abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

هذه الصفحة غير متوفرة باللغة العربية وهي معروضة باللغة English

المقال

13 يونيو 2012

الكاتب:
Center for Justice and Accountability & others

[PDF] Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al. [brief in support of petitioners]

It has long been established that a nation’s courts may exercise general jurisdiction over the country’s residents, even for acts committed elsewhere. It is therefore entirely appropriate that individuals who come to the United States would be subject to suits in this country for claims that arise abroad – whether the claims arise from automobile accidents in Europe, theft of trade secrets in Asia, or intentional torts in Africa. Adjudicating lawsuits here for extraterritorial acts violating the law of nations involves no unusual, much less unprecedented, exercise of jurisdiction.