In Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (1980), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that victims of human rights violations could sue their oppressors civilly in US courts under an eighteenth century law now called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA). Controversy raged over the Filartiga decision and the proper interpretation of the ATCA for 24 years. Then in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), the Supreme Court issued its first ATCA decision. This essay analyzes the effect of the Sosa decision on (...) the development of human rights law in US courts. I find that while the federal judiciary is responding to some of the Supreme Court’s directives, lower courts still retain a great deal of discretion in handling ATCA cases. (shrink)

In the wake of globalisation, we have witnessed the rise of the transnational corporation—powerful, new players in an international human rights system ill-equipped to handle the challenge. Despite the best efforts of the United Nations, international treaties and human rights lawyers the world over, there is simply no mandatory international code of corporate conduct targeting human rights practices. Enter the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), a once-obscure U.S. statute that provides a private cause of action for violations of international human (...) rights law committed by governmental and non-governmental actors. This paper will examine recent ATCA jurisprudence, the landmark Unocal settlement, and the ATCA’s role in reining in Yahoo! Inc. for supplying evidence used to convict Chinese dissidents Wang Xiaoning and Shi Tao. (shrink)