{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016791044776119403, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01554726368159204, 'mean_word_length': 5.071698113207547, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
7 International Human Rights Litigation

This chapter focuses on litigation under the Alien Tort Statute, which provides for jurisdiction over suits brought by aliens for torts in violation of international law. The chapter begins by exploring Congress’s likely intent in enacting the Statute in 1789, and how the Statute may have related to Article III of the Constitution (concerning the powers of the federal courts). The chapter then describes how the Statute received little attention until the Filartiga decision in 1980, which allowed for it to be used by aliens to sue other aliens for human rights abuses committed abroad. The chapter proceeds to explore a variety of doctrinal issues relating to this human rights litigation, including the source of the cause of action, the standards for bringing a claim, and the ability to sue corporations. The chapter also considers the contours of the Torture Victim Protection Act, which Congress enacted in 1992 to facilitate certain human rights claims. The chapter then discusses limitations on Alien Tort Statute litigation imposed by the Supreme Court in its 2004 decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, as well as the rise of suits brought against corporate defendants brought under the Statute. The chapter concludes by discussing the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in which the Court substantially curtailed the territorial reach of claims that could be brought under the Statute, and the Court’s 2018 decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, in which the Court disallowed suits under the Statute against foreign corporations.