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

這頁面沒有繁體中文版本,現以English顯示

文章

2012年6月13日

作者:
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.