Private law remedies for extraterritorial human rights violations [Elektronische Ressource] / vorgelegt von Eric Engle

Josef Linck

Sujets

• Recht

Informations

• Publié par: universitat_bremen
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2006
• Nombre de lectures: 15
• Langue: English

Extrait

Private Law Remedies
for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations
Inauguraldissertation
zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde
der Fakultät für Rechtswissenschaft
der Universität Bremen
vorgelegt von
Eric Engle
(geb. in New York) Gutachter: 1. Prof. Dr. Gert Brüggemeier
2. Prof. Dr. Josef Falke
Kolloquium am: 30. Januar 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ......................................................................................................7
Limits of the Inquiry ..........................................................................................7
Interest of th.........................................................................................8
Research Objectives ...........................................................................................9
Problématique .....................................................................................................8
Method ................................................................................................................9
Existing Literature ..............................................................................................9
Outline ................................................................................................................9
Chapter I:
The Torture Victim’s Protection Act, the Alien Tort Claims Act,
and Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge .................................................13
Abstract ............................................................................................................13
Introduction ......................................................................................................14
I. The ATCA and the TVPA ...........................................................................14
A. Obstacles to Succeeding Under the ATCA/TVPA ................................17
1. Jurisdictional Requirements ..............................................................17
2. Exhaustion .........................................................................................18
3. Comity ...............................................................................................18
4. Forum non conveniens .......................................................................18
5. Act of State Doctrine .........................................................................19
6. Political Question Doctrine ...............................................................21
7. Immunity ............................................................................................22
8. Burdens of Proof ................................................................................25
II. Foucault – A Methodological Framework to Understand Torture .............26
III. The Use of Torture: A Shameful Chapter in the History of European
Society .........................................................................................................28
A. Theory of Torture ...................................................................................30
B. Four Reasons Why Torture Disappeared ...............................................31
IV. Contemporary Events .................................................................................33
V. Conclusion ...................................................................................................36
Chapter II:
Alvarez-Machain v. United States and Alvarez-Machain v. Sosa:
The Brooding Omnipresence of Natural Law .............................................37
Abstract ............................................................................................................37
I. Introduction .................................................................................................38 A. The Issues Presented to the Supreme Court in Sosa ..............................40
B. The Unsettled Issues which caused the Sosa Court to grant certiorari ..42
1. What Substantive Law is to be Applied? ..........................................42
2. Does the ATS Only Apply to Violations of Jus Cogens? .................43
II. Practical Analysis: The Issues the Justice Department and its Agent Sosa
Presented ......................................................................................................44
A. “Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug
Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce
a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against
a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted
criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country” .....................44
1. Customary International Law Prohibits Abduction by one State
of any Person in another State Absent Consent of that State ............45
2. Customary International Law as Part of the Common Law:
The Kidnapping of Alvarez-Machain was Illegal under
Common Law ....................................................................................46
a. Comparative Law: Customary International Law is an Integral
Part of the Common Law in Britain, Canada, and Australia ........47
b. Legal History: Customary International Law has been Part
of the Common Law for Centuries ...............................................48
i. What Blackstone can tell us about the Alien Tort Statute .......48
ii. What Coke can tell us about the Alien Tort Statute ................51
3. The Government’s Abduction, while Illegal under International
Law may have been Legal under National Law if a statute had
displaced the customary law. In all events, the Government’s
Abduction was Constitutional ...........................................................53
B. Is the Alien Tort Statute solely a grant of jurisdiction, or does it
provide a cause of action for aliens who are victimized by tortious
violations of international law? ..............................................................55
C. “If it is proper to imply or create a cause of action under the ATS,
whether those actions should be limited to suits for violations
of international legal norms to which the United States has assented” .63
1. Plain Meaning Argument – The ATS facially does not distinguish
between jus cogens norms and other rules of international law ........66
2. Historical Argument – At the time of drafting of the ATS
international law did not distinguish between jus cogens
norms and ordinary rules of international law ...................................66
3. Systematic Argument – The hermeneutic separation of the
international legal system into a “public-state” and “private-
international” sphere did not exist a the time of the drafting
2of the ATS, is increasingly ignored today, and provides
no argument, that the ATS address only jus cogens violations .........67
4. Individual Rights under International Law .......................................68
a. Abduction ......................................................................................68
b. State Action ..................................................................................70
D. “Whether a detention that lasts less than 24 hours, results in no
physical harm to the detainee, and is undertaken by a private
individual under instructions from senior United States law
enforcement officials, constitutes a tort in violation of the
law of nations actionable under the ATS” .............................................72
III. Theoretical Synthesis: The Natural Law/Positivism Dichotomy in Sosa ..73
A. The False Dichotomy of Positivism and Natural law ............................74
1. Aristotle .............................................................................................74
2. Hobbes ................................................................................................78
B. The Implications of Re-Cognizing the False Dichotomy
of “Naturalism v. Positivism” ................................................................81
C. Examining the ATS in Light of the False Dichotomy ...........................83
IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................84
A. Aristotle and Hobbes ..............................................................................85
B. Sosa and Machain ...................................................................................86
Chapter III:
U.S. Corporate Liability for Torts of (Foreign) Subsidiaries ....................89
Abstract ............................................................................................................89
Introduction ......................................................................................................90
A. Practical Scenarios ..................................................................................92
B. Historical Perspective .............................................................................94
I. Imputed Liability .........................................................................................96
A. Respondeat Superior ...............................................................................97
B. Liability based on a Theory of Agency ..................................................97
II. Direct Liability ..........................