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, graphlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

This page is not available in Deutsch and is being displayed in English

Artikel

12 Jun 2012

Autor*in:
Australian Intl. Law Scholars

[PDF] Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al. [Australian Intl. Law Scholars amicus brief in support of petitioners]

A central position Australia has advanced in error bears directly on the question that the Court has ordered the parties to brief supplementally. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum...In particular, Australia maintains that international law prohibits the exercise of ATS jurisdiction where a tort committed in violation of the law of nations takes place outside the United States of America...in the absence of a close nexus. This position is incorrect at international law and is belied by Australia’s own projection of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Story Timeline