The Statute of Limitations for Alien Torts: A Reexamination After Kiobel

A. Pradhan
{"title":"The Statute of Limitations for Alien Torts: A Reexamination After Kiobel","authors":"A. Pradhan","doi":"10.18060/17651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The recent Second Circuit ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum that corporations may not be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS, formerly ATCA) 4 has shaken many human rights activists and internationalists. If this holding is upheld, it will require major reformulation of pending complaints. Although Kiobel may make the road difficult for ATS plaintiffs, the court's insistence on adhering solely to customary international law in determining jurisdictional issues may benefit ATS plaintiffs in other areas, most notably by contributing to the argument against the imposition of a statute of limitations on claims under the ATS.' Contrary to this position, the Ninth Circuit, in Wesley Papa, et al. v. United States and the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, was the first to apply a ten year statute of limitations to ATS claims.6 This holding has been cited in several other cases within the Ninth and Second Circuits.' However, the imposition of time limitations on ATS claims has been rebuffed by other U.S. courts.! This article concludes that not only does imposition of a statute of limitations negate the purpose of the ATS,9 but also the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in favor of time limitations does not hold in the face of Kiobel.10","PeriodicalId":230320,"journal":{"name":"Indiana international and comparative law review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana international and comparative law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18060/17651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The recent Second Circuit ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum that corporations may not be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS, formerly ATCA) 4 has shaken many human rights activists and internationalists. If this holding is upheld, it will require major reformulation of pending complaints. Although Kiobel may make the road difficult for ATS plaintiffs, the court's insistence on adhering solely to customary international law in determining jurisdictional issues may benefit ATS plaintiffs in other areas, most notably by contributing to the argument against the imposition of a statute of limitations on claims under the ATS.' Contrary to this position, the Ninth Circuit, in Wesley Papa, et al. v. United States and the U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, was the first to apply a ten year statute of limitations to ATS claims.6 This holding has been cited in several other cases within the Ninth and Second Circuits.' However, the imposition of time limitations on ATS claims has been rebuffed by other U.S. courts.! This article concludes that not only does imposition of a statute of limitations negate the purpose of the ATS,9 but also the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in favor of time limitations does not hold in the face of Kiobel.10
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外国人侵权诉讼时效:对Kiobel案的再审视
最近,第二巡回法院在Kiobel诉荷兰皇家石油公司一案中裁定,根据《外国人侵权法》(ATS,以前的ATCA),公司可能不承担责任,这一裁决动摇了许多人权活动家和国际主义者。如果维持这一裁决,将需要对未决申诉进行重大修改。尽管Kiobel可能会使ATS原告的道路变得困难,但法院坚持在确定管辖权问题时仅遵守习惯国际法,这可能会使ATS原告在其他领域受益,最明显的是有助于反对在ATS下对索赔施加诉讼时效的论点。与这一立场相反,第九巡回法院在韦斯利·帕帕等人诉美国和美国移民归化局案中,首次对ATS索赔适用十年诉讼时效这一判决在第九巡回法院和第二巡回法院的其他几起案件中也被引用。然而,美国其他法院拒绝了对ATS索赔施加时间限制的要求。这篇文章的结论是,不仅诉讼时效的强加否定了ATS的目的,而且第九巡回法院支持时间限制的推理在kiobel案面前也站不住脚跟
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sanctimonious Barbarity: The Forced Pregnancy Alito Dobbs Opinion Self-Determination: What Lessons from Kashmir? Striking a Balance: Extending Minimum Rights to U.S. Gig Economy Workers Based on E.U. Directive 2019/1153 on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions Issue Preclusion Out of the U.S. (?) The Evolution of the Italian Doctrine of Res Judicata in Comparative Context Animal Welfare, Who Cares? Why the United Nations Needs to Tackle Horse-Soring
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1