991).
⑦ See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petrol. Co., No.96 CIV.8386,2002 WL 319887 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.28,2002).
⑧ See Richard A. Conn, Jr., The Alien Tort Statute:International Law as the Rule of Decision,49 Fordham L. Rev. 874,885 (1981).
⑨ See Richard A. Conn, Jr., The Alien Tort Statute:International Law as the Rule of Decision,49 Fordham L. Rev. 874,885 (1981).
① See Andrew Ridenour, Doe v. Unocal Corp., Apples and Oranges:Why Courts Should Use International Standards to Determine Liability for Violation of the Law of Nations under the Alien Tort Claims Act,9 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L.581,597-98 (2001).
② See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,948 n.23 (2002).
③ Nancy Morisseau, Seen But Not Heard:Child Soldiers Suing Gun Manufacturers under The Alien Tort Claims Act,89 Cornell L. Rev.1263,1298 (2004).
④ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F.Supp.162,183 (D. Mass.1995).
⑤ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F.Supp.162,183 n.24 (D. Mass.1995).
① Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, reprinted in 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.129,159 (2001).
② Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.,451 U.S.630,640 (1981).
③ Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.,451 U.S.630,641 (1981).
④ See, e.g., Doe v Unocal,395 F.3d 932,947 (9th Cir 2002).
⑤很多学者主张利用《外国人侵权请求法》来对公司在海外的行为提起诉讼。See, e.g., Marisa Anne Pagnattaro, Enforcing International Labor Standards:The Potential of the Alien Tort Claims Act,37 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.203, 205 (2004); Igor Fuks, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Future ofATCA Litigation:Examining Bonded Labor Claims and Corporate Liability,106 Colum. L. Rev.112,112 (2006)这被称为《外国人侵权请求法》诉讼的第二波。See Curtis A. Bradley, Customary International Law and Private Rights of Action,1 Chi. J. Int'l L.421,421(2000).有学者将根据《外国人侵权请求法》对恐怖主义的诉讼称为第三波。See Julian G Ku, The Third Wave: The Alien Tort Statute and the War on Terrorism,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.105 (2005).至于第一波,当然是以Filartiga案为代表。
① See 963 F. Supp.880 (C.D. Cal.1997); 27 F. Supp.2d 1174 (C.D. Cal.1998; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 19263.
② Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,947 (9th Cir 2002).
③ 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4083 (S.D.N.Y.2003). ④ IT-95-17/1-T(Dec.10,1998), reprinted in 38 I.L.M.317 (1999).电子版判决书可以参见http://www.icty.org/x/cases/furundziia/tiug/en/fur-tj981210e.pdf (last visited May 13,2009).
⑤ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F3d 932,950 (9th Cir 2002).
⑥Hote,Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation:Adjudicating on "Foreign Territory",30 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev.101, 136(2006).
⑦ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,948 n.23 (9th Cir 2002).
⑧ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,954 n.32 (9th Cir.2002).
⑨ See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,963(9th Cir 2002) (Reinhardt, J., concurring).也有学者反对多数法官的意见。See, e.g., Recent Cases, Ninth Circuit Uses International Law to Decide Applicable Substantive Law under Alien Tort Claims Act,116 Harv. L. Rev.1525,1525-1526(2003). ⑩ See Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,970 (9th Cir 2002) (Reinhardt, J., concurring).
① Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,950-951 (9th Cir.2002).
② See, e.g., Mehinovic v. Vuckovic,198 F. Supp.2d 1322,1344,1355-1356 (N.D. Ga.2002).
③对于帮助与教唆责任问题,有学者作了专门的论述。See Paul L. Hoffman & Daniel Zaheer, The Rules of the Road:Federal Common Law and Aiding and Abetting under the Alien Tort Claims Act,26 Loyola L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.47 (2003).
④ Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy Inc.,453 F. Supp.2d 633,668 (S.D.N.Y.2006).
⑤ See, e.g., Arthur Andersen LLPv. United States,125 S. Ct.2129,2135-2136 (2005).
⑥ Aldana v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.,305 F. Supp.2d 1285,1304 (S.D. Fla.2003), affd in part, vacated in part,416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.2006).
⑦ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,110 F. Supp.2d 1294,1307 (C.D. Cal.2000), affd in part, rev'd in part,395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2002).
⑧ Lucien J. Dhooge, A Modest Proposal to Amend the Alien Tort Statute to Provide Guidance to Transnational Corporations,13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L.& Pol'y 119,134 (2007).
⑨ Tarek F. Maassarani, Four Counts of Corporate Complicity:Alternative Forms of Accomplice Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act,38 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.39 (2005-2006).
① See Justin Prociv, Incorporating Specific International Standards into ATCA Jurisprudence:Why the Ninth Circuit Should Affirm Unocal,34 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev.515 (2003); Andrew Ridenour, Doe v. Unocal Corp., Apples and Oranges:Why Courts Should Use International Standards to Determine Liability for Violation of the Law of Nations under the Alien Tort Claims Act,9 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L.581 (2001).
② See, e.g., Recent Cases, Ninth Circuit Uses International Law to Decide Applicable Substantive Law under Alien Tort Claims Act,116 Harv. L. Rev.1525,1525-26 (2003).
③ Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv.& Dev. Corp.,274 F. Supp.2d 86 (D.C. Cir.2003).
④ Restatment (Second) of Torts § 876 (1977). See also Daniel Diskin, The Historical and Modern Foundations for Aiding and Abetting Liability under the Alien Tort Statute,47 Ariz. L. Rev.805,832 (2005).
⑤ Daniel Diskin, The Historical and Modern Foundations for Aiding and Abetting Liability under the Alien Tort Statute,47 Ariz. L. Rev.805,834 (2005).
⑥ Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc.,403 F. Supp.2d 1019,1027 (W.D. Wash.2005).
⑦ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,179-80 (D. Mass.1995).
① Harold G Maier, The Role of Experts in Proving International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts:A Commentary,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.205,209 (1995/1996).
② 175 U.S.677,700(1900).
③ Harold G. Maier, The Role of Experts in Proving International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts:A Commentary,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.205,211(1995/1996).
④ See Paul L. Hoffman, The "Blank Stare Phenomenon ":Proving Customary International Law in U.S. Courts, 25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.181,181-182 (1995/1996).
⑤ Bruno Simma & Philip Alston, The Sources of Human Rights Law:Custom, Jus Cogens, and General Principles, 12 AUSTL. Y. B. INTL LL.82 (1992); Paul L. Hoffman, The "Blank Stare Phenomenon":Proving Customary International Law in U.S. Courts,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.181,183 (1995/1996)..
① Forti v. Suarez-Mason,672 F. Supp.1531 (N.D. Cal.1987), modified,694 F. Supp.707 (N.D. Cal.1988).
② 112 S. Ct.2188 (1992). Hoffman教授对在该案中证明国际习惯法的努力及其失败有详细描述。See Paul L.Hoffman, The "Blank Stare Phenomenon":Proving Customary International Law in U.S. Courts,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.181,185-186 (1995/1996).
③ Abebe-Jiri v. Negewo, No.1:90-cv-2010 GET (N.D. Ga., Aug.20,1993).
④ Traiano v. Marcos,978 F.2d 493 (9th Cir.1992), cert, denied sub nom., MarcosManotoc v. Trajano,113 S 2960(1993).
⑤ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,179-180 (D. Mass.1995); Ortiz v. Gramajo, No.91-11612,1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5307 (D. Mass. April 12,1995); Todd v. Panjaitan, No.92-12255 (D. Mass. Oct.26,1994); Paul v. Avril, No.91-399-CIV (S.D. Fla. June 30,1994).
⑥ See Charlotte Ku & Christopher J. Borgen, American Lawyers and International Competence,18 Dick. J. Int'l L. 493,501 (2000).
⑦ See Karen Knop, Here and There:International Law in Domestic Courts,32 N. Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.501,501 (2000).
⑧ See Charlotte Ku & Christopher J. Borgen, American Lawyers and International Competence,18 Dick. J. Int'l L. 493,514(2000).
⑨ Recent Cases, Civil Procedure--Choice of Law--Ninth Circuit Uses International Law to Decide Applicable Substantive Law under Alien Tort Claims Act.-John Doe Ⅰ v. Unocal Corp., NOS.00-56603,00-57197,00-56628, 00-57195,2002 WL 31063976 (9th Cir. Sept.18,2002),116 Harv. L. Rev.1525 (2003).
⑩ Charlotte Ku & Christopher J. Borgen, American Lawyers and International Competence,18 Dick. J. Int'l L. 493,501 (2000).
11 See Karen Knop, Here and There:International Law in Domestic Courts,32 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.501, 516-517(2000).
① Note, Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation:Adjudicating on "Foreign Territory",30 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev.101, 139(2006).
②这种观点得到个别学者的支持,认为在《外国人侵权请求法》诉讼中,法律选择的不同,可能会导致原
告挑选法院。See Gary Clyde Hufbauer, The Supreme Court Meets International Law:What's the Sequel to Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain?,12 TULSA J. COMP.& INT'L L.77,77 (2004).
③ Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,577 F. Supp.860 (E.D.N.Y.1984).
④ Gordon A. Christenson, Customary International Human Rights Law in Domestic Court Decisions,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.225,251(1995-1996).
① Gordon A. Christenson, Customary International Human Rights Law in Domestic Court Decisions,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.225,251-253(1995-1996).
② 577 F. Supp.860,863-64 (E.D.N.Y.1984).
③ Mushikiwabo v. Barayagwiza, No.94 Civ.3627,1996 WL 164496 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.9,1996).
④ See, e.g., Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios,402 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir.2005).
⑤ Tachiona v. Mugabe,216 F. Supp.2d 262 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
⑥ See Arce v. Garcia,434 F.3d 1254,2006 WL 13218 (11th Cir. Jan.4,2006).
⑦ See Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,577 F. Supp.860,866 (E.D.N.Y.1984).
① Mechinovic v. Vuckovic,198 F. Supp.2d 1322,1360 (N.D. Ga.2002) (quoting BMW of N. Am., Inc., v. Gore, 517 U.S.559,576-77 (1996)), declined to follow by Aldena v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc.,416 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.2005).
② See, e.g., Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios,402 F.3d 1148 (11 th Cir.2005); see also Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos,103 F.3d 767,779-82 (9th Cir.1996); Abebe-Jira v, Negewo,72 F.3d 844,846-48 (11th Cir.1996); Mechinovic v. Vuckovic,198 F. Supp.2d 1322,1358-60 (N.D. Ga.2002); Tachiona v. Mugabe,216 F. Supp.2d 262 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Mushikiwabo v. Barayagwiza, No.94 Civ.3627,1996 WL 164496, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.9,1996); Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,197-200 (D. Mass.1995); Paul v. Avril,901 F. Supp.330,335-36 (S.D. Fla. 1994); Todd v. Panjaitan,No. CV-92-12255-PBS,1994 WL 827111, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct.26,1994); Forti v. Suarez, No.87-2058-DLJ (N.D. Cal. Apr.25,1990); Quiros de Rapaport v. Suarez-Mason, No. C87-2266 JPV (N.D. Cal. Apr.11,1989); Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,577 F. Supp.860,864-867 (E.D.N.Y.1984).
③ See Richard B. Lillich, Damages for Gross Violations of International Human Rights Awarded by US Courts,15 Hum. Rts. Q.207 (1993).
④ 25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir.1994).
⑤ Abebe-Jira v. Negewo,72 F.3d 844,846-48 (11th Cir.1996).
⑥ Mehinovic v. Vuckovic,198 F. Supp.2d 1322,1358-60 (N.D. Ga.2002).
⑦ Tachiona v. Mugabe,216 F. Supp.2d 262 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
⑧ Mushikiwabo v. Barayagwiza, No.94 Civ.3627,1996 WL 164496, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.9,1996).
⑨ Todd v. Panjaitan, No. CV-92-12255-PBS,1994 WL 827111, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct.26,1994).
⑩ Rapaport v. Suarez-Mason, No. C87-2266 JPV (N.D. Cal. Apr.11,1989). 11 M. O. Chibundu, Making Customary International Law through Municipal Adjudication:A Structural Inquiry,
39 VA. J. INTL L.1069,1110n.139 (1999)(citing Flatlow v. Iran,999 F. Supp.1,34 (D.D.C.1998)).
① North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas,515 U.S.29,35 (1995).
② Nat'l Coalition Gov't of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc.,176 F.R.D.329,359 (C.D. Cal.1997).
③ See In re World War II Era Japanese Forced Labor Litig.,164 F. Supp.2d 1160 (N.D. Cal.2001).
④ See Forti v. Suarez-Mason,672 F. Supp.1531,1548-49 (N.D. Cal.1987).该案比较全面地讨论了诉讼时效问题,值得关注。See also, Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162,192 (D. Mass 1995).
⑤ Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,517 F. Supp.542 (D.D.C.1981), affd 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir.1984).
⑥ See Forti v. Suarez-Mason,672 F. Supp.1531,1549 (N.D. Cal.1987).
⑦ See Papa v. United States,281 F.3d 1004,1012-1013 (9th Cir.2002); Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios,402 F.3d 1148,1153 (11th Cir.2005); Jean v. Dorelien,431 F.3d 776,778-779 (11th Cir.2005); Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front,257 F. Supp.2d 115,119 (D.D.C.2003); Manliguez v. Joseph,226 F. Supp.2d 377,386 (E.D.N.Y.2002); Cabiri v. Assasie-Gyimah,921 F. Supp.1189,1194-96 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
①See Papa v.United States,281 F.3d 1004,1012(9th Cir. 2002).
②See Ivanova v.Ford Motor Company,67 F.Supp.424,462(D.N.J.1999).
③See Deutsch v.Turner Corp,317 F.3d 1005,1028(9th Cir. 2003).
④See,e.g.,Arce v. Garcia,434 F.3d 1254,1265(11th Cir. 2006).
⑤Sandvik. v. United States,177 F.3d 1269,1271(11th Cir.1999).
⑥Justice v.United States,6F.3d 1474,1479(11th Cir.1993).
⑦Baldwin County Welcome Ctr.v.Brown,466 U.S.147,151(1984).
⑧See Irwin v.Dep't of Veterans Affairs,489 U.S.89,96(1990).
⑨See Forti v.Suarez-Mason,672 F. Supp.1531,1549(N.D.Cal.1987).
① Hilao v. Estate of Marcos,103 F.3d 767,771 (9th Cir.1996).
② Hilao v. Estate of Marcos,103 F.3d 767,773 (9th Cir.1996).
③ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,963 F. Supp.880 (C.D. Cal.1997).
④ Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios,157 F. Supp.2d 1345 (S.D. Fla.2001).
⑤ See Jean v. Dorelien,431 F.3d 776,780-81 (11th Cir.2005).
⑥ See In re Agent Orange Prod Liab. Litig.,373 F. Supp.2d 7,63 (E.D.N.Y.2005).
⑦ Burt Neuborne, Preliminary Reflections on Aspects of Holocaust-Era Litigation in American Courts,80 Wash. U. L.Q.795,806 n.29 (2002).
⑧ 164 F. Supp.2d 1160 (N.D. Cal.2001). See also, Russell A Miller, Much Ado, But Nothing:California's New World War Ⅱ Slave Labor Law Statute of Limitations and Its Place in the Increasingly Futile Effort to Obtain Compensations from American Courts,23 Whittier L. Rev.121 (2001).
⑨ Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co.,67 F. Supp.2d 424 (D.N.J.1999).
①See Michael J.Bazyler, The Holocaust Restitution Movement in Comparative Perspective,20 Berkeley J.Int'l L. 11,23-24(2002)；Burt Neuborne,Preliminary Reflections on Aspects of Holocaust-Era Litigation in American Courts,80 Wash.U.L.Q.795,799(2002).
②S.Rep.No.102-249,10-11(1991).
③Arce v. Garcia (Arce Ⅰ),400 F.3d 1340,1343(11th Cir.2005),vacated,434 F.3d 1254,1256(2006).
④Ellis v. Gen.Motors Acceptance Corp.,160 F.3d 703,706(11th Cir.1998).
① David E. Chawes, Time Is Not on Your Side:Establishing A Consistent Statute of Limitations for the Alien Tort Claims Act,27 Seattle U. L. Rev.191,218-231 (2003).
① See Richard T. Marooney & George S. Branch, Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act:United States Court Jurisdiction over Torts,12-SUM Currents:Int'l Trade L.J.3,10-11 (2003); Marisa Anne Pagnattaro, Enforcing International Labor Standards:The Potential of the Alien Tort Claims Act,37 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.203, 257-61 (2004).
② See Richard B. Lillich, Invoking International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts,54 U. Cin. L. Rev.367, 413 (1985); Sarah H. Cleveland, Global Labor Rights and the Alien Tort Claims Act,76 Tex. L. Rev.1533 (1998); Armin Rosencranz & Richard Campbell, Foreign Environmental and Human Rights Suits against U.S: Corporations in U.S. Courts,18 Stan. Envtl. L.J.145,181 (1999).
③ See Amanda Sue Nichols, Alien Tort Statute Accomplice Liability Cases:Should Courts Apply the Plausibility Pleading Standard of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly?,76 Fordham L. Rev.2177,2178-2179 (2008).
④ See, e.g., Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A.416 F.3d 1242,1247-50 (11th Cir.2005).当然，有的法院采用《联邦民事程序规则》第8(a)条的通知诉答要求(notice pleading requirement),会让原告的请求一直继续下去直到最终通过简易判决或和解而被撤销。See, e.g., Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petrol. Co., No.96 CⅣ. 8386,2002 WL 319887 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.28,2002); Doe v. Unocal Corp.,963 F. Supp.880,895 (C.D. Cal.1997).
⑤ Lucinda Saunders, Rich and Rare are the Gems They War:Holding De Beers Accountable for Trading Conflict Diamonds,24 Fordham Int'l L. J.1402,1455 (2001).
① See Russell J. Weintraub, International Litigation and Forum Non Conveniens,29 Tex. Int'l L.J.321 (1994); Lonny Sheinkopf Hoffman & Keith A. Rowley, Forum Non Conveniens in Federal Statutory Cases,49 Emory L.J. 1137(2000).
② Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,330 U.S.501,508,91 L. Ed.1055,67 S. Ct.839 (1947).
③ See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,454 U.S.235,254,70 L. Ed.2d 419,102 S. Ct.252 (1981).
④关于不方便法院原则在美国各州的适用情况,有学者曾经作过专门研究。See David W. Robertson & Paula K. Speck, Access to State Courts in Transnational Personal Injury Cases:Forum Non Conveniens and Antisuit Injunctions,68 Tex L. Rev.937,950-53 (1990).
⑤ See ICC Indus.v. Isr. Disc. Bank, Ltd,170 Fed. Appx.766 (2006); Carey v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank AG,370 F.3d 234 (2004).
⑥ See Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp.,274 F.3d 65,75 (2d Cir.2001) (en banc).
⑦ Sinochem Int'l Corp. Lidv. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp.,127 S Ct. 1184 (2007).
⑧ See Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp.,253 F. Supp.2d 510 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
⑨ See, e.g., In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation,978 F.2d 493,500 (9th Cir.1992); Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88,106 (2d Cir.2000); Jota v. Texaco, Inc.,157 F.3d 153,159 n.6 (2d Cir.1998); Aquinda v. Texaco, Inc.,142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001), affd as modified,303 F.3d 470,479 (2d Cir.2002).
① Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company,226 F.3d 88,107 (2d Cir.2000).
② 在 Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc.案中,原告提出尼日利亚司法腐败,其难以在尼日利亚法院得到充分的救济,但被法院驳回,法院认为尼日利亚是可替代性的法院,而美国法院是不方便法院。See Abdullahi v. Pfizer,Inc., 142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001), affd as modified,303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir.2002)在另外一起案件中,美国法院则以玻利维亚存在广泛的司法腐败、不具有公信力为由不同意适用不方便法院原则。See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Kavlin,978 F. Supp.1078 (S.D. Fla.1997).
③ See Phillip J. Blumberg, American Law in a Time of Global Interdependence:U.S. National Reports to the ⅩⅥth International Congress of Comparative Law:Section IV Asserting Human Rights against Multinational Corporations under United States Law:Conceptual and Procedural Problems,50 Am. J. Comp. L.493,507 (2002).
④ See Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc.,142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001), affd as modified,303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2002). See also, Phillip J. Blumberg, American Law in a Time of Global Interdependence:U.S. National Reports to the ⅩⅥth International Congress of Comparative Law:Section Ⅳ Asserting Human Rights against Multinational Corporations under United States Law:Conceptual and Procedural Problems,50 Am. J. Comp. L. 493,523 (2002).
⑤ Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995).
⑥ Cabiri v. Assasie-Gyimah,921 F.Supp.1189 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
⑦ 574 F. Supp.854 (S.D.N.Y.1983), affd,767 F.2d 908 (2d Cir.1985).
① The Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy,2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4085 (SDNY 2003).
② Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.2000).
③ See Aquinda v. Texaco, Inc.,142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001), affd as modified,303 F.3d 470,479 (2d Cir. 2002).
④ See Aaron Xavier Fellmeth, Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.:A New Standard for the Enforcement of International Law in U.S. Courts?,5 Yale Hum. Rts.& Dev. L.J.241,241 (2002).
⑤ See e.g., Aquinda v. Texaco, Inc.,142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y 2001), affd as modified,303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2002); Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp.,253 F. Supp.2d 510 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc.,142 F. Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001), affd as modified,303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir.2002). See also, Jeffrey E. Baldwin,
① Jeffrey E. Baldwin, International Human Rights Plaintiffs and the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens,40 Cornell Int'l L.J.749,779-780 (2007); Matthew R. Skolnik, The Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in Alien Tort Claims Act Cases:A Shell of Its Former Self after Wiwa,16 Emory Int'l L. Rev.187 (2002).
② See John F. Carella, Of Foreign Plaintiffs and Proper Fora:Forum Non Conveniens and ATCA Class Actions, 2003 U. Chi. Legal F.717,733-739 (2003).
③ Brief ofAmicus Curiae of the European Commission in Support of Neither Party at 24,124 S. Ct. 2739 (2004) (Nos.03-339,03-485).
① See, e.g., Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,697-99 (2004); Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.,488 U.S.428,432 (1989); Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,487 F.3d 1193,1223 (9th Cir.2007); Turedi v. Coca Cola Co.,460 F. Supp.2d 507,508-09,523-26 (S.D.N.Y.2006); Doe I v. Israel,400 F. Supp.2d 86,97 (D.D.C.2005); In re S. African Apartheid Litig.,346 F. Supp.2d 538,542-46 (S.D.N.Y.2004), vacated sub nom. Khulumani v. Barclay Nat'l Bank Ltd.,504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.2007); Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc.,303 F.3d 470,473,476-79 (2d Cir. 2002); Jama v. INS,22 F. Supp.2d 353,364 (D.N.J.1998).
② Doe v. Rafael Saravia,348 F. Supp.2d 1112,1157 (E.D. Cal.2004). See also Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.,244 F. Supp.2d 289,343 n.44 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
③ See Cabin v. Assasie-Gyimah,921 F. Supp.1189 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
④ Chiminya Tachiona v. Mugabe,216 F. Supp.2d 262 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
⑤ See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,96 CIV.8386 (KMW),2002 WL 319887, at * 17 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.28, 2002).
⑥ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,733 n.21 (2004).
① Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC,221 F. Supp.2d 1116,1127 (C.D. Cal.2002), affd in part, rev'd in part, vacated in part, 487 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.2007), reh'g en bane granted,499 F.3d 923 (9th Cir.2007).
② Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,487 F.3d 1193,1223 (9th Cir.2007).
③ Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,550 F.3d 822,08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.15,110,2008 Daily Journal D.A.R.18,345 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Dec 16,2008) (NO.02-56256,02-56390).
④ 435 F.Supp.2d 830 (N.D.Ill.2006.)
⑤ See, e.g., Eric Engle, The Torture Victim's Protection Act, The Alien Tort Claims Act, and Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge,67 Alb. L. Rev.501,504 (2003); Gregory G. A. Tzeutschler, Corporate Violator:The Alien Tort Liability of Transnational Corporations for Human Rights Abuses Abroad,30 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 359,396 (1999).
① See Sean D. Murphy, The ELSI Case:An Investment Dispute at the International Court of Justice,16 Yale J. Int'lL.391,413 n.97 (1991).
② See Collett v. Socialist Peoples' Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,362 F. Supp.2d 230,242 (D.D.C.2005).
③对于国际法上的用尽当地救济,有学者有专门的研究。See Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe, Local Remedies in International Law (2d ed.), Cambridge University Press,2004.
④在Sosa案中,最高法院在脚注中提到在合适的情形下要求用尽当地救济是合法的。See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,733 n.21 (2004).
⑤在涉及《酷刑受害人保护法》的《外国人侵权请求法》诉讼中,由于《酷刑受害人保护法》明确要求用尽当地救济,所以用尽当地救济则是一个必须要解决的问题。See, e.g., Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162, 178 (D. Mass.1995); Alomang v. Freeport-McMoran Inc., Civ. A. No.96-2139,1996 WL 601431, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct.17,1996); Cabiri v. Assasie-Gyimah,921 F. Supp.1189,1197 n.6 (S.D.N.Y.1996). ⑥ Jean v. Dorelien,431 F.3d 776,781 (11th Cir.2005).
①梁西主编：《国际法》,武汉大学出版社2000年修订版,第387页。
②梁西主编：《国际法》,武汉大学出版社2000年修订版,第396页。
③ See United States v. Lumumba,741 F.2d 12,15 (2d Cir.1984).
④ United States v. Enger, 472 F.Supp.490,506 (D.N.J.1978). See also Tabion v. Faris Mufti,73 F.3d 535,536 (4th Cir.1996),在该案中,外交豁免给予苏丹大使馆的一秘和顾问;Logan v. Dupuis,990 F.Supp.26,26 (D.D.C.1997),在该案中,外交豁免给予加拿大常驻美洲国家组织代表团的代表；Fatimeh Ali Aidi v. Amos Yaron,672 F.Supp.516,516 (D.D.C.1987),在该案中,外交豁免给予以色列大使馆的军事参赞。
⑤ 995 F.Supp.1469,1470(S.D.Fla.1997).
① 665 F.Supp.793,799 (N.D.Cal.1987).
②741 F.2d 1328,1329 (11th Cir.1984).
③ See generally Sir Arthur Watts, The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers,242 Recueil Des Cours 13 (1994-Ⅲ). See also Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law:Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2005, p.255.
④龚刃韧：《国家豁免问题的比较研究》,北京大学出版社2005年第2版,第1页；另见黄进：《国家及其财产豁免问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社1987年版,第1页。
⑤ 507 U.S.349,355,123 L. Ed.2d 47,113 S. Ct.1471 (1993).
⑥ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,963 F. Supp.880,886 (C.D. Cal.1997).
⑦ Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp. v Tamimi (In re Tamimi),176 F3d 274 (CA 4 1999). See also Adam C. Belsky, Mark Merva & Naomi Rhot-Arriaza, Implied Waiver under the FSIA:A Proposed Exception to Immunity for Violation of Peremptory Norms of International Law,77 Calif LR 365 (1989).
⑧ Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.,488 U.S.428,442-443 (1989).
⑨ Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany,26 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir.1994); Smith v Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,101 F.3d 239 (2d Cir.1996).
① Saudi Arabia v. Nelson,126 507 U.S.349 (1993).
② Letelier v. Republic nf Chile 748 F.2d 790(1983).
③ Republic of Argentina v. Weltover,504 U.S. 607 (1992).
④ Barry J. Martin v.The Republic of South Africa,836 F.2D 91 (1st Cir.1987).
⑤ Prinz v. Republic of Germany,26 F.3d 1166,1173 (D.C. Cir.1994).
⑥ 541 U.S.677,124 S. Ct.2240,159 L. Ed.2d 1,2004 U.S. LEXIS 4030.
⑦ Chuidian v. Philippine Nat'l Bank,912 F.2d 1095,1103,1106-1107 (9th Cir.1990).
⑧ United States v. Noriega,117 F.3d 1206,1212 (11th Cir.1997).
⑨ Spacil v. Crowe,489 F.2d 614,617 (5th Cir.1974); Isbrandtsen Tankers, Inc. v. President of India,446 F.2d 1198,1201 (2d Cir.1971); Rich v. Naviera Vacuba S.A.,295 F.2d 24,26 (4th Cir.1961); Ex Parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S.578,589,87 L. Ed.1014,63 S. Ct.793 (1943); Compania Espanola de Navegacion Maritima, S.A. v. The Navemar,303 U.S.68,74,82 L. Ed.667,58 S. Ct.432 (1938).
① 324 U.S.30,35,89 L. Ed.729,65 S. Ct.530 (1945).
② Tachiona v. Mugabe,169 F.Supp.2d 259 (S.D.N.Y.2001). See also Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law:Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2005, pp.265-266.
③ See generally Sir Arthur Watts, The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers,242 Recueil Des Cours 13 (1994-111). See also Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law:Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2005, pp.255-256.
④ See Shobha Varughese George, Head-of-State Immunity in the United States Courts:Still Confused after All These Years,64 Fordham L. Rev.1051 (1995); Michael A. Tunks, Diplomats or Defendants? Defining the Future of Head-of-State Immunity,52 Duke L.J.651 (2002); Daryl A. Mundis, Tachiona v. Mugabe:A US Court Bows to Personal Immunities of a Foreign Head of State,1 J Int'l Crim Justice 462 (2003)有学者提出,应该限制对于前
国家元首的豁免,以更符合美国的国内政策。See Peter E. Bass, Ex-Head of State Immunity:A Proposed Statutory Tool of Foreign Policy,97 Yale L.J.299 (1987).
⑤ Chuidian v. Philippine Nat'l Bank,912 F.2d 1095,1102 (9th Cir.1990).
⑥ Chuidian v. Philippine Nat'l Bank, 912 F.2d 1095,1106 (9th Cir.1990). See e.g., Jungquist v. Sheikh Sultan Bin Khalifa Al Nahyan,115 F.3d 1020 1028 (D.C.Cir.1997)(认为是个人行为，不能享受豁免); Doe v. Bolkiah,74 F.Supp.2d 969,974 (D.Haw.1998) (认为是职务行为，授予豁免).
⑦ 313 F.3d 1138,1144 (9th Cir.2002).
⑧ United States v. Yakima Tribal Court,806 F.2d 853,859 (9th Cir.1986); Chuidian v. PhilippineNat'l Bank,912 F.2d 1095,1106 (9th Cir.1990); Re Estate of FerdinandMarcos, Human Rights Litig.25 F.3d 1467,1472 (9th Cir.1994).
① Cabiri v. Assasie-Gyimah,921 F.Supp.1189,1198 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
② Re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Human Rights Litig.25 F.3d 1467,1471 (9th Cir.1994). See also Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos,862 F.2d 1355,1362 (9th Cir.1988).
③ 978 F.2d 493,498 (9th Cir.1992).
④ Lafontant v. Aristide,844 F.Supp.128 (E.D.N.Y.1994).
⑤本章第六节对政治问题理论有专门介绍。
⑥黄进：《国家及其财产豁免问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社1987年版,第140页。
① Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,958 (9th Cir.2002) vacated by reh'g en bane 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
② Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino,376 U.S.398,428 (1964).
③ Doe v. Unocal Corp.,395 F.3d 932,959 (9th Cir.2002) vacated by reh'g en bane 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
④ 168 U.S.250,252,18 S.Ct.83,42 L.Ed.456 (1897).
⑤ 246 U.S.297,38 S.Ct.309,311,62 L.Ed.726 (1918).
⑥ 376 U.S.398,84 S.Ct.923,11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964).
⑦ 649 F.2d 1354,1359 (9th Cir.1981).
⑧ See e.g., Bernstein v. Van Heyghen Freres Societe Anonyme,163 F.2d 246 (2d Cir.1947) and Bernstein v. N. V. Nederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij,173 F.2d 71 (2d Cir.1949).
① Doe v. Unocal Corp.963 F. Supp.880,892 (C.D. Cal.1997).
② Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino,376 U.S.398,84 S.Ct. 923,11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964).
③ Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino,376 U.S.398,84 S.Ct.923,11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964).
④ Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of Am.,549 F.2d 597,607 (9th Cir.1976).
⑤ W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., Int'l.,493 U.S.400,405 (1990).
⑥ Louis Henkin, Act of State Today:Recollections in Tranquility,6 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.175,178(
⑦ Joel R. Paul, Comity in International Law,32 Harv. Int'l L. J.1,66-67 (1991).
⑧ Anne-Marie Burley, Law among Liberal States:Liberal Internationalism and the Act of State Doctrine,102 Colum. L. Rev.1907,1935-36 (1992).
⑨ Alfred Dunhill of London Inc. v. Republic of Cuba,425 U.S.682,694-95,96 S.Ct.1854,48 L.Ed.2d 301 (1976); see also Liu v. Republic of China,892 F.2d 1419,1432 (9th Cir.1989). ⑩ W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Envtl. Tectonics Corp.,493 U.S.400,405-406,110 S.Ct.701,107 L.Ed.2d 816 (1990).
11 Alfred Dunhill of London Inc. v. Republic of Cuba,425 U.S.682,695-696,96 S.Ct. 1854,48 L.Ed.2d 301 (1976).
12 Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. OPEC,649 F.2d 1354,1360 (9th Cir.1981).
① Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc.,403 F.Supp.2d 1019 (W.D.Wash.2005).
② Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,889 (2d Cir.1980).
③ Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC,221 F. Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal.2002).
④ See Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232 (2nd Cir.1995); Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,630 F.2d 876,889 (2d Cir.1980); Sharon v. Time, Inc.,599 F.Supp.538,544 (S.D.N.Y.1984); Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos,862 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir.1988)(en banc).
⑤ Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.,381 F.Supp.2d 1164 (C.D.Cal.2005).
⑥ Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co.,239 F.3d 440,453 (2d Cir.2000).
⑦ Forti v. Suarez-Mason,672 F.Supp.1531 (N.D.Cal.1987).
① See Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.,244 F. Supp.2d 289,346 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
② Samuel A. Khalil, The Alien Tort Claims Act And Section 1983:The Improper Use Of Domestic Laws To "Create "And "Define " International Liability For Multi-National Corporations,31 Hofstra L. Rev.207 (2002).
③ Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC.,221 F.Supp.2d 1116,1181 (C.D.Cal.2002).
④ Joshua Gregory Holt, The International Law Exception to the Act of State Doctrine:Redressing Human Rights Abuses in Papua New Guinea,16 Pac. Rim L.& Pol'y J.459 (2007).
⑤ 376 U.S.398,84 S.Ct.923,11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964).
⑥ W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., Int'l,493 U.S.400,409(1990).
①See Michael J.Bazyler,Abolishing the of State Doctrine,134 U.Pa.L.Rev.325(1986).
②Hilton v.Guyot,159 U.S.113,164(1895).对于国际礼让的起源与发展,有学者专门作了研究。See Joel R. Paul,Comity in International Law,32 Harv.Int'l L.J.1(1991);Michael D.Ramsey,Escaping"International Comity,"83 Iowa L.Rev.893(1998);Spencer Weber Waller,The Twilight of Comity,38 Colum.J.Transnat'l L. 563(2000).
③Pravin Banker Assoc.v. Banco Popular Del Peru,109 F.3d 850,854(2d Cir.1997).
④Richard H.M.Maloy & Desamparados M.Nisi,A Message to the Supreme Court:Next Time You Get a Chance Please Look at Hilton v. Guyot;We Think it Needs Repairing,5 J.Int'l Legal Stud.1,15(1999).
⑤对于国家行为理论和国际礼让的区别与适用,see Jake S.Tyshow,Informa; Foreign Affairs Formalism:the Act of State Doctrine and the Reinterpretation of Inter national Comity,43 Va.Int'l L.275(2002).
① See Hartford Fire Ins. v. California,509 U.S.764,798 (1993)在该案中,最高法院要求国内法和外国法存在真实冲突时才能适用国际礼让原则。
② Sareiv. Rio Tinto PLC.,221 F.Supp.2d 1116 (C.D.Cal.2002).
③ Peter Little, What Are the Consequences of the Alien Tort Claims Act (US) on Mining and Petroleum Corporation Operating in the Third World States in the Asian Pacific Region,23 Australian Resources and Energy Law Journal 63 (2004).
④ Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co.,239 F.3d 440,453-54 (2d Cir.2001).
⑤ See Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy Inc., No.01 Civ.9882(DLC),2005 WL 2082846 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.30,2005).
⑥ 381 F. Supp.2d 1164,1182-1183 (C.D. Cal.2005). See also, Amy Apollo, Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation:A Case Study of the Role of the Executive Branch In International Human Rights Litigation,37 Rutgers L.J.855 (2006).
⑦ Doe v. Rafael Saravia,348 F.Supp.2d 1112 (E.D.Cal.2004).
① Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.,244 F.Supp.2d 289 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
② 250 F.3d 1145,1149 n.3 (7th Cir.2001).
③关于政治问题的历史发展,有几篇文章比较有参考价值。See Robert F. Nagel, Political Law, Legalistic Politics:A Recent History of the Political Question Doctrine,56 U. Chi. L. Rev.643 (1989); Mark Tushnet, Law and Prudence in the Law ofJusticiability:the Transformation and Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine,80 N.C. L. Rev.1203 (2002); Rachel E. Barkow, More Supreme than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise Of Judicial Supremacy,102 Colum. L. Rev.237 (2002). See also, Louis Henkin, Is There a "Political Question" Doctrine"?,85 Yale L.J.597 (1976); David J. Bederman, Deference or Deception: Treaty Rights As Political Questions,70 U. Colo. L. Rev.1439,1441-1445 (1999).
④ 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
⑤ See Marbury v. Madision,5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137,170 (1803).
⑥ See, e.g., Baker v. Carr,369 U.S.186,211 (1962); Chicago & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp.,333 U.S.103,111 (1948); United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp.,299 U.S.304,319-320 (1936).
⑦369 U.S.186(1962).
① See Russell J. Weintraub, Establishing Incredible Events By Credible Evidence:Civil Suits For Atrocities That Violate International Law,62 Brook. L. Rev.753,773 (1996).
② Louis Henkin, Is There a "Political Question" Doctrine?,85 Yale L. J.597,622 (1976); see also John Hart Ely, Suppose Congress Wanted a War Powers Act That Worked,88 Colum. L. Rev.1379,1407 (1988).
③ Michael E. Tigar, Judicial Power, the "Political Question Doctrine," and Foreign Relations,17 UCLA L. Rev. 1135,1156(1970).
④ See Japan Whaling Ass'n v. Am. Cetacean Soc'y,478 U.S.221,230 (1986).
⑤ Lucien J. Dhooge, The Alien Tort Claims Act and the Modern Transnational Enterprise:Deconstructing the Mythology of Judicial Activism,35 Geo. J. Int'l L.3,84-86 (2003). See also, Beth Stephens, Judicial Deference and the Unreasonable Views of the Bush Administration,33 Brook. J. Int'l L.773 (2008).
⑥ See Jennifer K. Elsea, The Alien Tort Statute:Legislative History and Executive Branch Views, CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL32118, CRS-1, http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-8433:1 (last visited August 18,2008).
⑦ Elliot J. Schrage, Judging Corporate Accountability in the Global Economy,42 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.153,161 (2003).
⑧ Lorelle Londis, The Corporate Face of the Alien Tort Claims Act:How an Old Statute Mandates a New Understanding of Global Interdependence,57 Me. L. Rev.141,188 (2005).
①221 F. Supp.2d 1116,1121(C.D.Cal.2002),rev'd,456 F.3d 1069(9th Cir.2006).
① Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,550 F.3d 822,08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv.15,110,2008 Daily Journal D.A.R.18,345 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Dec 16,2008) (NO.02-56256,02-56390).
② 244 F. Supp.2d 289,296 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
③ Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.,381 F. Supp.2d 1164,1168-1169 (C.D. Cal.2005).
④ 393 F. Supp.2d 20 (D.D.C.2005).
⑤ See Adam Liptak, U.S. Courts'Role in Foreign Feuds Comes under Fire, N.Y. TIMES, Aug.3,2003, at N1.
① Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan,413 F.3d 45 (D.C. Cir.2005), cert, denied,126 S.Ct.1418 (2006).
② See The Center for Justice & Accountability, http:// www.cja.org/legalResources/StateDepartmentBriefdocs.shtml (last visited May 16,2008).
③ See Beth Stephens, Corporate Liability:Enforcing Human Rights through Domestic Litigation,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.401,401 (2001).
④ See Ralph G Steinhardt, Laying One Bankrupt Critique to Rest:Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Future of International Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts,57 VAND. L. REV.2241,2289-90 (2004).
⑤ See, e.g., Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.,374 F. Supp.2d 331,335-337 (S.D.N.Y.2005); Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp.,312 F. Supp.2d 1229,1247-1248 (N.D. Cal.2004); Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No.96 Civ.8386(KMW),2002 WL 319887 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.28,2002); Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp.2d 424,445 (D.N.J.1999).
① See Emeka Duruigbo, The Economic Cost of Alien Tort Litigation:A Response to Awakening Monster:The Alien Tort Statute of 1789,14 Minn. J. Global Trade 1,7 (2004).
② John E. Howard, Vice President of International Policy and Programs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Op-Ed., The Alien Tort Claims Act:Is Our Litigation-Run-Amok Going Global?, http:// www.uschamber.com/press/opeds/0210howarditigation.htm (last visited August 8,2008).
③ Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, Awakening Monster:The Alien Tort Statute of 1789, Institute for International Economics,2003, p.38.
④ See Daniel T. Griswold, USA Engage, Abuse of 18th Century Law Threatens U.S. Economic and Security Interests (Jan.25,2003), http://www.usaengage.org/legislative/2003/alientort/cato_griswold.html (last visited August 8,2008).
⑤ See Richard T. Marooney & George S. Branch, Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act:United States Court Jurisdiction over Torts,12 Currents:Int'l Trade L.J.3,11 (2003).
⑥ Kenny Bruno, De-Globalizing Justice:The Corporate Campaign To Strip Foreign Victims of Corporate-Induced Human Rights Violations of the Right To Sue in U.S. Courts, Multinat'l Monitor, Mar.1,2003, at 13
⑦ See Lawrence R. Jacobs & Benjamin I. Page, Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?,99 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.107, 120(2005).
① Brief for the National Foreign Trade Council et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner at 4, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692 (2004) (No.03-339), available at http://www.sdshh.com/Alvarez/NFTC □AmicusB□rief.pdf (last visited August 8,2008).
② See Terry Collingsworth, "Corporate Social Responsibility," Unmasked,16 ST. THOMAS L. REV.669,685 (2004).
③ S.1874,109th Cong. § 2(e) (2005), available at http://www.laborrights.org/projects/corporate/ATSFeisteinLetterOct05.pdf (last visited August 8,2008).当然,Feinstein后来撤回了该提案。See Letter from Senator Feinstein to Senator Specter, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Oct.25,2005, available at http://www.earthrights.org/content/view/126/56/(last visited August 8,2008). See also Anthony J. Sebok, Senator Feinstein's Now-Withdrawn Statute Limiting Non-Citizens' Tort Claims:How Would It Have Affected Abu-Ghraib-Related Civil Suits and Other Similar Civil Actions?, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20051031.html (last visited August 20,2008).
④ In re South African Apartheid Litigation,346 F. Supp.2d 538 (S.D.N.Y.2004).
⑤ 393 F. Supp.2d 20,22 (D.D.C.2005).
① 221 F. Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal.2002).
② Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC, Nos.02-56256,02-56390,2006 WL 2242146 (9th Cir. Aug.7,2006).
③ Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co.,67 F.Supp.2d 424 (D.N.J.1999).
④ Abebe-Jira v. Negewo,72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir.1996).
⑤ In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation,373 F.Supp.2d 7 (E.D.N.Y.2005).
⑥ Ibrahim v. Titan Corp.,391 F.Supp.2d 10 (D.D.C.2005).
⑦ 28 U.S.C. §517(2000).
① 542 U.S.692,728-729 (2004).
② Margarita S. Clarens, Deference, Human Rights and the Federal Courts:the Role of the Executive in Alien Tort Statute Litigation,17 Duke J. Comp.& Int'l L.415,431-432 (2007
③ See Republic of Austria v. Altmann,541 U.S.677,702 (2004).
④ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain.542 U.S.692.733 n.21 (2004).
⑤ See Whiteman v. Dorotheum GmbH & Co KG,431 F.3d 57,59-60 (2d Cir.2005); Ungaro-Benages v. Dresdner BankAG,379 F.3d 1227,1235-1236 (11th Cir.2004).
⑥ See Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC.,456 F.3d 1069,1082 (9th Cir.2006).
⑦ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,732-733 (2004).
⑧ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692,726-728 (2004).
⑨ Beth Stephens, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain "The Door Is Still Ajar" For Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts, 70 Brook. L. Rev.533,566 (2004). See also Elliot J. Schrage, Judging Corporate Accountability in the Global Economy,42 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.153,161 (2003); Beth Stephens, U.S. Foreign Policy and Human Rights: Upsetting Checks and Balances:The Bush Administration's Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation,17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.169,170 (2004).
① See Lorelle Londis, The Corporate Face of the Alien Tort Claims Act:How an Old Statute Mandates a New Understanding of Global Interdependence,57 Me. L. Rev.141,191 (2005).
■ Beth Stephens, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain "The Door Is Still Ajar" For Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts, 70 Brook. L. Rev.533,567 (2004).
③ Beth Stephens, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain "The Door Is Still Ajar" For Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts, 70 Brook. L. Rev.533,567 (2004). See also Brief for the United States in Support of the Petition at 18, as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Jose Francisco Sosa, Petitioner v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain, et al.,542 U.S.692 (2004) (No.03-339).
④ Arlen Specter, The Court of Last Resort, N.Y. Times, Aug.7,2003, at A23.
⑤ See Sarah H. Cleveland, The Alien Tort Statute, Civil Society, and Corporate Responsibility,56 RUTGERS I REV.971,974 n.8 (2004).
⑥ Brief of Amici Curiae Career Foreign Service Diplomats in Support of Respondent at 11,13, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,542 U.S.692 (2004) (No.03-339), available at http://www.sdshh.com/Alvarez/DiplomatsAmicusBrief$1).pdf(last visited August 17,2008).
⑦ See, e.g., Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., No.01 Civ.9882(DLC),2005 WL 2082846 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.30,2005).
⑧ See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig.,373 F. Supp.2d 7,64 (E.D.N.Y.2005).
① Brief of Professors of Federal Jurisdiction and Legal History as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents at 8, Sosa,542 U.S.692 (No.03-339), available at http://www.sdshh.com/Alvarez/SosaHistoriansAmicus$1).pdf(last visited December 4,2008).
② Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,726 F.2d 774,789 (D.C. Cir.1984) (Edwards, J., concurring).
③ David D. Christensen, Corporate Liability for Overseas Human Rights Abuses:The Alien Tort Statute after Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,62 Wash.& Lee L. Rev.1219,1257-1265 (2005).
④ Jack L. Goldsmith, The New Formalism in United States Foreign Relations Law,70 U. Colo. L. Rev.1395,1413 (1999).
⑤ See Peter J. Spiro, Globalization and the (Foreign Affairs) Constitution,63 Ohio St. L.J.649,653 (2002).
⑥ See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Co.,299 U.S.304,320 (1936).
① Aron Ketchel, Deriving Lessons for The Alien Tort Claims Act From The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,32 Yale J. Int'l L.191,211 (2007).
② S.1874,109th Cong.
③ See Anthony J. Sebok, Senator Feins tein's Now-Withdrawn Statute Limiting Non-Citizens'Tort Claims:How Would It Have Affected Abu-Ghraib-Related Civil Suits and Other Similar Civil Actions?, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20051031.html (last visited August 20,2008).
④ Nancy S. Williams, Political Question or Judicial Query:An Examination of the Modern Doctrine and Its Inapplicability to Human Rights Mass Tort Litigation,28 Pepp. L. Rev.849 (2001).
⑤ J. Peter Mulhern, In Defense of the Political Question Doctrine,137 U. Pa. L. Rev.97 (1988).
⑥ Brian C. Free, Awaiting Doe V. Exxon Mobil Corp.:Advocating the Cautious Use of Executive Opinions in Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation,12 Pac. Rim L.& Pol'y J.467 (2003).
① Sandra Coliver, Jennie Green & Paul L. Hoffman, Holding Human Rights Violators Accountable By Using International Law in U.S. Courts:Advocacy Efforts and Complementary Strategies,19 EMORY INTL L. REV. 169,179(2005).
② Beth Van Schaack, The Civil Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in Domestic Courts,6 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L.295,298-299 (2000).
③ Anne-Marie Slaughter & David Bosco, Plaintiffs Diplomacy,79 Foreign Aff.102 (2000).
①Jeffrey Davis, Justice without Borders:Human Rights Cases in U.S. Courts,28 Law & Policy 60 (2006).
① See Charlotte Ku & Christopher J. Borgen, American Lawyers and International Competence,18 Dick. J. Int'l L. 493,499 (2000); see also Karen Knop, Here and There:International Law in Domestic Courts,32 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol.501,504(2000).
② See Melissa A. Waters, Mediating Norms and Identity:The Role of Transnational Judicial Dialogue in Creating and Enforcing International Law,93 Geo. L.J.487,494 (2005).
③ Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995).
④ Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait,107 I.L.R.536,538-39 (Eng. C.A.1996).
⑤ 226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.2000), cert, denied,121 S. Ct.1402 (2001).
⑥ See Dapo Akande, International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court.98 Am. J. Int'l. L.407. 408 (2004).
⑦即本章将讨论的Bouzari案、Jones案、Ferrini案和Voiotia案。
⑧ See Halina Ward, Securing Transnational Corporate Accountability through National Courts:Implications and Policy Options,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.451,456 (2001); see also Richard Meeran, Accountability of Transnational for Human Rights Abuses,148 New L.J.1686(1998).
⑨ See Halina Ward, Securing Transnational Corporate Accountability through National Courts:Implications and Policy Options,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.451,457-458 (2001).
⑩英国上议院拒绝撤销案件,认为如果撤销案件而在南非诉讼的话原告难以得到救济。See Lubbe v. Cape PLC(No.2),1 E.L.R.1545 (H.L.2000).
① See Caroline Kaeb, Emerging Issues of Human Rights Responsibility in the Extractive and Manufacturing Industries:Patterns and Liability Risks,6 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts.327,328 (2008).
② See Caroline Kaeb, Emerging Issues of Human Rights Responsibility in the Extractive and Manufacturing Industries:Patterns and Liability Risks,6 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts.327 (2008); Halina Ward, Securing Transnational Corporate Accountability through National Courts:Implications and Policy Options,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.451,457-458 (2001).
③ Halina Ward, Securing Transnational Corporate Accountability through National Courts:Implications and Policy Options,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.451,457 (2001).
④ See generally Beth Stephens, Translating Filartiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l 1,32 (2002).英国虽然从成文法上废除了双重可诉规则,但是在判例法上,通过实体与程序的识别、更密切联系地法的适用等方法,双重可诉规则实际上是在“复辟”的。参见宋晓：“双重可诉规则：进退之际”,载《改革开放三十年与中国国际私法2008年中国国际私法学会年会论文集》,第511-513页。
⑤ See Markus Rau, After Pinochet:Foreign Sovereign Immunity in Respect of Serious Human Rights Violations-The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Al-Adsani Case,3 Ger. L. J.6 (2002).
⑥ See Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, pp.187-194.
⑦ Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait,107 I.L.R.536,538-539 (Eng. C.A.1996).
①尽管可以对私人被告作出缺席判决,然而Al-Adsani的律师认为,当被告在英国没有可供扣押或者执行的财产时,缺席判决也没什么意义。Geoffrey Bindman, How Courts Condone Torture, The Times, Mar.25,1997, at 41.
② Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, App.35763/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov.21,2001).
① Lorna McGregor, State Immunity and Jus Cogens,55 ICLQ 437,444 (2006)
② See Ed Bates, The Al-Adsani Case, State Immunity and the International Legal Prohibition on Torture,3 Human Rights Law Review 193 (2003); Ed Bates, (Case Comment) Article 6:Right to A Fair Trial, E.L. Rev.2002,27 Supp (Human rights survey 2002); Emmanuel Voyiakis, Access to Court v State Immunity,52 ICLQ 297 (2003); Richard Garnett, Access to Justice; Right to Fair Trial; State Immunity. State Immunity Triumphs in the European Court of Human Rights,118 Law Quarterly Review 367 (2002).
③ Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955,956-957 (2007).
④ The Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Judgment of 10 Dec.1998, IT-95-17/I-T, at para.155; Prosecutor v. Morris Kallon & Brimma Bazzy Kamara, SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E) & SCSL-2004-16-AR72(E), Decision of 13 Mar. 2004, at para.71; Prosecutor v. Augustine Gbao, SCSL-2003-01-I, Decision of 31 May 2004, at para.9.
⑤ Adam C. Belsky, Mark Merva & Naomi Rhot-Arriaza, Implied Waiver under the FSIA:A Proposed Exception to Immunity for Violations of Peremptory Norms of International Law,77 California L Rev 365 (1989); Reinmann, A Human Rights Exception to Sovereign Immunity:Some Thoughts on Princz v Federal Republic of Germany,16 Michigan J Int'l L 403 (1995); Magdalini Karagiannakis, State Immunity and Fundamental Human Rights,11 Leiden J Int'l L 9 (1998); Katherine Reece Thomas & Joan Small, Human Rights versus State Immunity:Is there Immunity from Civil Liability for Torture?,50 Netherlands Int'l L Rev.1 (2003); Kerstin Bartsch & Bjorn Elberling, Jus Cogens vs. State Immunity, Round Two:The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulou et al. v. Greece and Germany Decision,4 German LJ 477 (2003); Christopher Keith Hall, UN Convention on State Immunity:The Need for a Human Rights Protocol,55 ICLQ 411 (2006); Lorna McGregor, State Immunity and Jus Cogens,55 ICLQ 437 (2006).
① Leandro de Oliveira Moll, Case Note:Al-Adsani v United Kingdom-State Immunity and Denial of Justice with respect to Violations of Fundamental Human Rights,4 Melbourne Journal of International Law 561 (2003).
② See Jones v. Saudi Arabia,2004 EWCA (Civ) 1394 (2004).
③ See Jean Allain & John R.W.D. Jones, A Patchwork of Norms:A commentary on the 1996 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind,18 Eur. J. I. L.1 (2003).
① [2006] UKHL 26.
② Lee M. Caplan, State Immunity, Human Rights, and jus cogens:A Critique of the Normative Hierarchy Theory, 97 Am. J. Int'l. L.741 (2003); Andrea Gattini, War Crimes and State Immunity in the Ferrini Decision,3 J. Int'l Crim. Just.224 (2005).
③ International Law Commission, Report of the Working Group on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, A/CN.4/L.576 (1999), Appendix at para.12.
④ Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium ('Case concerning Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000'),ICJ Reports (2002); Steffen Wirth, Immunity for Core Crimes? The ICJ's Judgment in the Congo v Belgium Case,13 Eur. J. Int'l L.877 (2002).
① Ed Bates, State Immunity for Torture,7 Hum. Rts. L. Rev.651 (2007). See also, Stacy Humes-Schulz, Limiting Sovereign Immunity in the Age of Human Rights,21 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.105 (2008).
② See Salvatore Zappala, Do Heads of State in Office Enjoy Immunity from Jurisdiction for International Crimes? The Ghaddafi Case Before the French Cour de Cassation,12 Eur. J. Int'l L.595 (2001). See also Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law:Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2005, pp.263-264.
③ Bouzari v Iran (Islamic Republic),2002 CarswellOnt 1469, [20021 O.J. No.1624, [2002] O.T.C.297 (Ont S.C.J. May 01,2002); Affirmed by Bouzari v Iran (Islamic Republic),243 D.L.R. (4th) 406,220 O.A.C.1,2004 CarswellOnt 2681,71 O.R. (3d) 675,122 C.R.R. (2d) 26, [2004] O.J. No.2800 (Ont. C.A. Jun 30,2004); Leave to appeal refused by Bouzari v Iran (Islamic Republic), [2005] 1 S.C.R. vi,204 O.A.C.399 (note),337 N.R.190 (note),2005 CarswellOnt 292,2005 CarswellOnt 293,122 C.R.R. (2d) 376 (note), [2004] S.C.C.A. No.410 (S.C.C. Jan 27,2005). Bouzari案作了简单评论。
① See Jutta Brunnee and Stephen J. Toope, A Hesitant Embrace:The Application of International Law by Canadian Courts,40 Canadian Journal of International Law 3 (2002).
② Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), [20021 OJ No.1624, Court File No. 00-CV-201372; Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Court of Appeal for Ontario),30 June 2004, Docket:C38295.
① Arar v. Syria (Arab Republic),2005 CarswellOnt 768,28 C.R. (6th) 187,127 C.R.R. (2d) 252. See also, J.-G. Castel, The Arar Case:Public and Private International Law Aspects, http://www.ccil-ccdi.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=76 (last visited August 20, 2008).
② Noah Benjamin Novogrodsky, Immunity for Torture:Lessons from Bouzari v. Iran,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.939,945 (2007).
③ Caroline Davidson, Tort Au Canadien:A Proposal for Canadian Tort Legislation on Gross Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law,38 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.1403 (2005).
④ See Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242, 248 (2005); Carlo Focarelli, Denying Foreign State Immunity for Commission of International Crimes:The Ferrini Decision,54 ICLQ 951 (2005).
⑤ See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,92 (2005).
⑥ See Andrea Gattini, War Crimes and State Immunity in the Ferrini Decision,3 J. Int'l Crim. Just.224 (2005). ⑦ See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,93 (2005); Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242,243 (2005). See also Maria Gavouneli & Ilias Banterkas, Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany. Case No.11/2000,95 Am. J. Int'l. L.198 (2001).
① See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,100-101 (2005).
② See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,101 (2005).
③ See 28 USC §1605 (a)(7)(2000); see also Argentina Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.,488 U.S.428, 434(1989).
④ See In re Estate of Marcos Human Rights Litig., No.91-15891,1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 26517,26523 (9th Cir. 1992).
⑤ See Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242, 244 (2005).
⑥ See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,194 (2005); See also Andrea Bianchi, International Decision: Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242,245 (2005).
① See generally Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,90 (2005).
② See Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242, 246 (2005).
③ See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,100 (2005).
④ See generally Andrea Gattini, War Crimes and State Immunity in the Ferrini Decision,3 J. Int'l Crim. Just.224 (2005).
⑤ See Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242, 246 (2005); see also Melissa A. Waters, Mediating Norms and Identity:The Role of Transnational Judicial Dialogue in Creating and Enforcing International Law,93 Geo. L.J.487,490 (2005).
⑥ See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, Stale Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Co Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,100 (2005).
⑦ See Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89,100(2005); Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242,245 (2005).
⑧ Hazel Fox, State Immunity and the International Crime of Torture,2006 EHRLR 142,144 (2006).
⑨ Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955,967 (2007).
① Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89 (2005).
② Xiaodong Yang, State Immunity in the European Court of Human Rights:Reaffirmations and Misconceptions, 74 BYIL 333,343 (2003).
③ http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/143/14923.pdf (last visited May 3,2009).
④ Case No.137/1997, Distorno Massacre, Multi-member Court ofLevadia,30 Oct.1997,50 Revue Hellenique de droit international (1997) 599, quoted in Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955,966 (2007). See also Sabine Pittrof, Compensation Claims for Human Rights Breaches Committed by German Armed Forces Abroad During the Second World War:Federal Court of Justice Hands Down Decision in the Distomo Case,5 German LJ 15 (2004); Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955,966 (2007).
⑤ Maria Gavouneli & Ilias Banterkas, Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany. Case No.11/2000, 95 Am. J. Int'l. L.198 (2001); Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955,966 (2007).
⑥ Kerstin Bartsch & Bjorn Elberling, Jus Cogens vs. State Immunity, Round Two:The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulou et al. v. Greece and Germany Decision,4 German LJ 478 (2003).
① Case No.6/2002, Distorno Massacre, Special Supreme Court,17 Sept.2002,56 Revue Hellenique de droit international (2003) 56, quoted in Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955,966 (2007). See also Andrea Gattini, To What Extent are State Immunity and Non-Justiciability Major Hurdles to Individuals'Claims for War Damages?,1 J. Int'l Crim. Just.348 (2003); Lee M. Caplan, State Immunity, Human Rights, and Jus Cogens:A Critique of the Normative Hierarchy Theory,97 Am. J. Int'l. L.741 (2003); Andrea Gattini, War Crimes and State Immunity in the Ferrini Decision,3 J. Int'l Crim. Just.224 (2005).
② Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, pp.178-180.
③ Markus Rau, State Liability for Violations of International Humanitarian Law-The Distomo Case Before the German Federal Constitutional Court,7 German LJ 701 (2005).
④ Sec e.g., Lorna McGregor, State Immunity and Jus Cogens,55 ICLQ 437 (2006); Rainer Hofmann, Compensation for Victims of War:German Practice after 1949 and Current Developments, Meeting of The Japanese Society for International Law, Sapporo,8 and 9 October 2005, http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsil/annual documents/2005/2005_autumn/Hofmann.pdf (last visited August 16,2008).See also Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law:Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2005, pp.271-272; Wolfgang Kaleck, Michael Ratner, Tobias Singelnstein and Peter Weiss (eds.), International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2007, pp.73-74.
⑤ Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Public Law Litigation,100 Yale L.J.2347,2366 (1991).
① Abram Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,89 Harv. L. Rev.1281,1284 (1976).
② Abram Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,89 Harv. L. Rev.1281,1302(1976).
③ Abram Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,89 Harv. L. Rev.1281,1292-1293 (1976).
④ See Mauro Cappelletti, Governmental and Private Advocates for the Public Interest in Civil Litigation:A Comparative Study,73 Mich. L. Rev.794,878 n.380 (1975).
⑤ Richard B. Cappalli & Claudio Consolo, Class Actions for Continental Europe? A Preliminary Inquiry,6 Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J.217,269-270 (1992).
⑥ Richard Azarnia, Tort Law in France:A Cultural and Comparative Overview,13 Wis. Int'l L.J.471,484-488 (1995).
⑦ See Maria Dakolias, Court Performance Around the World:A Comparative Perspective,2 Yale H.R.& Dev. L.J. 87(1999).
⑧ Joseph R. Thome, Heading South But Looking North:Globalization and Law Reform in Latin America,2000 Wis. L. Rev.691,705 (2000).
① Andreas F. Lowenfeld, International Litigation and the Quest for Reasonableness,245 Recueil Des Cours 9,81 (1994). See also Hans Smit, Common and Civil Law Rules of In Personam Adjudication Authority:An Analysis of Underlying Policies,21 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.335,336 (1972).
② Andreas F. Lowenfeld, International Litigation and the Quest for Reasonableness,245 Recueil Des Cours 9,87(1994).当然,过境管辖权在世界各国受到广泛的批评。
③ Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, p.134.
④有学者曾经在其博士论文中用整章的篇幅来论述欧洲各国的外国人侵权诉讼问题。See Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung dcr Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, pp.133-194.. See also, Beth Van Schaack, In Defense of Civil Redress:The Domestic Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in the Context of the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention,42 Harv. Int'l L.J.141,145-147 (2001).
⑤ See Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, pp.150-156.
⑥ Naomi Roht-Arriaza, The Pinochet Precedent and Universal Jurisdiction,35 New Eng. L. Rev.311,311-312 (2001).
① See Richard S. Frase, Comparative Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform:How Do the French Do It, How Can We Find Out, and Why Should We Carel,78 Calif. L. Rev.539,613 n.400,669-670 (1990).
② See Richard S. Frase, Comparative Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform:How Do the French Do It, How Can We Find Out, and Why Should We Core?,78 Calif. L. Rev.539,613 n.400 (1990).
③ Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F.Supp.162,178 (D. Mass.1995).
④ See Consideration of Reports Submitted by State Parties under Article 19 of the Convention (The Netherlands), Committee against Torture, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/9/Add.1, at 31 (Mar.20 1990).
⑤ Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, reprinted in 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.129, 165-169(2001).
⑥ Werner Pfennigstorf, The European Experience with Attorney Fee Shifting,47 Law & Contemp. Probs.37,44 (1984).
⑦ Beth Stephens, Translating Filartiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2002).
⑧ See J. Robert S. Prichard, A Systemic Approach to Comparative Law:The Effect of Cost, Fee, and Financing Rules on the Development of the Substantive Law,17 J. Legal Stud.451,460-461 (1988). See also Hein Kotz, Civil Litigation and the Public Interest,1 Civ. Just. Q.237,248(1987).
① Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Dolctorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, p.174.
② Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
③ See Hilao v. Estate of Marcos,103 F.3d 789 (9th Cir.1996).
④ See George N. Stavis, Collecting Judgments in Human Rights Torts Cases--Flexibility for Non-Profit Litigators? 31 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV.209,214-15 (1999).
⑤ Tsuneo Matsumoto, Beyond Compensation,15 U. Haw. L. Rev.578 (1993).
⑥ See Sarei v. Rio Tinto,221 F. Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal.2002).
⑦ David M. Trubek, Yves Dezalay, Ruth Buchanan, John R. Davis, Global Restructuring and the Law:Studies of the Internationalization of Legal Fields and the Creation of Transnational Arenas,44 Case W. Res. L. Rev.407, 458-460(1994).
⑧ Robert C. Thompson, A Comparative Survey of Private Sector Liability for Grave Violations of International Law in National Jurisdictions:Survey of Laws in the United States of America, p.24, http:// www.fafo.no/liabilities/US.pdf (last visited August 14,2008).
⑨ See Kadic v. Karadzic,70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995), cert, denied,116 S. Ct.2524 (1996); Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,117 S. Ct.96 (1996); Doe v. Unocal Corp.,963 F. Supp.880 (C.D. Cal.1997); Xuncax v. Gramajo,886 F. Supp.162 (D. Mass.1995); Todd v. Panjaitan, Civ.A-No.92-12255-PBS,1994 WL 827111 (D. Mass. Oct.26,1994); Paul v. Avril,812 F. Supp.207 (S.D. Fla.1993); Forti v. Suarez-Mason,694 F. Supp.707 (N.D. Cal.1988). See also, Joan Fitzpatrick, The Future of the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789:Lessons from In Re Marcos Human Rights Litigation,67 St. John's L. Rev.491,510 n.1 13 (1993); Jean-Marie Simon, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Justice or Show Trials?,11 B.U. INTL L.J.1,4-5(1993).
① See Jeffrey Davis, Justice without Borders:Human Rights Cases in U.S. Courts,28 Law & Policy 60 (2006). See also, Howard Tolley, Interest Group Litigation to Enforce Human Rights,105 Political Science Quarterly 617 (1990-1991).
② Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88,108 n.13 (2d Cir.2000).
③ Lubbe v. Cape Plc (No.2),1 W.L.R.1545 (H.L.2000).
④ See Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.,492 U.S.257,275 (1989); Beckwith v. Bean,98 U.S. (8 Otto) 266,277(1878).
⑤ Beth Stephens, Translating Filartiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2002).
⑥ See Fed. R. Civ. P.26.
⑦ Tsuneo Matsumoto, Beyond Compensation,15 U. Haw. L. Rev.578,578-579(1993).
① Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, reprinted in 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.129, 159-160(2001).
② Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, reprinted in 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.129,163 (2001).
③ See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88,100-101 (2d Cir.2000).
④ See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,226 F.3d 88,103-106 (2d Cir.2000).
⑤ Craig Scott (eds.), Torture as Tort:Comparative Perspectives on the Development of Transnational Human Rights Litigation, Hart Publishing,2001, pp.157-158.
⑥ John M. Walker, Jr., Domestic Adjudication of International Human Rights Violations under the Alien Tort Statute,41 St. Louis U. L.J.539,539 (1997).
① Michael J. Bazyler, Nuremberg in America:Litigating the Holocaust in United States Courts,34 U. Rich. L. Rev. Ⅰ,8(2000).
①有学者认为,在Sosa案中法院的认定实际上是认为《外国人侵权请求法》制定时自然法思想占据主导,而现在则是实证主义法学占据主导。See Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, p.73.
② See David Weissbrodt & Muria Kruger, Current Developments:Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights,97 Am. J. Int'l L.901 (2003)..
① See Beth Stephens, The Amorality of Profit:Transnational Corporations and Human Rights,20 Berkeley J. Int'l L.45,79 & n.191 (2002).
② See Dr. Isabella D. Bunn, Global Advocacy for Corporate Accountability:Transatlantic Perspectives from the NGO Community,19 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev.1265,1301-1304 (2004); Todd Weiter, Balancing Human Rights and Investor Protection:A New Approach for a Different Legal Order,27 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.429,440-444 (2004); Shaw W. Scott, Taking Riggs Seriously:The ATCA Case against a Corporate Abettor of Pinochet Atrocities,89 Minn. L. Rev.1497,1513 (2004).
③ See Lori Delaney, Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation:The Second Circuit Fails to Set a Threshold for Corporate Alien Tort Claims Act Liability,25 Nw. J. Int'l L.& Bus.205,208-209 n.26. (2004).
④ 197 F.3d 161 (5th Cir.1999).
⑤ No.02-9008,2003 WL 24049712 (2d Cir. Aug.29,2003).
⑥ See Brief of the National Foreign Trade Council, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S.Ct. 2739 (2004) (No.03-339), available at http://www.nosafehaven.org/_legal/atca_con_NFTCsupportingSosa.pdf (last visited March,9, 2008); Brief of National Association of Manufacturers, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S.Ct.2739 (2004) (No. 03-339), available at http://www.nosafehaven.org/legal/atca_con_NAMsupportsSosa.pdf (last visited March,9, 2008); Brief of the National Foreign Trade Council et al, Doe v. Unocal Corp., Nos.00-56603,00-57197, Nos. 00-56628,00-57195,2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2716 (2003), available at http://www.nftc.org/default/usa% 20engage/unocal%20amicus.pdf (last visited March,9,2008). ⑦ See Jenna Greene, Gathering Storm:Suits that Claim Overseas Abuse Are Putting U.S. Executives on Alert and Their Lawyers On Call, Legal Times, July 21,2003.
⑧ See Brief for the United States, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,124 S.Ct.2739 (2004) (No.03-339), available at http://www.nosafehaven.org/_legal/atca_con_USsupportingSosa.pdf (last visited March,9,2008).
⑨ See generally Brian C. Free, Awaiting Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.:Advocating the Cautious Use of Executive Opinions in Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation,12 Pac. Rim L.& Pol'y 467 (2003).
① See Beth Van Schaack, With All Deliberate Speed:Civil Human Rights Litigation as A Tool for Social Change, 57 Vand. L. Rev.2305,2346 (2004).
② See Jacques de Lisle, Human Rights, Civil Wrongs and Foreign Relations:A "Sinical" Look at the Use of U.S. Litigation to Address Human Rights Abuses Abroad,52 DePaul L. Rev.473,481 (2002).
③ See Jonathan Birchall, The Limits of Human Rights Legislation, The Financial Times Ltd., Jan.20,2005, at 13.
④这是纽约东区地方法院法官Jack Weinstein的观点。See 373 F. Supp.2d 7,17 (EDNY 2005).
① See Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology,
Transnational Publishers,1999, p.3, p.28.
② See Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.6.
③ See Anne-Marie Slaughter, A Typology of Transjudicial Communication,29 U. RICH. L. REV.99 (1995).
④ See Philip R. Trimble, International Law, World Order, and Critical Legal Studies,42 STAN. L. REV.811,835 (1990).
⑤ See Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Legal Process,75 Neb. L. Rev.181,183-184(1996).
⑥ See Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Legal Process,75 Neb. L. Rev.181,203-205 (1996).
⑦ See Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction:The Scope of Universal Civil Jurisdiction, July 2007.
① See Kate Parlett, Universal Civil Jurisdiction for Torture,4 E.H.R.L.R.385 (2007).
② See Paul R. Dubinsky, Human Rights Law Meets Private Law Harmonization:The Coming Conflict,30 Yale J. Int'l L.211,302(2005).
③ See Eric Gruzen, The United States As A Forum for Human Rights Litigation:Is This the Best Solution?,14 Transnat'l Law.207 (2001).
④ See Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999, p.45.
⑤ See Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwiirde, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006, p.134.
⑥ See Report on EU standards for European enterprises operating in developing countries:towards a European
Code of Conduct, Committee on Development and Cooperation,17 December 1998.
⑦该决议的原文用的是《布鲁塞尔公约》。鉴于《布鲁塞尔条例》已经生效,所以这里用《布鲁塞尔条例》代替《布鲁塞尔公约》。
① See European Parliament, Resolution A 5-0159/2002,30 May 2002, Social Responsibility of Companies. Resolution of the European Parliament on the Green Book of the Commission, para.50.
② See Brief ofAmicus Curiae the European Commission Supporting Neither Party, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, No. 03-339, U.S. Sup. Ct.,23 January 2004,21 n.48.
③ See Jan Wouters, Leen De Smet & Cedric Ryngaert, Tort Claims against Multinational Companies for Foreign Human Rights Violations Committed Abroad:Lessons from the Alien Tort Claims Act?, The Institute for International Law of the K.U.Leuven, Working Paper No 46-November 2003.
④ See John B. Bellinger, III, Enforcing Human Rights in U.S. Courts and Abroad:The Alien Tort Statute and Other Approaches, available at http://www.state.gov/s/l/rls/103506.htm (last visited August 4,2008).
1. M.谢里夫·巴西奥尼：《国际刑法导论》,赵秉志、王文华等译,法律出版社2006年版。
2. 陈致中：《国际法案例》,法律出版社1998年版。
3. 龚刃韧：《国家豁免问题的比较研究》,北京大学出版社2005年第2版。
4. 黄进：《国家及其财产豁免问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社1987年版。
5. 梁西主编：《国际法》,武汉大学出版社2000年修订版。
6. 路易斯·亨金：《国际法：政治与价值》,张乃根等译,中国政法大学出版社2005年版。
7. 王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版。
8. 张茂：《美国国际民事诉讼法》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
1. 陈弘毅：“‘从皮诺切特案’看国际刑法和国际人权法的发展”,载赵秉志、陈弘毅主编：《国际刑法与国际犯罪专题探索》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版。
2. 丁晓阳：“论跨国公司环境侵权责任的承担与追究”,武汉大学2004年硕士学位论文。
3. 管建强：“中国民间战争受害者对日索偿的法律基础”,华东政法学院2005年博士学位论文。
4. 胡城军： “评海盗罪的确立对普遍管辖制度的作用”,载《湖南社会科学》2007年第2期。
5. 林欣：“论酷刑案件与美国国际人权司法”,载《外国法译评》1994年第1期。
6. 刘满达：“跨国公司的人权责任”,载《法学》2003年第9期。
7. 宋永新、夏桂英：“跨国公司的国际人权责任”,载《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》2006年第6期。
8. 汪自勇：“恐怖主义受害者的救济与主权豁免——美国公民针对支持恐怖主义国家的诉讼评介”,载《武大国际法评论》(第五卷)。
9. 王炎： “从‘虐俘’谈‘帝国’内部的矛盾”,http://www.xschina.org/show.php?id=2945,2007年10月20日访问。
10.徐涛、张晨曦：“论跨国公司保护人权的社会责任”,载《政治与法律》2005年第2期。
11.朱伟一：“吾道无穷,吾愿无穷——谈公司社会责任”http://business.sohu.com/49/41/article206204149.shtml,2007年10月20日访问。
1. Beth Stephens & Michael Ratner, International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts, Transnational Publishers Inc.,1996.
2. Beth Stephens, Judith Chomsky, Jennifer Green, Paul Hoffrnan, Michael Ratner, International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2008.
3. Bryan Garner (eds.), Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), West Group,2004.
4. Craig Scott (eds.), Torture as Tort:Comparative Perspectives on the Development of Transnational Human Rights Litigation, Hart Publishing,2001.
5. Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law:Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2005.
6. Gary B. Born & Peter B. Rutledge, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts: Commentary & Materials, Fourth Edition, Aspen Publishers,2007.
7. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, Awakening Monster:the Alien Tort Statute of 1789, Institute for International Economics,2003.
8. Hazel Fox, The Law of State Immunity, Oxford University Press,2004.
9. Jeffrey Davis, Justice across Borders:the Struggle for Human Rights in U.S. Courts, Cambridge University Press,2008.
10. Jurgen Brohmer, State Immunity and the Violation of Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1997.
11. Ralph G. Steinhardt & Anthony D'Amato (eds.), The Alien Tort Claims Act:An Analytical Anthology, Transnational Publishers,1999.
12. William J. Aceves, The Anatomy of Torture:A Documentary History ofFilartiga v Pena Irala, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2007.
13. William M. Richman & William L. Rieynolds, Understanding Conflict of Laws (3rd ed.), Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.,2002.
14. Wolfgang Kaleck, Michael Ratner, Tobias Singelnstein and Peter Weiss (eds.), International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,2007.
15. Ying-Jen Lo, Human Rights Litigation Promoting International Law in U.S. Courts, LFB Scholarly Pub.,2005.
1. Aaron Xavier Fellmeth, Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.:A New Standard for the Enforcement of International Law in U.S. Courts?,5 Yale Hum. Rts.& Dev. L.J.241 (2002).
2. Abigail Heng Wen, Suing the Sovereign's Servant:The Implications of Privatization for the Scope of Foreign Sovereign Immunities,103 COLUM. L. REV.1538 (2003).
3. Abram Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation,89 Harv. L. Rev.1281 (1976).
4. Adam C. Belsky, Mark Merva & Naomi Rhot-Arriaza, Implied Waiver under FSIA:A Proposed Exception to Immunity for Violations of Peremptory Norms of International Law,77 Calif. L. Rev 365 (1989).
5. Adam Karp, Genitorts in the Global Context:Female Genital Mutilation as a Tort under the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture Victim Protection Act, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,18 WOMEN'S RTS. L. REP.315 (1997).
6. Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, Formulating Reparations Litigation through the Eyes of the Movement,58 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L.457 (2003).
7. Akhil Reed Amar, The Two-Tiered Structure of the Judiciary Act of 1789,138 U. Penn.L.Rev.1499 (1990).
8. Alan Frederick Enslen, Filartiga's Offspring:The Second Circuit Significantly Expands the Scope of the Alien Tort Claim Act With Its Decision in Kadic v. Karadzic,48 Ala. L. Rev.695 (1997).
9. Alexander Orakhelashvili, State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms:Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.955 (2007).
10. Alfred P. Rubin, Professor D'Amato's Concept of American Jurisdiction is Seriously Mistaken,79 Am. J. Int'l L.105 (1985).
11. Alfred P. Rubin, U.S. Torts Suits by Aliens Based on International Law,18-FALL Fletcher F. World Aff.65 (1994).
12. Alvin H. Chu, Vindicating the Tiananmen Square Massacre "The Case against Li Peng,"20 Wis. Int'l L.J.199 (2001).
13. Amanda Sue Nichols, Alien Tort Statute Accomplice Liability Cases:Should Courts Apply the Plausibility Pleading Standard of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly?,76 Fordham L. Rev.2177 (2008).
14. Amy Apollo, Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation:A Case Study of the Role of the Executive Branch in International Human Rights Litigation,37 Rutgers L.J.855 (2006).
15. Amy E. Eckert, Kadic v. Karadzic:Whose International Law?,25 Denv. J. Int'l L.& Pol'y 173 (1996).
16. Andrea Bianchi, Denying State Immunity to Violators of Human Rights,46 Austrian Journal of Public and International Law 195 (1994).
17. Andrea Bianchi, Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens,19 Eur. J. Int'l L.491 (2008).
18. Andrea Bianchi, International Decision:Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany,99 Am. J. Int'l. L.242 (2005).
19. Andrea Gattini, To What Extent are State Immunity and Non-Justiciability Major Hurdles to Individuals'Claims for War Damages?,1 J. Int'l Crim. Just.348 (2003)
20. Andrea Gattini, War Crimes and State Immunity in the Ferrini Decision,3 J. Int'l Crim. Just.224 (2005).
21. Andreas Zimmerman, Sovereign Immunity and Violations of International Jus Cogens—Some Critical Remarks,16 Mich. J. Int'l L.433 (1995).
22. Andrew Farrelly, Foreign Policy in the Courts-the ATCA and In Re South African Apartheid Litigation:What Sosa Makes Courts Do,30 Seton Hall Legis. J.437 (2006).
23. Andrew M. Scoble, Enforcing the Customary International Law of Human Rights in Federal Court,74 Cal.L.Rev.127 (1986).
24. Andrew Ridenour, Doe v. Unocal Corp., Apples and Oranges:Why Courts Should Use International Standards to Determine Liability for Violation of the Law of Nations under the Alien Tort Claims Act,9 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L.581 (2001).
25. Angela M. Higgins, "Else We Are Condemned to Go From Darkness to Darkness:"Victims of Gender-Based War Crimes and the Need for Civil Redress in U.S. Courts,70 UMKC L. Rev.677 (2002).
26. Anita Bernstein, Conjoining International Human Rights Law with Enterprise Liability for Accidents,40 Washburn L.J.382 (2001).
27. Anita Ramasastry, Corporate Complicity:From Nuremberg to Rangoon:An Examination of Forced Labor Cases and Their Impact on the Liability of Multinational Corporations,20 Berkeley J. Int'l. L.91 (2002).
28. Anita Ramasastry, Secrets and Lies? Swiss Banks and International Human Rights,31 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.325 (1998).
29. Anne Bayefsky & Joan Fitzpatrick, International Human Rights Law in United States Courts:A Comparative Perspective,14 Mich. J. Int'l L.1 (1992).
30. Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789:A Badge of Honor,83 Am. J. Int'l L.461 (1989).
31. Anne-Marie Slaughter & David Bosco, Plaintiffs Diplomacy,79 Foreign Aff.102 (2000).
32. Anthony D'Amato, Judge Bork's Concept of the Law of Nations is Seriously Mistaken, 79Am.J. Int'l L.92(1985).
33. Anthony D'Amato, The Alien Tort Statute and the Founding of the Constitution,82 Am. J. Int'l L.62 (1988).
34. Anthony Jones, Jogi v. Voges:Has the Seventh Circuit Opened the Floodgates to Vienna Convention Litigation in U.S. Courts?,15 Minn. J. Int'l L.425 (2005).
35. Antonio Augusto Cancado Trindade, The Consolidation of the Procedural Capacity of Individuals in the Evolution of the International Protection of Human Rights:Present State and Perspectives at the Turn of the Century,30 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.1 (1998).
36. Antonio Cassese, When May Senior State Officials Be Tried for International Crimes? Some Comments on the Congo v. Belgium Case,13 EJIL 869 (2002).
37. Aric K. Short, Is the Alien Tort Statute Sacrosanct? Retaining Forum Non Conveniens in Human Rights Litigation,33 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1001 (2001).
38. Armin Rosencranz & Richard Campbell, Foreign Environmental and Human Rights Suits against U.S. Corporations in U.S. Courts,18 Stan. Envtl. L.J.1451 (1999).
39. Aron Ketchel, Deriving Lessons for The Alien Tort Claims Act From The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,32 Yale J. Int'l L.191 (2007).
40. Arthur M. Weisburd, State Courts, Federal Courts, and International Cases,20 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (1995).
41. Arthur M. Weisburd, The Executive Branch and International Law,41 Vand. L. Rev. 1205 (1988).
42. Arthur R. Miller, The Pretrial Rush to Judgment:Are the "Litigation Explosion," "Liability Crisis, "and Efficiency Cliches Eroding Our Day in Court and Jury Trial Commitments?,78 N.Y.U. L. REV.982 (2003).
43. Atif Rehman, The Court of Last Resort:king Redress for Victims of Abu-Ghraib Torture through the Alien Tort Claims Act,16 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.493 (2006).
44. August Reinisch, Developing Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Accountability of the Security Council for the Imposition of Economic Sanctions,95 AM. J. INT'L L.851 (2001).
45. Barbara A. Frey, The Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations in the Protection of International Human Rights,6 Minn. J. Global Trade 153 (1997).
46. Benjamin Berkowitz, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain:United States Courts as Forums for Human Rights Cases and the New Incorporation Debate,40 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV.289 (2005).
47. Beth Ann Isenberg, Genocide, Rape, and Crimes against Humanity:An Affirmation of Individual Accountability in the Former Yugoslavia in the Karadzic Actions,60 Alb. L. Rev.1051 (1997).
48. Beth Stephens, Conceptualizing Violence under International Law:Do Tort Remedies Fit the Crime?,60 Alb. L. Rev.579(1997).
49. Beth Stephens, Corporate Liability:Enforcing Human Rights through Domestic Litigation,24 Hastings Int'l & Com L. Rev.401 (2001).
50. Beth Stephens, Federalism and Foreign Affairs:Congress's Power To "Define and Punish... Offenses against The Law Of Nations",42 Wm.& Mary L. Rev.447 (2000).
51. Beth Stephens, Filartiga v. Pena-Irala:From Family Tragedy to Human Rights Accountability,37 Rutgers L.J.623 (2006).
52. Beth Stephens, Individuals Enforcing International Law:The Comparative and Historical Context,52 DePaul L. Rev.433 (2002).
53. Beth Stephens, Judicial Deference and the Unreasonable Views of the Bush Administration,33 Brook. J. Int'l L.773 (2008).
54. Beth Stephens, Litigating Customary International Human Rights Norms,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp.L.191(1996).
55. Beth Stephens, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain:"The Door is Still Ajar "for Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts,70 Brooklyn L. Rev.533 (2004).
56. Beth Stephens, Taking Pride in International Human Rights Litigation,2 Chi. J. Int'l L L. 485(2001).
57. Beth Stephens, The Amorality of Profit:Transnational Corporations and Human Rights, 20 BERKELEY J. INT'L L.45 (2002).
58. Beth Stephens, The Civil Lawsuit as a Remedy for International Human Rights Violations against Women,5 Hastings Women's L.J.143 (1994).
59. Beth Stephens, Translating Filartiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2002).
60. Beth Stephens, U.S. Foreign Policy and Human Rights:Upsetting Checks and Balances: The Bush Administration's Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation,17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.169 (2004).
61. Beth Stevens, The Law of Our Land:Customary International Law as Federal Law after Erie,66 Fordham L. Rev.393 (1997).
62. Beth Van Schaack, In Defense of Civil Redress:The Domestic Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in the Context of the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention,42 HARV. INT'L L.J. 141 (2001).
63. Beth Van Schaack, The Civil Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in Domestic Courts, 6 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L.295 (2000).
64. Beth Van Schaack, Unfulfilled Promise:The Human Rights Class Action,2003 U. Chi. Legal F.279 (2003).
65. Beth Van Schaack, With All Deliberate Speed:Civil Human Rights Litigation as A Tool for Social Change,57 Vand. L. Rev.2305 (2004).
66. Borchien Lai, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Temporary Stopgap Measure or Permanent Remedy?,26 Nw. J. Int'l L.& Bus.139 (2005).
67. Brad J. Kieserman, Profits and Principles:Promoting Multinational Corporate Responsibility by Amending the Alien Tort Claims Act,48 CATH. U. L. REV.881 (1999).
68. Brian C. Free, Awaiting Doe V. Exxon Mobil Corp.:Advocating the Cautious Use of Executive Opinions in Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation,12 Pac. Rim L.& Pol'y J.467 (2003).
69. Bruce A. Barenblat, Torture as a Violation of the Law of Nations:An Analysis of 28 U.S.C. § 1350,16 Tex. Int'l L. J.117 (1981).
70. Caleb Nelson, Sovereign Immunity as a Doctrine of Personal Jurisdiction,115 Harvard L. Rev.1559 (2002).
71. Caleb Nelson, The Persistance of General Law,106 Colum. L. Rev.503 (2006).
72. Carlo Focarelli, Denying Foreign State Immunity for Commission of International Crimes:The Ferrini Decision,54 ICLQ 951 (2005).
73. Carlos M. Vazquez, Direct vs. Indirect Obligations of Corporations under International Law,43 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.927 (2005).
74. Caroline Davidson, Tort Au Canadien:A Proposal for Canadian Tort Legislation on Gross Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law,38 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1403 (2005).
75. Caroline Kaeb, Emerging Issues of Human Rights Responsibility in the Extractive and Manufacturing Industries:Patterns and Liability Risks,6 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts.327 (2008).
76. Catharine A. MacKinnon, Collective Harms under the Alien Tort Statute:A Cautionary Note,6 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L.567 (2000).
77. Charles Curlett, International Law Weekend Proceedings, Introductory Remarks-Alien Tort Claims Act,6 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L.Q.273 (2000).
78. Charles D. Siegal, Deference and Its Dangers:Congress'Power to "Define... Offenses against the Law of Nations, "21 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.865 (1988).
79. Charles F. Hollis, Ⅲ, Perpetual Mistrial:The Impropriety of Transnational Human Rights Litigation in United States Courts,1 Santa Clara J. Int'l L.1 (2003).
80. Charles F. Marshall, Re-Framing the Alien Tort Act after Kadic v. Karadzic,21 N.C. J. Int'l L.& Com. Reg.591 (1996).
81. Charles Warren, New Light on the History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789,37 Harv. L. Rev.49 (1923).
82. Charlotte Ku & Christopher J. Borgen, American Lawyers and International Competence,18 Dick. J. Int'l L.493 (2000).
83. Christopher Keith Hall, The Duty of States Parties to the Convention against Torture to Provide Procedures Permitting Victims to Recover Reparations for Torture Committed Abroad,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.921 (2007).
84. Christopher Keith Hall, UN Convention on State Immunity:The Need for A Human Rights Protocol,55 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.411 (2006).
85. Christopher M. Marlowe, Forum Non Conveniens Dismissals and the Adequate Alternative Forum Question:Latin America,32 U Miami Inter-Am L Rev 295 (2001).
86. Christopher R. Chase, The Political Question Doctrine:Preventing the Challenge of U.S. Foreign Policy in 767 Third Avenue Associates v. Consulate General of Socialist Federal Republic Of Yugoslavia,50 Cath. U. L. Rev.1045 (2001).
87. Christopher W. Haffke, The Torture Victim Protection Act:More Symbol than Substance, 43 Emory L.J.1467(1995).
88. Claudia T. Salazar, Applying International Human Rights Norms in the United States: Holding Multinational Corporations Accountable in the United States for International Human Rights Violations under the Alien Tort Claims Act,19 ST. JOHN's J. LEGAL COMMENT.111 (2004).
89. Clyde H. Crockett, The Role of Federal Common Law in Alien Tort Statute Cases,14 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.29 (1991).
90. Courtney Shaw, Uncertain Justice:Liability of Multinationals under the Alien Tort Claims Act,54 Stan. L. Rev.1359 (2002).
91. Craig Forcese, ATCA's Achilles Heel:Corporate Complicity, International Law and the Alien Tort Claims Act,26 YALE. J. INT'L. L.487 (2001).
92. Craig Forcese, De-Immunizing Torture:Reconciling Human Rights and State Immunity, 52 McGill L.J.127(2007).
93. Craig Scott, The Alien Tort Claims Act under Attack,98 ASIL PROC.58 (2004).
94. Cristopher Haffke, The Torture Victim Protection Act:More Symbol Than Substance,43 Emory L.J.1467(1994).
95. Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Customary International Law as Federal Common Law:A Critique of the Modern Position,110 Harv. L. Rev.815 (1997).
96. Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Federal Courts and the Incorporation of International Law,111 Harv. L. Rev.2260 (1998).
97. Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, The Current Illegitimacy of International Human Rights Litigation,66 Fordham L. Rev.319(1997).
98. Curtis A. Bradley, Customary International Law and Private Rights of Action,1 CHI. J. INT'L L.421 (2000).
99. Curtis A. Bradley, The Alien Tort Statute and Article Ⅲ,42 Va. J. Int'l L.587 (2002). 100. Curtis A. Bradley, The Costs of International Human Rights Litigation,2 Chi. J. Int'l L. 457 (2001).
101. Curtis A. Bradley, Universal Jurisdiction and U.S. Law,2001 U. Chi. Legal F.323 (2001).
102. D'Amore, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Alien Tort Statute:How Wide Has the Door to Human Rights Litigation Been Left Open?,39 Akron L. Rev.593 (2006).
103. Dana Howard, The Consistency of Sosa:A Comparison of the Supreme Court's Treatment of Customary International Law with Other Types of Federal Common Law,94 Ky. L.J. 669 (2005-2006).
104. Daniel Diskin, The Historical and Modern Foundations for Aiding and Abetting Liability under the Alien Tort Statute,47 Ariz. L. Rev.805 (2005).
105. Daniel J. Meltzer, The History and Structure of Article Ⅲ,138 U. Penn L.Rev.1569 (1990).
106. Daryl A. Mundis, Tachiona v. Mugabe:A US Court Bows to Personal Immunities of a Foreign Head of State,1 J Int'l Crim Justice 462 (2003).
107. David Cole, Jules Lobel & Harold Hongju Koh, Interpreting the Alien Tort Statue: Amicus Curiae Memorandum of International Law Scholars and Practitioners in Trajano v. Marcos,12 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.1 (1988).
108. David D. Christensen, Corporate Liability for Overseas Human Rights Abuses:The Alien Tort Statute after Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,62 Wash.& Lee L. Rev.1219 (2005).
109. David E. Chawes, Time Is Not on Your Side:Establishing A Consistent Statute of Limitations for the Alien Tort Claims Act,27 Seattle U. L. Rev.191,218-231 (2003).
110. David Friedman, Beyond the Tort/Crime Distinction,76 B.U. L. Rev.103 (1996).
111. David H. Moore, An Emerging Uniformity for International Law,75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1(2006)
112. David I. Becker, A Call for the Codification of the Unocal Doctrine,32 CORNELL INT'L L.J.183(1998).
113. David J. Bederman, Dead Man's Hand:Reshuffling Foreign Sovereign Immunities in U.S. Human Rights Litigation,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.255 (1996).
114. David J. Bederman, Deference or Deception:Treaty Rights As Political Questions,70 U. Colo. L.Rev.1439(1999).
115. David J. Bederman, International Law Advocacy and its Discontents,2 Chi. J. Int'l L. 475(2001)
116. David M. Trubek, Yves Dezalay, Ruth Buchanan, John R. Davis, Global Restructuring and the Law:Studies of the Internationalization of Legal Fields and the Creation of Transnational Arenas,44 Case W. Res. L. Rev.407 (1994).
117. David Mackusick, Human Rights vs. Sovereign Rights:The State Sponsored Terrorism Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,10 Emory Int'l L. Rev.741 (1996).
118. David P. Kunstle, Kadic v. Karadzic:Do Private Individuals Have Enforceable Rights and Obligations under the Alien Tort Claims Act?,6 Duke J. Comp.& Int'l L.319 (1995—1996).
119. David S. Bloch, Dangers of Righteousness:Unintended Consequences of Kadic v. Karadzic,4 Tulsa J. Comp.& Int'l L.35 (1996).
120. David S. Mitchell, The Prohibition of Rape in International Humanitarian Law As a Norm of Jus Cogens:Clarifying the Doctrine,15 Duke J. Comp.& Int'l L.219 (2005).
121. David Sweis, The Availability of Damages to Foreign Nationals for Violation of the Consular Relations Treaty,19 N.Y. Int'l L. Rev.63 (2006).
122. David W. Robertson & Paula K. Speck, Access to State Courts in Transnational Personal Injury Cases:Forum Non Conveniens and Antisuit Injunctions,68 Tex L. Rev.937 (1990).
123. Deborah J. Karet, Privatizing Law on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands:Is Litigation the Best Channel for Reforming the Garment Industry?,48 Buffalo L. Rev. 1047(2000).
124. Deborah R. Hensler, Money Talks:Searching for Justice through Compensation for Personal Injury and Death,53 De Paul L. Rev.417 (2003).
125. Demian Betz, Holding Multinational Corporations Responsible for Human Rights Abuses Committed by Security Forces in Conflict-Ridden Nations:An Argument against Exporting Federal Jurisdiction for the Purposes of Regulating Corporate Behavior Abroad,14 DePaul Bus. L.J.163 (2001).
126. Derek P. Jinks, The Federal Common Law of Universal, Obligatory, and Definable Human Rights Norms,4 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L.465 (1998).
127. Dinah Shelton, Hierarchy of Norms and Human Rights:of Trumps and Winners,65 Sask. L. Rev.301 (2002).
128. Donald Francis Donovan & Anthea Roberts, The Emerging Recognition of Universal Civil Jurisdiction,100 A.J.1.L.142(2006).
129. Donald Francis Donovan, Universal Civil Jurisdiction--The Next Frontier?,99 ASIL PROC.117(2005).
130. Donald J. Carney, Forum Non Conveniens in the United States and Canada,3 Buff. Jour. Int'l L.117(1996).
131. Donald J. Kochan, Constitutional Structure as a Limitation on the Scope of the "Law of Nations "in the Alien Tort Claims Act,31 Cornell Int'l L. J.153 (1998).
132. Donald J. Kochan, No Longer Little Known But Now a Door Ajar:An Overview of the Evolving and Dangerous Role of the Alien Tort Statute in Human Rights and International Law Jurisprudence,8 Chap. L. Rev.103 (2005).
133. Doug Cassel, Corporate Aiding and Abetting of Human Rights Violations:Confusion in the Courts,6 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts.304 (2008).
134. Ed Bates, (Case Comment) Article 6:Right to A Fair Trial, E.L. Rev.2002,27 Supp (Human rights survey 2002).
135. Ed Bates, State Immunity for Torture,7 Hum. Rts. L. Rev.651 (2007).
136. Ed Bates, The Al-Adsani Case, State Immunity and the International Legal Prohibition on Torture,3 Human Rights Law Review 193 (2003).
137. Edward A. Amley, Jr., Sue and Be Recognized:Collecting § 1350 Judgments Abroad, 107 Yale L.J.2177 (1998).
138. Edward J. Schoen, Joseph S. Falchek & Margaret M. Hogan, The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789:Globalization of Business Requires Globalization of Law and Ethics,62 Journal of Business Ethics 41 (2005).
139. Edwin D. Dickinson, Is the Crime of Piracy Obsolete?,38 Harv. L. Rev.334 (1925).
140. Edwin D. Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States,101 U. Pa. L. Rev.26 (1952).
141. Edwin L. Gorham, The Alien Torts Statute and the Search for Energy in Difficult Political Environments,29 Hous. J. Int'l L.289 (2007).
142. Ehren J. Brav, Opening the Courtroom Doors to Non-Citizens:Cautiously Affirming Filartiga for the Alien Tort Statute,46 Harv. Int'l L.J.265 (2005).
143. Eileen Rice, Doe v. Unocal Corporation:Corporate Liability for International Human Rights Violations,33 U.S.F. L. Rev.153 (1998).
144. Ellen L. Lutz, The Marcos Human Rights Litigation:Can Justice Be Achieved In U.S. Courts For Abuses That Occurred Abroad?,14 B.C. Third World L.J.43 (1994).
145. Ellen L. Lutz & Kathryn Sikkink, The Justice Cascade:The Evolution and Impact of Foreign Human Rights Trials in Latin America,2 Chi. J. Int'l L.1 (2001).
146. Elliot J. Schrage, Judging Corporate Accountability in the Global Economy,42 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.153(2003).
147. Emeka Duruigbo, Exhaustion of Local Remedies in Alien Tort Litigation:Implications for International Human Rights Protection,29 Fordham Int'l L.J.1245 (2006).
148. Emeka Duruigbo, The Economic Cost of Alien Tort Litigation:A Response to Awakening Monster:The Alien Tort Statute of 1789,14 Minn. J. Global Trade 1 (2004).
149. Emmanuel Voyiakis, Access to Court v State Immunity,52 ICLQ 297 (2003).
150. Eric B. Fastiff, The Proposed Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments:A Solution to Butch Reynolds's Jurisdiction and Enforcement Problems,28 Cornell Intl. L.J.469 (1995).
151. Eric Engle, Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations, Inauguraldissertation, zur Erlangung der Doktorwude, der Fakultat fur Rechtswissenschaft, der Universitat Bremen,2006.
152. Eric Gruzen, The United States as a Forum for Human Rights Litigation:Is This the Best Solution? 14 Transnat'l L.207 (2001).
153. Erika de Wet, The Prohibition of Torture as An International Norm of Jus Cogens and Its Implications for National and Customary Law,15 Eur. J. Int'l L.97 (2004).
154. Erin Talati, An Open Door to Ending Exploitation:Accountability for Violations of Informed Consent under the Alien Tort Statute,155 U. Pa. L. Rev.231 (2006).
155. Ernest A. Young, Federal Suits and General Laws:A Comment on Judge Fletcher's Reading of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,93 VA. L. REV. IN BRIEF 33 (2007).
156. Ernest A. Young, Foreign Law and the Denominator Problem,119 Harv. L. Rev.148 (2005).
157. Ernest A. Young, Sorting Out the Debate over Customary International Law,42 Va. J. Int'l L.365 (2002).
158. Ernest A. Young, Sosa and the Retail Incorporation of International Law,120 Harv. L. Rev. F.28 (2007).
159. Ethan Early, Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act:Is Peace of Mind Enough?,14 Conn. J. Int'l L.203 (1999).
160. Eugene Kontorovich, Implementing Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain:What Piracy Reveals About the Limitsof the Alien Tort Statute,80 Notre Dame L. Rev.111 (2004).
161. Francisco Forrest Martin, The International Human Rights & Ethical Aspects of the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine,35 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev.101 (2003-2004).
162. G. Michael Ziman, Holding Foreign Governments Accountable for their Human Rights Abuses:A Proposed Amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976,21 Loy. L.A. Int'1 & Comp. L.J.185(1999).
163. Gabriel D. Pinilla, Corporate Liability for Human Rights Violations on Foreign Soil:A Historical and Prospective Analysis of the Alien Tort Claims Controversy,16 St. Thomas L. Rev. 687(2004).
164. Gabriel M. Bruce Telles, Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:Overcoming the Defense of Foreign Sovereign Immunity in Cases under the Alien Tort Claims Act,10 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L.R.343(1987).
165. Gabriel M. Wilner, Filartiga v. Pena-Irala:Comments on Sources of Human Rights Law and Means of Redress for Violations of Human Rights,11 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.317 (1981).
166. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Nicholos K. Mitrokostas, International Implications of the Alien Tort Statute,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.607 (2004).
167. Gary Clyde Hufbauer, The Supreme Court Meets International Law:What's the Sequel to Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain?,12 TULSA J. COMP.& INT'L L.77 (2004).
168. Gene Trnavci, The Meaning and Scope of the Law of Nations in the Context of The Alien Tort Claims Act and International Law,26 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L.193 (2005).
169. George Norris Stavis, Collecting Judgments in Human Rights Torts Cases:Flexibility for Non-Profit Litigators?,31 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.209 (1999).
170. Gerald Fitzmaurice, The General Principles of International Law,92 Recueil Des Cours 1 (1957).
171. Gerald L. Neuman, Sense and Nonsense about Customary International Law:A Response to Professors Bradley and Goldsmith,66 Fordham L. Rev.371 (1997).
172. Gerald L. Neuman, The Uses of International Law in Constitutional Interpretation,98 Am. J. Int'l L.82 (2004).
173. Gerald P. McGinley, Of Pirates and Privateers:The Historical Background of the Alien Tort Claims Act with Some Suggestions for its Future Use,21 Anglo-Am. L. Rev.138 (1992).
174. Gordon A. Christenson, Customary International Human Rights Law in Domestic Court Decisions,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.225 (1995-1996).
175. Grace C. Spencer, Her Body Is A Battlefield:the Applicability of the Alien Tort Statute to Corporate Human Rights Abuses In Juarez, Mexico,40 Gonz. L. Rev.503 (2004-2005).
176. Gregory G. A. Tzeutschler, Corporate Violator:The Alien Tort Liability of Transnational Corporations for Human Rights Abuses Abroad,30 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.359 (1999).
177. Gregory H. Fox, Reexamining the Act of State Doctrine:An Integrated Conflicts Analysis,33 Harv. Int'l L.J.521 (1992).
178. Guy Stessens, Corporate Criminal Liability:A Comparative Perspective,43 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.493 (1994).
179. Halina Ward, Securing Transnational Corporate Accountability through National Courts: Implications and Policy Options,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.451 (2001).
180. Hannah R. Bornstein, The Alien Tort Claims Act In 2007:Resolving The Delicate Balance Between Judicial and Legislative Authority,82 Ind. L.J.1077 (2007).
181. Harlan Grant Cohen, Supremacy and Diplomacy:The International Law of the U.S. Supreme Court,24 Berkeley J. Int'l L.273 (2006).
182. Harold G. Maier, The Role of Experts in Proving International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts:A Commentary,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.205(1995/1996).
183. Harold Hongju Koh, Civil Remedies for Uncivil Wrongs:Combating Terrorism through Transnational Public Law Litigation,22 Tex. Int'l L.J.169 (1987).
184. Harold Hongju Koh, International Law as Part of Our Law,98 Am. J. Int'l L.43 (2004).
185. Harold Hongju Koh, Is International Law Really State Law,111 Harv. L. Rev.1824 (1998).
186. Harold Hongju Koh, The 1998 Frankel Lecture:Bringing International Law Home,35 Hous. L. Rev.623 (1998).
187. Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Public Law Litigation,100 Yale L.J.2347 (1991).
188. Harold Hongju Koh, Why Do Nations Obey International Law?,106 Yale L.J.2599 (1997).
189. Harold J. Berman, The Alien Torts Claim Act and The Law of Nations,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.69 (2005).
190. Harold J. Berman, World Law,18 Fordham Int'l L. J.1617 (1995).
191. Harvard Law Review Association, Developments in the Law—International Criminal Law:Corporate Liability for Violations of International Human Rights Law,114 Harv. L. Rev. 2025 (2001).
192. Hazel Fox, State Immunity and the International Crime of Torture,2006 EHRLR 142 (2006).
193. Hein Kotz, Civil Litigation and the Public Interest,1 Civ. Just. Q.237 (1987).
194. Helen C. Lucas, The Adjudication of Violations of International Law under the Alien Tort Claims Act:Allowing Alien Plaintiffs Their Day in Federal Court,36 De Paul L.Rev.209 (1987).
195. Helen E. Mardirosian, Forum Non Conveniens,37 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1643(2004)
196. Helena Lynch, Liability for Torts in Violation of International Law:No Hook under Sosa for Secondary, Complicit Actors,50 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev.757 (2005-2006).
197. Henry J. Bourguignon, Incorporation of the Law of Nations During the American Revolution--The Case of the San Antonio,71 Am. J. Int'l L.270 (1977).
198. Henry J. Richardson Ⅲ, Excluding Race Strategies from International Legal History: The Self-Executing Treaty Doctrine and the Southern Africa Tripartite Agreement,45 Vill. L. Rev. 1091 (2000).
199. Howard S. Fredman, The Offenses Clause:Congress' International Penal Power,8 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.279 (1969).
200. Howard Tolley, Interest Group Litigation to Enforce Human Rights,105 Political Science Quarterly 617 (1990-1991).
201. Hugh King, Sosa v Alvarez-Machain and the Alien Tort Claims Act,37 Vict.U. Wellington L. Rev.1 (2006).
202. Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, reprinted in 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.129 (2001).
203. Igor Fuks, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Future of ATCA Litigation:Examining Bonded Labor Claims and Corporate Liability,106 Colum. L. Rev.112 (2006).
204. Ivan Poullaos, The Nature of the Beast:Using the Alien Tort Claims Act to Combat International Human Rights Violations,80 Wash. U. L.Q.327 (2002).
205. Jack Alan Levy, As between Princz and King:Reassessing the Law of Foreign Sovereign Immunity as Applied to Jus Cogens Violators,86 Geo. L.J.2703 (1998).
206. Jacques de Lisle, Human Rights, Civil Wrongs and Foreign Relations:A "Sinical" Look at the Use of U.S. Litigation to Address Human Rights Abuses Abroad,52 DePaul L. Rev.473 (2002).
207. Jacques Semmelman, Due Process, International Law, and Jurisdiction over Criminal Defendants Abducted Extraterritorially:The Ker-Frisbie Doctrine Reexamined,30 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.513(1992).
208. Jake S. Tyshow, Informal Foreign Affairs Formalism:the Act of State Doctrine and the Reinterpretation of International Comity,43 Va. J. Int'l L.275 (2002).
209. James Paul George, Defining Filartiga:Characterizing International Torture Claims in United States Courts,2 Dick. J. Int'l L.1 (1984).
210. Janice D. Villiers, Closed Borders, Closed Ports:The Plight of Haitians king Political Asylum in the United States,60 Brook. L. Rev.841 (1994).
211. Jay M. Lewis Humphrey, A Legal Lohengrin:Federal Jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789,14 U.S.F. L. REV.105 (1979).
212. Jaykumar A. Menon, The Alien Tort Statute:Blackstone and Criminal/Tort Law Hybridities,4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 372 (2006).
213. Jean Allain & John R.W.D. Jones, A Patchwork of Norms:A commentary on the 1996 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind,18 Eur. J. I. L.1 (2003).
214. Jean Wu, Pursuing International Environmental Tort Claims under the ATCA:Beanal v. Freeport-Mcmoran,28 Ecology L.Q.487 (2001).
215. Jean-Marie Simon, The Alien Tort Claims Act:Justice or Show Trials?,11 B.U. Int'l L.J. 1 (1993).
216. Jeffrey Davis, Human Rights in US Courts:Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation after Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,8 Human Rights Review 341 (2007).
217. Jeffrey Davis, Justice without Borders:Human Rights Cases in U.S. Courts,28 Law & Policy 60 (2006).
218. Jeffrey E. Baldwin, International Human Rights Plaintiffs and the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens,40 Cornell Int'l L.J.749 (2007).
.219. Jeffrey M. Blum & Ralph G. Steinhardt, Federal Jurisdiction over International Human Rights Claims:the Alien Tort Claims Act after Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,22 Harv. Int'l L.J.53 (1981).
220. Jeffrey Rabkin, Universal Justice:The Role Federal Courts in International Civil Litigation,95 Colum. L. Rev.2120 (1995).
221. Jennifer A. Gergen, Human Rights and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,36 Virginia J Int'l L 765 (1995).
222. Jennifer Correale, The Torture Victim Protection Act:A Vital Contribution To International Human Rights Enforcement Or Just A Nice Gesture?,6 Pace Int'l L. Rev.197 (1994).
223. Jennifer Moore, From Nation State to Failed State:International Protection from Human Rights Abuses by Non-State Agents,31 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV.81 (1999).
224. Jeremy D. Morley, Forum Non Conveniens:Restraining Long-Arm Jurisdiction,68 Nw. U.L. Rev.24 (1973).
225. Jeremy Sarkin, Reparations for Historical Human Rights Violations:The International and Historical Dimensions of the Alien Torts Claims Act Genocide Case of the Herero of Namibia, 9 Human Rights Review 331 (2008).
226. Jeremy Waldron, Foreign Law and the Modern Ius Gentium,119 Harv. L. Rev.129 (2005).
227. Jessica Priselac, The Requirement of State Action in Alien Tort Statute Claims:Does Sosa Matter?,21 Emory Int'l L. Rev.789 (2007).
228. Jing-Wei Lu, Implied or Constructive Waiver? Effect of Participation in Litigation under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976,6 J. Int'l L.& Practice 63 (1997).
229. Joan Fitzpatrick, The Future of the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789:Lessons from In re Marcos Human Rights Litigation,67 St. John's L. Rev.491 (1993).
230. Joel R. Paul, Comity in International Law,32 Harv. Int'l L. J.1 (1991).
231. Joel Slawotsky, Doing Business around the World:Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act,2005 Mich. St. L. Rev 1065 (2005).
232. John B. Bellinger, Ⅲ, Enforcing Human Rights in U.S. Courts and Abroad:The Alien Tort Statute and Other Approaches, available at http://www.state.gov/s/l/rls/103506.htm (last visited August 4,2008).
233. John F. Carella, Of Foreign Plaintiffs and Proper Fora:Forum Non Conveniens and ATCA Class Actions,2003 U. Chi. Legal F.717 (2003).
234. John F. Murphy, Civil Liability for the Commission of International Crimes as an Alternative to Criminal Prosecution,12 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.1 (1999).
235. John Haberstroh, The Alien Tort Claims Act & Doe v. Unocal:A Paquete Habana Approach to the Rescue,32 Denv. J. Int'l L.& Pol'y 231 (2003).
236. John M. Rogers, The Alien Tort Statute and How Individuals "Violate"International Law,21 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.47 (1988).
237. John M. Walker, Jr., Domestic Adjudication of International Human Rights Violations under the Alien Tort Statute,41 ST. LOUIS L.J.539(1997).
238. John O. McGinnis, Foreign to Our Constitution,100 Nw. U. L. Rev.303 (2006).
239. John Quigley, Toward More Effective Judicial Implementation of Treaty-Based Rights, 29 Fordham Int'l L.J.552 (2006).
240. John R. Wilson, Coming to America to File Suit:Foreign Plaintiffs and the Forum Non Conveniens Barrier in Transnational Litigation,65 Ohio State LJ 659 (2004).
241. Jonathan L. Zittrain, An Objection to Sosa—and to the New Federal Common Law,119 Harv. L. Rev.2077 (2006).
242. Jordan J. Paust, Litigating Human Rights:A Commentary on the Comments,4 Houston J. Int'l L.59(1981).
243. Jorge Cicero, The Alien Tort Statute of 1789 as a Remedy for Injuries to Foreign Nationals Hosted by the United States,23 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev.315 (1992).
244. Jose E. Alvarez, Rush to Closure:Lessons of the Tadic Judgment,96 MICH. L. REV. 203 (1998).
245. Josef Rohlik, Filartiga v. Pena-Irala:International Justice in a Modern American Court?,11 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.325 (1981).
246. Joseph Bergen, Princz v. The Federal Republic of Germany:Why the Courts Should Find that Violating Jus Cogens Norms Constitutes an Implied Waiver of Sovereign Immunity,14 Conn. J. Int'l L.169(1999).
247. Joseph Dainow, The Inappropriate Forum,29 U.Ill. L. Rev.867 (1935).
248. Joseph Modeste Sweeney, A Tort Only in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.445 (1995).
249. Joseph R. Thome, Heading South But Looking North:Globalization and Law Reform in Latin America,2000 Wis. L. Rev.691 (2000).
250. Joshua Gregory Holt, The International Law Exception to the Act of State Doctrine: Redressing Human Rights Abuses in Papua New Guinea,16 Pac. Rim L.& Pol'y J.459 (2007).
251. Joshua L. Bettridge, The Alien Tort Statute:Judicial Activism and Its Impact on International Law,1 Regent J. Int'l L 65 (2003).
252. Joshua Ratner, Back to the Future:Why a Return to the Approach of the Filartiga Court is Essential to Preserve the Legitimacy and Potential of the Alien Tort Claims Act,35 COLUM. J.L. & SOC. PROBS.83 (2002).
253. Jules Lobel, The Limits of Constitutional Power:Conflicts Between Foreign Policy and International Law,71 Va. L. Rev.1071 (1985).
254. Julian G. Ku, The Third Wave:The Alien Tort Statute and the War on Terrorism,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.105 (2005).
255. Justin Lu, Jurisdiction over Non-State Activity under the Alien Tort Claims Act,35 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.531 (1997).
256. Justin Prociv, Incorporating Specific International Standards into ATCA Jurisprudence: Why the Ninth Circuit Should Affirm Unocal,34 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev.515 (2003).
257. Karen Knop, Here and There:International Law in Domestic Courts,32 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.501 (2000).
258. Kate Parlett, Universal Civil Jurisdiction for Torture,4 E.H.R.L.R.385 (2007).
259. Katherine C. Sheehan, Predicting the Future:Personal Jurisdiction for the Twenty-First Century,66 U. Cin. L. Rev.385 (1998).
260. Katherine Reece Thomas & Joan Small, Human Rights and State Immunity:Is there Immunity from Civil Liability for Torture?,50 Netherlands Int'l L Rev.1 (2003).
261. Kathryn L. Pryor, Does The Torture Victim Protection Act Signal the Imminent Demise of the Alien Tort Claims Act?,29 Va. J. Int'l L.969 (1989).
262. Kathryn Lee Boyd, The Inconvenience of Victims:Abolishing Forum Non Conveniens in U.S. Human Rights Litigation,39 Va. J. Int'l L.41 (1998).
263. Kelsy Deye, Can Corporations be Held Liable under the Alien Tort Claims Act?,94 Ky. L.J.649 (2005-2006).
264. Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction Over International Law Claims:Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.1 (1985).
265. Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Questions and the Human Rights Paradigm,73 Minn. L. Rev.349 (1988).
266. Kenneth C. Randall, Further Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute and A Recommendation,18 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.473 (1986).
267. Kenneth C. Randall, Universal Jurisdiction under International Law,66 Tex. L. Rev. 785 (1988).
268. Kenneth M. Schneider, Hanoch Tel-Oren:The Retreat from Filartiga,4 Cardozo L.Rev. 665(1983).
269. Kerstin Bartsch & Bjorn Elberling, Jus Cogens vs. State Immunity, Round Two:The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulou et al. v. Greece and Germany Decision,4 German LJ 478 (2003).
270. Kevin M. McDonald, Corporate Civil Liability under the U.S. Alien Tort Claims Act for Violations of Customary International Law During the Third Reich,1997 ST. LOUIS-WARSAW TRANSATLANTIC L.J.167(1997).
271. Kevin R. Carter, Amending the Alien Tort Claims Act:Protecting Human Rights or Closing off Corporate Accountability?,38 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L.629 (2006-2007).
272. Kevin R. Johnson, Why Alienage Jurisdiction? Historical Foundations and Modern Justifications for Federal Jurisdiction over Disputes Involving Noncitizens,21 YALE J. INT'L L.1 (1996).
273. Kevin Scott Prussia, NAFTA & the Alien Tort Claims Act:Making a Case for Actionable Offenses Based on Environmental Harms and Injuries to the Public Health,32 Am. J.L.& Med. 381 (2006).
274. Kristen D.A. Carpenter, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:A Toothless Tiger?,26 N.C. J. Int'l L.& Com. Reg.1 (2000).
275. Laura A. Dickinson, Filartiga's Legacy in An Era of Military Privatization,37 Rutgers L.J.703 (2006).
276. Laura Bowersett, Doe v. Unocal:Torturous Decision for Multinationals Doing Business in Politically Unstable Environments,11 TRANSNAT'L LAW.361 (1998).
277. Laurence R. Helfer, Forum Shopping for Human Rights,148 U. Pa. L. Rev.285 (1999).
278. Lawrence R. Jacobs & Benjamin I. Page, Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?,99 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.107 (2005).
279. Leandro de Oliveira Moll, Case Note:Al-Adsani v United Kingdom-State Immunity and Denial of Justice with respect to Violations of Fundamental Human Rights,4 Melbourne Journal of International Law 561 (2003).
280. Lee M. Caplan, State Immunity, Human Rights and Jus Cogens:A Critique of the Normative Hierarchy Theory,97 Am. J. Int'l L.741 (2003).
281. Logan Michael Breed, Regulating Our 21st Century Ambassadors:A New Approach to Corporate Liability for Human Rights Violations Abroad,42 VA. J. INT'L. L.1005 (2002).
282. Lonny Sheinkopf Hoffman & Keith A. Rowley, Forum Non Conveniens in Federal Statutory Cases,49 Emory L.J.1137 (2000).
283. Lorelle Londis, The Corporate Face of the Alien Tort Claims Act:How an Old Statute Mandates a New Understanding of Global Interdependence,57 Me. L. Rev.141 (2005).
284. Lorna McGregor, State Immunity and Jus Cogens,55 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.437 (2006).
285. Louis B. Sohn, The New International Law:Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather than States,32 Am. U. L. Rev.1 (1982).
286. Louis B. Sohn, Torture as a Violation of the Law of Nations,11 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 307(1981).
287. Louis Henkin, Act of State Today:Recollections in Tranquility,6 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 173(1972).
288. Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United States,82 Mich. L. Rev.1555 (1984).
289. Louis Henkin, Is There a "Political Question"Doctrine?,85 Yale L.J.597 (1976).
290. Louis Henkin, The Constitution and United States Sovereignty:A Century of Chinese Exclusion and Its Progeny,100 HARV. L. REV.853 (1987).
291. Louis Henkin, The President and International Law,80 Am. J. Int'l L.930 (1986).
292. Luciana Reali, Alvarez-Machain v. United States:How Should the Ninth Circuit Determine Which Torts Are Actionable under the Alien Tort Claims Act?,17 N.Y. Int'l L. Rev.51 (2004).
293. Lucien J. Dhooge, A Modest Proposal to Amend the Alien Tort Statute to Provide Guidance to Transnational Corporations,13 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L.& Pol'y 119 (2007).
294. Lucien J. Dhooge, The Alien Tort Claims Act and the Modern Transnational Enterprise: Deconstructing the Mythology of Judicial Activism,35 Geo. J. Int'l L.3 (2003).
295. Lucinda Saunders, Rich and Rare are the Gems They War:Holding De Beers Accountable for Trading Conflict Diamonds,24 Fordham Int'l L. J.1402 (2001).
296. Luis Enrique Cuervo, The Alien Tort Statute, Corporate Accountability, and the New Lex Petrolea,19 Tul. Envtl. L.J.151 (2006).
297. Magdalini Karagiannakis, State Immunity and Fundamental Human Rights,11 Leiden J Int'l L 9 (1998).
298. Micaela Frulli, When are States Liable towards Individuals for Serious Violations of Humanitarian Law? The Markovic Case,1 J Int'l Crim Justice 406 (2003).
299. M.W. Janis, Jeremy Bentham and the Fashioning of "International Law, "78 Am. J. Int'l L.405 (1984).
300. Marcia Coyle, Justices Open Door with Alien Tort Case; What Kind of Claims Remain is Contested,26 Nat'l L. J.1 (2004).
301. Margaret G. Perl, Not Just Another Mass Tort:Using Class Actions to Redress International Human Rights Violations,88 Georgetown L J 773 (2000).
302. Margarita S. Clarens, Deference, Human Rights and the Federal Courts:the Role of the Executive in Alien Tort Statute Litigation,17 Duke J. Comp.& Int'l L.415 (2007).
303. Maria A. Mazzola, Forum Non Conveniens and Foreign Plaintiffs:Addressing the Unanswered Questions ofReyno,6 Fordham Int'l L.J.577 (1983).
304. Maria Dakolias, Court Performance Around the World:A Comparative Perspective,2 Yale H.R.& Dev. L.J.87 (1999).
305. Maria Gavouneli & Ilias Banterkas, Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany. Case No.11/2000,95 Am. J. Int'l. L.198 (2001).
306. Maria Gavouneli, War Reparation Claims and State Immunity,50 Revue hellenique de droit international 595 (1997).
307. Marina Spinedi, State Responsibility v Individual Responsibility for International Crimes:Tertium Non Datur,13 Eur. J. Int'l L.895 (2002).
308. Marisa Anne Pagnattaro, Enforcing International Labor Standards:The Potential of the Alien Tort Claims Act,37 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.203 (2004).
309. Mark E. Rosen, The Alien Tort Statute:An Emerging Threat to National Security,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.627 (2004).
310. Mark Jacobsen, Case Comment,28 U.S.C.1350:A Legal Remedy for Torture in Paraguay?,69 Geo. L.J.833 (1981).
311. Mark S. Zaid, Military Might Versus Sovereign Right:The Kidnaping of Dr. Humberto Alvarez-Machain and the Resulting Fallout,19 Hous. J. Int'l L.829 (1997).
312. Mark Tushnet, Law and Prudence in the Law of Justiciability:the Transformation and Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine,80 N.C. L. Rev.1203 (2002).
313. Markus Rau, Domestic Adjudication of International, Human Rights Abuses and the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens,61 ZaoRV 177 (2001).
314. Markus Rau, State Liability for Violations of International Humanitarian Law-The Distomo Case Before the German Federal Constitutional Court,7 German LJ 701 (2005).
315. Martin S. Flaherty, Human Rights Violations against Defense Lawyers:The Case of Northern Ireland,7 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.87(1994).
316. Martin S. Flaherty, The Future and Past of U.S. Foreign Relations Law,67 Law & Contemp. Probs.169 (2004).
317. Mathias Reimann, A Human Rights Exception to Sovereign Immunity:Some Thoughts on Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany,16 Mich J Int'l L 403 (1995).
318. Matthew H. Murray, The Torture Victim Protection Act:Legislation to Promote Enforcement of the Human Rights of Aliens in U.S. Courts,25 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L.673 (1987).
319. Matthew R. Skolnik, The Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in Alien Tort Claims Act Cases:A Shell of Its Former Self after Wiwa,16 Emory Int'l L. Rev.187 (2002).
320. Mauro Cappelletti, Governmental and Private Advocates for the Public Interest in Civil Litigation:A Comparative Study,73 Mich. L. Rev.794 (1975).
321. Melissa A. Waters, Mediating Norms and Identity:The Role of Transnational Judicial Dialogue in Creating and Enforcing International Law,93 Geo. L.J.487 (2005).
322. Michael A. Tunks, Diplomats or Defendants? Defining the Future of Head-of-State Immunity,52 Duke L.J.651 (2002).
323. Michael C. Small, Enforcing International Human Rights Law in Federal Courts:The Alien Tort Statute and the Separation of Powers,74 Geo. L.J.163 (1985).
324. Michael D. Ramsey, Escaping "International Comity, "83 Iowa L. Rev.893 (1998).
325. Michael D. Ramsey, Multinational Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act: Some Structural Concerns,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.361 (2001).
326. Michael Danaher, Torture as a Tort in Violation of International Law:Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,33 Stan. L.Rev.353 (1981).
327. Michael Dwayne Pettyjohn, "Bring Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Egregious Torts Yearning to See Green":The Alien Tort Statute,10 Tulsa J. Comp.& Int'l L.513 (2003).
328. Michael E. Tigar, Judicial Power, the "Political Question Doctrine, "and Foreign Relations,17 UCLA L. Rev.1135 (1970).
329. Michael G. Collins, The Federal Courts, the First Congress, and the Non-Settlement of 1789,91 Va. L. Rev.1515 (2005).
330. Michael Giuseppe Congiu, From Rights to Remedies:the Alien Tort Claims Act, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the State Action Requirement,2 S.C. J. Int'l L.& Bus.127 (2005-2006).
331. Michael Goldsmith & Vicki Rinne, Civil RICO, Foreign Defendants, and "ET",73 Minn. L. Rev.1023(1989).
332. Michael J. Bazyler, Abolishing the Act of State Doctrine,134 U. Pa. L. Rev.325 (1986).
333. Michael J. Bazyler, Nuremberg in America:Litigating the Holocaust in United States Courts,34 U. Rich. L. Rev.1 (2000).
334. Michael J. Bazyler, The Holocaust Restitution Movement In Comparative Perspective, 20 Berkeley J. Int'l. L.11 (2002).
335. Michael J. Glennon, Process Versus Policy in Foreign Relations:Foreign Affairs and the United States Constitution,95 Mich. L. Rev.1542 (1997).
336. Michael J. Glennon, Raising The Paquete Habana:Is Violation of Customary International Law by the Executive Unconstitutional?,80 Nw. U. L. Rev.321 (1985).
337. Michael T. Morley, The Law of Nations and the Offenses Clause of the Constitution:A Defense of Federalism,112 Yale L.J.109 (2002).
338. Michele Brandt, Doe v. Karadzic:Redressing Non-State Acts of Gender-Specific Abuse under the Alien Tort Statute,79 Minn. L. Rev.1413 (1995).
339. Michelle M. Meloni, The Alien Tort Claims Act:A Mechanism for Alien Plaintiffs to Hold Their Foreign Nations Liable for Tortious Conduct,5 J. Int'l L.& Prac.349 (1996).
340. Nancy Morisseau, Seen But Not Heard:Child Soldiers Suing Gun Manufacturers under The Alien Tort Claims Act,89 Cornell L. Rev.1263 (2004).
341. Nancy S. Williams, Political Question or Judicial Query:An Examination of the Modern Doctrine and Its Inapplicability to Human Rights Mass Tort Litigation,28 Pepp. L. Rev. 849 (2001).
342. Naomi Roht-Arriaza, The Pinochet Precedent and Universal Jurisdiction,35 New Eng. L. Rev.311 (2001).
343. Natalie L. Bridgeman, Human Rights Litigation under ATCA as a Proxy for Environmental Claims,6 YALE HUM. RTS.& DEV. L.J.1 (2003).
344. Nathan Levy, Jr., Mense Process in Personal Actions at Common Law and the Power Doctrine,78 Yale L.J.52(1968).
345. Noah Benjamin Novogrodsky, Immunity for Torture:Lessons from Bouzari v. Iran,18 Eur. J. Int'l L.939 (2007).
346. Note, A Legal Lohengrin:Federal Jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, 14 U.S.F.L.Rev.105(1979).
347. Note, Alien Tort Claims Act Litigation:Adjudicating on "Foreign Territory",30 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev.101 (2006).
348. Note, An Objection to Sosa—And to the New Federal Common Law,119 Harv. L. Rev. 2077 (2006).
349. Note, Enforcement of International Human Rights in the Federal Courts after Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,67 Va.L.Rev.1379 (1981).
350. Note, Forum Non Conveniens:Whose Convenience and Justice?,86Texas Law Review 1079(2008).
351. Note, International Law and Human Rights-Alien Tort Claims under 28 U.S.C.§1350, 66 Minn.L.Rev.357(1982).
352. Note, Judicial Enforcement of International Law against the Federal and State Governments,104 Harv. L. Rev.1269(1991).
353. Note, Limiting the Scope of Federal Jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute,24 Va.J. Int'l L.941(1984).
354. Note, Remedying Foreign Repression through U.S. Courts:Forti v. Suarez-Mason and the Recognition of Torture, Summary Execution, Prolonged Arbitrary Detention and Causing Disappearance As Cognizable Claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act,20 N.Y.U.J.Int'l L.& Pol. 405 (1988).
355. Note, Separation of Powers and Adjudication of Human Rights Claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act,60 Wash.L.Rev.697 (1985).
356. Note, Terrorism as a Tort in Violation of the Law of Nations,6 Fordham & Int'l L.J.236 (1982).
357. Note, The Alien Tort Statute, Forum Shopping, and the Exhaustion of Local Remedies Norm,121 Harv. L. Rev.2110 (2008).
358. Note, The Alien Tort Statute:Implications of Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,15 Ga.L.Rev.504 (1981).
359. Note, The Law of Nations in the District Courts:Federal Jurisdiction over Tort Claims by Aliens under 28 U.S.C. § 1350,1 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.71(1977).
360. Owen M. Fiss, The Forms of Justice,93 Harv. L. Rev.1(1979).
361. P.K. Menon, The International Personality of Individuals in International Law:A Broadening of the Traditional Doctrine,1 J. Transnat'l L.& Pol'y 151 (1992).
362. Pamala Brondos, International Law--The Use of the Torture Victim Protection Act as an Enforcement Mechanism,32 Land & Water L. Rev.221 (1997)
363. Pamela J. Stephens, Spinning Sosa:Federal Common Law, the Alien Tort Statute, and Judicial Restraint,25 B.U. Int'l L.J.1 (2007).
364. Paola Gaeta, Ratione Materiae Immunities of Former Heads of State and International Crimes:The Hissene Habre Case,1 J. Int'l Crim. Just.186 (2003).
365. Pasquale De Sena & Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights:The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case,16 Eur. J. Int'l. L.89 (2005).
366. Patrick J. Borchers, The Death of the Constitutional Law of Personal Jurisdiction:From Pennoyer to Burnham and Back Again,24 U.C. Davis L. Rev.19(1990).
367. Paul B. Stephan, Export/Import:American Civil Justice in a Global Context:A Becoming Modesty--U.S. Litigation in the Mirror of International Law,52 DePaul L. Rev.627 (2002).
368. Paul L. Hoffman & Daniel Zaheer, The Rules of the Road:Federal Common Law and Aiding and Abetting under the Alien Tort Claims Act,26 Loyola L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.47 (2003).
369. Paul L. Hoffman, The "Blank Stare Phenomenon":Proving Customary International Law in U.S. Courts,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.181(1995/1996).
370. Paul R. Dubinsky, Human Rights Law Meets Private Law Harmonization:The Coming Conflict,30 YALE J. INT'L L.211 (2005).
371. Pauline Abadie, A New Story of David and Goliath:The Alien Tort Claims Act Gives Victims of Environmental Injustice in the Developing World a Viable Claim against Multinational Corporations,34 Golden Gate U. L. Rev.745 (2004).
372. Peggy Rodgers Kalas, The Implications of Jota v. Texaco and the Accountability of Transnational Corporations,12 PACE INT'L L. REV.47 (2000).
373. Peter E. Bass, Ex-Head of State Immunity:A Proposed Statutory Tool of Foreign Policy, 97 Yale L.J.299 (1987).
374. Peter Little, What Are the Consequences of the Alien Tort Claims Act (US) on Mining and Petroleum Corporation Operating in the Third World States in the Asian Pacific Region,23 Australian Resources and Energy Law Journal 63 (2004).
375. Peter Schuyler Black, Kadic v. Karadzic:Misinterpreting the Alien Tort Claims Act,31 Ga. L. Rev.281 (1996).
376. Philip A. Scarborough, Rules of Decision for Issues Arising under The Alien Tort Statute, 107 Colum. L. Rev.457 (2007).
377. Philip C. Jessup, The Doctrine of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins Applied to International Law,33 Am J. Int'l L.740 (1939).
378. Philip Mariani, Assessing the Proper Relationship Between the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act,156 U. Pa. L. Rev.1383 (2008).
379. Phillip J. Blumberg, American Law in a Time of Global Interdependence:U.S. National Reports to the XVIth International Congress of Comparative Law:Section Ⅳ Asserting Human Rights against Multinational Corporations under United States Law:Conceptual and Procedural Problems,50 Am. J. Comp. L.493 (2002).
380. Pia Zara Thadhani, Regulating Corporate Human Rights Abuses:Is Unocal the Answer?, 42 WM.& MARY L. REV.619 (2000).
381. Quincy Wright, National Courts and Human Rights:The Fujii Case,45 Am. J. Int'L. L. 62(1951).
382. Racheal E. Schwartz, "And Tomorrow? "The Torture Victim Protection Act,11 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L.271 (1994).
383. Rachel Bart, Using the American Courts to Prosecute International Crimes against Women:Jane Doe v. Radovan Karadzic and S. Kadic v. Radovan Karadzic,3 Cardozo Women's L.J.467 (1996).
384. Rachel E. Barkow, More Supreme than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy,102 Colum. L. Rev.237 (2002).
385. Ralph G. Steinhardt, Fulfilling the Promise of Filartiga:Litigating Human Rights Claims against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos,20 Yale J. Int'l L.65 (1995).
386. Ralph G. Steinhardt, Laying One Bankrupt Critique to Rest:Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Future of International Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts,57 Vand. L. Rev.2241 (2004).
387. Rene Provost, Judging in Splendid Isolation,56 Am. J. Comp. L.125 (2008).
388. Rhonda V. Magee, The Master's Tools, From the Bottom Up:Responses to African-American Reparations Theory in Mainstream and Outsider Remedies Discourse,79 Va. L. Rev.863 (1993).
389. Richard A. Conn, Jr., The Alien Tort Statute:International Law as the Rule of Decision, 49 Fordham L. Rev.874 (1981).
390. Richard Azarnia, Tort Law in France:A Cultural and Comparative Overview,13 Wis. Int'l L.J.471 (1995).
391. Richard B. Cappalli & Claudio Consolo, Class Actions for Continental Europe? A Preliminary Inquiry,6 Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J.217 (1992).
392. Richard B. Lillich, Damages for Gross Violations of International Human Rights Awarded by US Courts,15 Hum. Rts. Q.207 (1993).
393. Richard B. Lillich, Invoking International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts,54 U. Cin. L. Rev.367(1985).
394. Richard B. Lillich, The Growing Importance of Customary International Human Rights Law,25 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.1(1996).
395. Richard Falk, Re-framing International Law for the 21st Century:Re-framing the Legal Agenda of World Order in the Course of a Turbulent Century,9 Transnat'l L.& Contemp. Probs. 451 (1999).
396. Richard Garnett, Access to Justice; Right to Fair Trial; State Immunity. State Immunity Triumphs in the European Court of Human Rights,118 Law Quarterly Review 367 (2002).
397. Richard H.M. Maloy & Desamparados M. Nisi, A Message to the Supreme Court:Next Time You Get a Chance, Please Look at Hilton v. Guyot; We Think it Needs Repairing,5 J. Int'l Legal Stud.1(1999).
398. Richard Henry Seamon, U.S. Torture as A Tort,37 Rutgers L.J.715 (2006).
399. Richard Meeran, Accountability of Transnationals for Human Rights Abuses,148 New L.J.1686(1998).
400. Richard Pierre Claude, The Case ofJoelito Fildrtiga and the Clinic of Hope,5 Hum. Rts. Q.275(1983).
401. Richard S. Frase, Comparative Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: How Do the French Do It, How Can We Find Out, and Why Should We Care?,78 Calif. L. Rev. 539(1990).
402. Richard T. Marooney & George S. Branch, Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act:United States Court Jurisdiction over Torts,12 Currents:Int'l Trade L.J.3 (2003).
403. Robert Braucher, The Inconvenient Federal Forum,60 Harv. L. Rev.908 (1947).
404. Robert F. Nagel, Political Law, Legalistic Politics:A Recent History of the Political Question Doctrine,56 U. Chi. L. Rev.643 (1989).
405. Robert J. Delahunty & John Choon Yoo, Against Foreign Law,29 Harv. J.L.& Pub. Pol'y 291(2005).
406. Robert J. Peterson, Political Realism and the Judicial Imposition of International Secondary Sanctions:Possibilities from John Doe v. Unocal and the Alien Tort Claims Act,5 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable 277 (1998).
407. Robert L. Rabin, Lawyers for Social Change:Perspectives on Public Interest Law,28 Stan. L. Rev.207 (1976).
408. Roger P. Alford, Arbitrating Human Rights,83 Notre Dame L. Rev.505 (2008).
409. Roger P. Alford, Misusing International Sources To Interpret the Constitution,98 Am. J. Int'l L.57 (2004).
410. Roger S. Clark, Offenses of International Concern:Multilateral State Treaty Practice in the Forty Years Since Nuremberg,57 Nordic J. Int'l L.49 (1988).
411. Roger S. Clark, Steven Spielberg's Amistad and Other Things I Have Thought About in the Past Forty Years:International (Criminal) Law, Conflict of Laws, Insurance and Slavery,30 Rutgers L.J.371(1999).
412. Ronald G. Haron, Alien Tort Claims Act-Act of State Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Human Rights Claims Brought against Former Philippine President Residing in the Unites States, 27 Va. J. Int'l L.434 (1987).
413. Ronen Shamir, Between Self-Regulation and the Alien Tort Claims Act:On the Contested Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility,38 Law & Society Review 635 (2004).
414. Rosemary Nagy, Post-Apartheid Justice:Can Cosmopolitanism and Nation-Building Be Reconciled?,40 Law & Soc'y Rev.623 (2006).
415. Russell A Miller, Much Ado, But Nothing:California's New World War II Slave Labor Law Statute of Limitations and Its Place in the Increasingly Futile Effort to Obtain Compensations from American Courts,23 Whittier L. Rev.121 (2001).
416. Russell G. Donaldson, Construction and Application of Alien Tort Statute, Providing for Federal Jurisdiction over Alien's Action for Tort Committed in Violation of Law of Nations or Treaty of the United States,116 A.L.R. Fed.387 (2003).
417. Russell J. Weintraub, Establishing Incredible Events by Credible Evidence:Civil Suits for Atrocities that Violate International Law,62 Brook. L. Rev.753 (1996).
418. Russell J. Weintraub, International Litigation and Forum Non Conveniens,29 Tex. Int'l L.J.321 (1994).
419. Ryan Goodman & Derek P. Jinks, Filartiga's Firm Footing:International Human Rights and Federal Common Law,66 Fordham L. Rev.463 (1997).
420. Ryan Micallef, Liability Laundering and Denial of Justice Conflicts between the Alien Tort Statute and the Government Contractor Defense,71 Brook. L. Rev.1375 (2006).
421. Saad Gul, The Supreme Court Giveth and the Supreme Court Taketh Away:An Assessment of Corporate Liability under § 1350,109 W. Va. L. Rev.379 (2007).
422. Sabine Pittrof, Compensation Claims for Human Rights Breaches Committed by German Armed Forces Abroad During the Second World War:Federal Court of Justice Hands Down Decision in the Distomo Case,5 German LJ 15 (2004).
423. Salvatore Zappala, Do Heads of State in Office Enjoy Immunity from Jurisdiction for International Crimes? The Ghaddafi Case Before the French Cour de Cassation,12 Eur. J. Int'l L. 595(2001).
424. Samuel A. Khalil, The Alien Tort Claims Act and Section 1983:The Improper Use of Domestic Laws to "Create "and "Define"International Liability for Multi-National Corporations, 31 Hofstra L. Rev.207 (2002).
425. Sandra Coliver, Bringing Human Rights Abusers to Justice in U.S. Courts:Carrying Forward the Legacy of the Nuremberg Trials,27 Cardozo L. Rev.1689 (2006).
426. Sandra Coliver, Jennie Green & Paul L. Hoffman, Holding Human Rights Violators Accountable by Using International Law in U.S. Courts:Advocacy Efforts and Complementary Strategies,19 Emory Int'l L. Rev.169 (2005).
427. Sarah C. Rispin, Implications of Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium on the Pinochet Precedent:A Setback For International Human Rights Litigation?,3 Chi. J. Int'l L.527 (2002).
428. Sarah H. Cleveland, Global Labor Rights and the Alien Tort Claims Act,76 Tex. L. Rev. 1533(1998).
429. Sarah H. Cleveland, Our International Constitution,31 Yale J. Int'l L.1 (2006).
430. Sarah H. Cleveland, The Alien Tort Statute, Civil Society, and Corporate Responsibility, 56 RUTGERS L. REV.971 (2004).
431. Sarah M. Hall, Multinational Corporations'Post-Unocal Liabilities for Violations of International Law,34 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev.401 (2002).
432. Scott A. Richman, Siderman De Blake v. Republic of Argentina:Can the FSIA Grant Immunity for Violations of Jus Cogens Norms?,19 Brook. J. Int'L L.967 (1993).
433. Scott A. Rosenberg, The Theory of Protective Jurisdiction,57 N.Y.U. L. Rev.933 (1982).
434. Scott Holwick, Transnational Corporate Behavior and Its Disparate and Unjust Effects on the Indigenous Cultures and the Environment of Developing Nations,11 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L.& POL'Y 183 (2000).
435. Sean D. Murphy, The ELSI Case:An Investment Dispute at the International Court of Justice,16 Yale J. Int'l L.391 (1991).
436. Shanaira Udwadia, Corporate Responsibility For International Human Rights Violations, 13 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J.359 (2004).
437. Sharon K. Hom, Re-positioning Human Rights Discourse on "Asian"Perspectives,3 Buff. J. Int'l L.209(1996).
438. Shaw W. Scott, Taking Riggs Seriously:the ATCA Case against A Corporate Abettor of Pinochet Atrocities,89 Minn. L. Rev.1497 (2005).
439. Shirin Sinnar, Book Torture as Tort:Comparative Perspectives on the Development of Transnational Human Rights Litigation,38 Stan. J. Int'l L.331 (2002).
440. Shobha Varughese George, Head-of-State Immunity in the United States Courts:Still Confused after All These Years,64 Fordham L. Rev.1051 (1995).
441. Sir Arthur Watts, The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers,242 Recueil Des Cours 13 (1994-Ⅲ).
442. Sonia Jimenez, The Alien Tort Claims Act:A Tool for Repairing Ethically Challenged U.S. Corporations,16 St. Thomas L. Rev.721 (2004).
443. Spencer Weber Waller, The Twilight of Comity,38 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.563 (2000).
444. Stacy Humes-Schulz, Limiting Sovereign Immunity in the Age of Human Rights,21 Harv. Hum. Rts.J.105(2008).
445. Steffanie Bevington, Requiring Exhaustion:An International Law Perspective of the Alien Tort Claims Act in Sarei v. Rio Tinto,38 Golden Gate U. L. Rev.461 (2008).
446. Steffen Wirth, Immunity for Core Crimes? The ICJ's Judgment in the Congo v Belgium Case,13 Eur. J. Int'l L.877 (2002).
447. Stephen G. Wood & Brett Scharffs, Applicability of Human Rights Standards to Private Corporations:An American Perspective,50 Am. J. Comp. L.531 (2002).
448. Stephen Reisenfeld, The Doctrine of Self-Executing Treaties and U.S. v. Postal:Win at Any Price?,74 Am. J. Int'l L.892 (1980).
449. Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, The Exhaustion of Local Remedies Rule and Forum Non Conveniens in International Litigation in U.S. Courts,13 Cornell Int'l L.J.351 (1980).
450. Steve Kuan, Alien Tort Claims Act--Classifying Peacetime Rape as an International Human Rights Violation,22 Hous. J. Int'l L.451 (2000).
451. Steven Fogelson, The Nuremberg Legacy:An Unfulfilled Promise,63 S. Cal. L. Rev. 833(1990).
452. Steven M. Schneebaum, Human Rights in the United States Courts:The Role of Lawyers,55 WASH & LEE L. REV.737(1998).
453. Steven R. Ratner, Belgium's War Crimes Statute:A Postmortem,97 AJIL 888 (2003).
454. Steven R.Ratner, Corporations and Human Rights:A Theory of Legal Responsibility, 111 Yale L.J.443 (2001).
455. Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law:Part Two,133 U. Pa. L. Rev.1231 (1985).
456. Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law,42 Vand. L. Rev. 819(1989).
457. Sung Teak Kim, Adjudicating Violations of International Law:Defining the Scope of Jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute--Trajano v. Marcos,27 Cornell Int'l L. J.387 (1994).
458. Symeon C. Symeonides, Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2002:Sixteenth Annual Survey,51 Am. J. Comp. L.1 (2003).
459. Tarek F. Maassarani, Four Counts of Corporate Complicity:Alternative Forms of Accomplice Liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act,38 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L.& Pol.39 (2005-2006).
460. Terry Collingsworth, "Corporate Social Responsibility "Unmasked,16 ST. THOMAS L. REV.669 (2004).
461. Terry Collingsworth, the Key Human Rights Challenge:Developing Enforcement Mechanisms,15 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.183 (2002).
462. Thomas E. Vanderbloemen, Assessing the Potential Impact of the Proposed Hague Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention on Human Rights Litigation in the United States,50 Duke L.J.917(2000).
463. Thomas H. Lee, The Safe-Conduct Theory of the Alien Tort Statute,106 Colum. L. Rev. 830 (2006).
464. Tim Kline, A Door Ajar or a Floodgate? Corporate Liability after Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,94 Ky. L.J.691 (2005-2006).
465. Tina Garmon, Domesticating International Corporate Responsibility:Holding Private Military Firms Accountable under the Alien Tort Claims Act,11 Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L.325 (2003).
466. Tom Lininger, Overcoming Immunity Defenses to Human Rights Suits in the United States,7 Harv. Hum. Rights J.177 (1994).
467. Tom R. Tyler & Hulda Thorisdottir, A Psychological Perspective on Compensation for Harm:Examining the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund,53 DePaul L. Rev.355 (2003).
468. Toni M. Massaro, Empathy, Legal Storytelling, and the Rule of Law:New Words, Old Wounds,87 Mich. L. Rev.2099 (1989).
469. Tracy Bishop Holton, Cause of Action to Recover Civil Damages Pursuant to the Law of Nations and/or Customary International Law,21 Causes of Action 2d 327 (2005).
470. Trevor C.W. Farrow, Globalization, International Human Rights, and Civil Procedure, 41 Alberta L. Rev.671 (2003).
471. Tsuneo Matsumoto, Beyond Compensation,15 U. Haw. L. Rev.577 (1993).
472. Ved P. Nanda, Human Rights and Sovereign and Individual Immunities (Sovereign Immunity, Act of State, Head of State Immunity and Diplomatic Immunity)-Some Reflections,5 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L.467 (1999).
473. Vicki C. Jackson, Constitutional Comparisons:Convergence, Resistance, Engagement, 119 Harv. L. Rev.109 (2006).
474. Victor A. Pappalardo, Isolationism or Deference? the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Separation of Powers,10 Mich. J. Int'l L.886 (1989).
475. Viktor Mayer-Schonberger & Teree E. Foster, More Speech, Less Noise:"Amplifying Content-Based Speech Regulations through Binding International Law",18 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.59 (1995).
476. Virginia A. Melvin, Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic:Redefining the Alien Tort Claims Act,70 Minn. L. Rev.211 (1985).
477. Virginia Monken Gomez, The Sosa Standard:What Does It Mean For Future ATS Litigation? 33 PEPP. L. REV.469 (2006).
478. Wayne A. Logan, The Ex Post Facto Clause and the Jurisprudence of Punishment,35 Am. Crim. L. Rev.1261 (1998).
479. Werner Pfennigstorf, The European Experience with Attorney Fee Shifting, 47 Law & Contemp. Probs.37 (1984).
480. William H. Meyer, Human Rights and MNCs:Theory Versus Quantitative Analysis,18 Hum. Rts.Q.368 (1996).
481. William J. Aceves, Actio Popularis? The Class Action in International Law,2003 U. Chi. Legal F.353 (2003).
482. William J. Aceves, Affirming the Law of Nations in U.S. Courts:the Karadzic Litigation and the Yugoslav Conflict,14 Berkeley J. Int'1 L.137 (1996).
483. William J. Aceves, Relative Normativity:Challenging the Sovereignty Norm through Human Rights Litigation,25 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.261 (2002).
484. William R. Casto, Correspondence,83 Am. J. Int'l L.901 (1989).
485. William R. Casto, Regulating the New Privateers of the Twenty-First Century,37 Rutgers L.J.671 (2006).
486. William R. Casto, The Federal Courts'Protective Jurisdiction over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations,18 Conn. L. Rev.467 (1986).
487. William R. Casto, The First Congress's Understanding of its Authority over the Federal Courts'Jurisdiction,26 B.C. L. Rev.1101 (1985).
488. William S. Dodge, Bridging Erie:Customary International Law in the U.S. Legal System after Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,12 Tulsa J. Comp.& Int'l L.87 (2004).
489. William S. Dodge, Congressional Control of Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction: Why the Original Jurisdiction Clause Suggests an "Essential Role, "100 Yale L.J.1013 (1991).
490. William S. Dodge, The Constitutionality of the Alien Tort Statute:Some Observations on Text and Context,42 Va. J. Int'l L.687 (2002).
491. William S. Dodge, The Historical Origins of the Alien Tort Statue:A Response to the "Originalists, "19 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.221 (1996).
492. William S. Dodge, Which Torts in Violation of the Law of Nations?,24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.351 (2001).
493. William Webster, Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. v. Argentine Republic:Denying Sovereign Immunity to Violators of International Law,39 Hastings L.J.1109(1988).
494. Gabriel M. Wilner, Filartiga v. Pena-Irala:Comments on Sources of Human Rights Law and Means of Redress for Violations of Human Rights,11 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.317 (1981).
495. Winston P. Nagan & Lucie Atkins, The International Law of Torture:From Universal Proscription to Effective Application and Enforcement,14 Harv. Hum. Rts. J.87 (2001).
496. Wythe Holt, "To Establish Justice":Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts,1989 Duke L.J.1421 (1989).
497. Xiaodong Yang, State Immunity in the European Court of Human Rights:Reaffirmations and Misconceptions,74 BYBIL 333 (2003).
498. Yoav Gery, The Torture Victim Protection Act:Raising Issues of Legitimacy,26 Geo. Wash. J. Int'l L.& Econ.597(1993).
499. Yolanda S. Wu, Genocidal Rape in Bosnia:Redress in United States Courts under the Alien Tort Claims Act,4 UCLA Women's L.J.101(1993).
500. Zachary S. Kahn, How Far is the 'Door Ajar'? Whether Rape as Torture is Actionable under the Alien Tort Statute after Sosa,12 Cardozo J.L.& Gender 685 (2006).