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

这页面没有简体中文版本,现以English显示

文章

2012年8月8日

作者:
Paul D. Clement, Bancroft, counsel of record for amici

[PDF] Esther Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al. - Supplemental brief of amici curiae BP America, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, General Electric, Honeywell, IBM & Monsanto in support of Respondents

查看所有标签
The question on which this Court requested supplemental briefing—whether and under what circumstances the ATS applies to extraterritorial conduct—goes to the very heart of what has gone wrong with the ATS regime over the last 30 years. Congress enacted the ATS in 1789 to achieve a rather modest goal—namely, easing diplomatic tension with other countries by ensuring that aliens injured in the United States (or on the high seas) would not be left without a judicial remedy…Far from reducing diplomatic tension, this extraterritorial projection of the ATS has prompted complaints from our closest allies as United States courts stand in judgment of the actions of foreign governments on foreign soil, in contravention of this Court’s longstanding and oft-repeated proscription on such interference.

时间线