Alien Torts Claims Act: Difference between revisions
imported>Ro Thorpe mNo edit summary |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) (PropDel; unfocused, not intelligible) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{PropDel}}<br><br> | |||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
Originally adopted in the United States as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the '''Alien Tort Claims Act''' first did not address specific rights, but has subsequently become prominent from the latter part of the 20th century, in various international [[human rights]] cases. The original language said the U.S. district courts had jurisdiction "for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."<ref>28 USC 1350</ref> It became prominent with the 1984 [[Filartiga v. Pena-Irala]] case, in which the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] found in favor of Argentinians, [[torture|tortured]] in Argentina, under the authority of an Argentinean officer who had moved to the U.S. | Originally adopted in the United States as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the '''Alien Tort Claims Act''' first did not address specific rights, but has subsequently become prominent from the latter part of the 20th century, in various international [[human rights]] cases. The original language said the U.S. district courts had jurisdiction "for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."<ref>28 USC 1350</ref> It became prominent with the 1984 [[Filartiga v. Pena-Irala]] case, in which the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] found in favor of Argentinians, [[torture|tortured]] in Argentina, under the authority of an Argentinean officer who had moved to the U.S. | ||
It is not a full case of | It is not a full case of universal jurisdiction; there has to be some relationship between the defendants and the U.S. | ||
Later cases included: | Later cases included: | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
*[[Kadic v. Karadzic]]<ref>70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995)</ref> decide in 1995 about abuses in [[Serbia]] | *[[Kadic v. Karadzic]]<ref>70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995)</ref> decide in 1995 about abuses in [[Serbia]] | ||
It is the basis of the current [[Mohamed et al. v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.]] case involving U.S. [[extraordinary rendition | It is the basis of the current [[Mohamed et al. v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.]] case involving U.S. [[extraordinary rendition, U.S., George W. Bush Administration|extraordinary rendition]] and [[extrajudicial detention, U.S., George W. Bush Administration|extrajudicial detention]]. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}}[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]] | ||
Latest revision as of 10:01, 23 July 2024
| This article may be deleted soon. | ||
|---|---|---|
 Originally adopted in the United States as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Alien Tort Claims Act first did not address specific rights, but has subsequently become prominent from the latter part of the 20th century, in various international human rights cases. The original language said the U.S. district courts had jurisdiction "for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."[1] It became prominent with the 1984 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala case, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found in favor of Argentinians, tortured in Argentina, under the authority of an Argentinean officer who had moved to the U.S. It is not a full case of universal jurisdiction; there has to be some relationship between the defendants and the U.S. Later cases included:
It is the basis of the current Mohamed et al. v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. case involving U.S. extraordinary rendition and extrajudicial detention. References |
||
