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

このページは 日本語 では利用できません。English で表示されています

記事

2012年7月17日

著者:
Oona Hathaway, Yale Law School in SCOTUSblog

The [Alien Tort Statute] is in good company

全てのタグを見る
The Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) has often been cast as an outlier, as an excuse for U.S. judges to interfere where their counterparts the world over would stay out. In fact, the ATS is in good company. Large numbers of countries provide for civil liability for human rights abuses committed outside their territory...The ATS is, in fact, far from alone. Many nations permit their courts to exercise civil jurisdiction over alleged extraterritorial human rights abuses to which the nation has no more connection than that required by the U.S. doctrine of personal jurisdiction...Many countries have statutes asserting extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction to enforce international law, and many of them allow victims to make civil claims for damages in conjunction with the criminal proceedings...Numerous other countries have both universal jurisdiction statutes and laws for appending civil claims to criminal prosecutions.

タイムライン