Alien Torts Claims Act

This article may be deleted soon.

|  | To oppose or discuss a nomination, please go to CZ:Proposed for deletion and follow the instructions.

For the monthly nomination lists, see Category:Articles for deletion.

| Main Article
| Discussion
| Related Articles  [?]
| Bibliography  [?]
| External Links  [?]
| Citable Version  [?]

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

[edit intro]

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:

* Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic,[2] a 1984 case involving Libyan sponsorship of an attack on a civilian bus in Israel (alleging claims against Libya based on armed attack upon civilian bus in Israel)
* Forti v. Suarez Mason, a 1987 case involving Argentina
* Abebe-Jira v. Negewo[3] involving Ethiopiam prisoners in 1996
* In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos[4] about events in the Philippines
* Kadic v. Karadzic[5] 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 and extrajudicial detention.

## References[edit]

1. ↑ 28 USC 1350
2. ↑ 726 F.2d 774 (D.C.Cir.1984)
3. ↑ 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir.1996)
4. ↑ 25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir.1994)
5. ↑ 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1995)