A Unified approach to extraterritoriality

Virginia Law Review

Volumn 97, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1019-1109

  Colangelo, Anthony J ^a  

^a SMU Dedman School of Law   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855883890     PISSN: 00426601     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (321)

1. See Hannah L. Buxbaum, Territory, Territoriality, and the Resolution of Jurisdictional Conflict, 57 Am. J. Comp. L. 631, 635 (2009)
2. See Lea Brilmayer & Charles Norchi, Federal Extraterritoriality and Fifth Amendment Due Process, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1217, 1218 & n.3 (1992).
3. See Austen Parrish, The Effects Test: Extraterritoriality's Fifth Business, 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1455, 1478 & n.124 (2008).
4. See, e.g., United States v. Ivanov, 175 F. Supp. 2d 367, 367-70 (D. Conn. 2001);
5. see also Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. 1030 (2006).
6. see the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. 2423 (2006).
7. see Anthony J. Colangelo, The Foreign Commerce Clause, 96 Va. L. Rev. 949, 991-1003 (2010).
8. See, e.g., Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2876 (2010).
9. The most prominent and controversial statute generating these kinds of suits is the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350 (2006)
10. See Jeffrey A. Meyer, Dual Illegality and Geoambiguous Law: A New Rule for Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Law, 95 Minn. L. Rev. 110, 113-21 (2010) (surveying different scholarly approaches and proposing new approach).
11. see also Curtis A. Bradley, Territorial Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Globalism, 37 Va. J. Int'l L. 505, 507 (1997);
12. William S. Dodge, Understanding the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality, 16 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 85, 89-90 (1998);
13. John H. Knox, A Presumption Against Extrajurisdictionality, 104 Am. J. Int'l L. 351, 351-52, 396 (2010);
14. Larry Kramer, Extraterritorial Application of American Law After the Insurance Antitrust Case: A Reply to Professors Lowenfeld and Trimble, 89 Am. J. Int'l L. 750, 752 (1995);
15. Jonathan Turley, "When in Rome": Multinational Misconduct and the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality, 84 Nw. U. L. Rev. 598, 599-601 (1990).
16. See Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2878
17. See, e.g., Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. 2423 (2006) (criminalizing under U.S. law sexual abuse of a minor abroad).
18. Eugene Kontorovich, Beyond the Article I Horizon: Congress's Enumerated Powers and Universal Jurisdiction over Drug Crimes, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 1191, 1219-23 (2009) [hereinafter Kontorovich, Article I Horizon];
19. Eugene Kontorovich, The "Define and Punish" Clause and the Limits of Universal Jurisdiction, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 149, 150-53 (2009) [hereinafter Kontorovich, "Define and Punish" Clause].
20. Anthony J. Colangelo, Constitutional Limits on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Terrorism and the Intersection of National and International Law, 48 Harv. Int'l L.J. 121, 158-62 (2007).
21. see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 813-14 (1993) (Scalia, J.)
22. Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy (The Charming Betsy), 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804).
23. EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co. (Aramco), 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991) (quoting Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285 (1949)).
24. Cf. Arthur Taylor von Mehren, Choice of Law and the Problem of Justice, 41 Law & Contemp. Probs. 27, 28 (1977) (noting that laws are a reflection of the values and traditions of the community).
25. See Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 115-16 (1987)
26. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 & n.6 (1981)
27. U.S.C. 1350 (2006).
28. Anthony J. Bellia Jr. & Bradford R. Clark, The Alien Tort Statute and the Law of Nations, 78 U. Chi. L. Rev. 445, 446 (2011);
29. 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2878 (2010).
30. Norex Petroleum v. Access Indus., 631 F.3d 29, 32-33 (2d Cir. 2010).
31. Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2883.
32. See, e.g., United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2003);
33. United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245, 248-49 (9th Cir. 1990);
34. cf. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 822 (1985) (noting this concern in the interstate choice of law context);
35. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 312-13, 318 n.24 (1981) (same).
36. See United States v. Furlong, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 184, 195-96 (1820)
37. see also Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, 509 U.S. 155, 206 (1993) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
38. It also fails to heed the assumption that Congress generally legislates with domestic concerns in mind, which the Supreme Court recently and forcefully reaffirmed in Morrison v. National Austl. Bank. 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2877-78 (2010).
39. Hannah L. Buxbaum, Transnational Regulatory Litigation, 46 Va. J. Int'l L. 251, 255, 268, 298 (2006).
40. See Austen L. Parrish, Reclaiming International Law from Extraterritoriality, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 815, 869-74 (2009).
41. See Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2878.
42. William S. Dodge, Extraterritoriality and Conflict-of-Laws Theory: An Argument for Judicial Unilateralism, 39 Harv. Int'l L.J. 101, 104 (1998).
43. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 813-14 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting on the statutory issue);
44. EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co. (Aramco), 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991).
45. See Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2882-83 (2010).
46. See, e.g., Conditional Cross-Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 14-17, Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, 131 S. Ct. 122 (2010) (No. 09-1418).
47. Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy (The Charming Betsy), 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804);
48. see also McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10, 21 (1963).
49. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 164 (2004);
50. see also Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 577-78 (1953)
51. See Am. Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356 (1909);
52. The Apollon, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 362, 370-71 (1824);
53. EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co. (Aramco), 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991).
54. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 164 (2004).
55. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 115 (1987).
56. See Crosby v. United States, 506 U.S. 255, 261-62 (1993).
57. See, e.g., United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 82, 88-90 (2d Cir. 2003)
58. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 & n.6 (1981).
59. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 317 n.23 (1981)
60. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States 401 (1987).
61. EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co. (Aramco), 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991).
62. See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1895).
63. See Symeon C. Symeonides, Choice of Law in Cross-Border Torts: Why Plaintiffs Win and Should, 61 Hastings L.J. 337, 346 (2009).
64. See Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Customary International Law as Federal Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position, 110 Harv. L. Rev. 815, 870 (1997);
65. Harold Hongju Koh, Commentary, Is International Law Really State Law?, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 1824, 1825 (1998); (Pubitemid 128429214) (Pubitemid 128429214)
66. Gerald L. Neuman, Sense and Nonsense About Customary International Law: A Response to Professors Bradley and Goldsmith, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 371, 371-72 (1997).
67. see Anthony J. Bellia Jr. & Bradford R. Clark, The Federal Common Law of Nations, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 3 (2009)
68. 376 U.S. 398 (1964).
69. Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2878 (2010).
70. 260 U.S. 94, 95-100 (1922).
71. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993).
72. To be sure, the Court explicitly and carefully cabined its holding, observing that "[t]here are few if any issues in international law today on which opinion seems to be so divided as the limitations on a state's power to expropriate the property of aliens," 376 U.S. 398, 428 (1964),
73. see also Anthony D'Amato, The Concept of Human Rights in International Law, 82 Colum. L. Rev. 1110, 1127-47 (1982),
74. Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2878 (2010).
75. Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2883-86.
76. See Restatement of Conflict of Laws 377, 378, 384 (1934);
77. see also Ala. Great S. R.R. Co. v. Carroll, 11 So. 803, 803-07 (Ala. 1893).
78. Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2881.
79. Austen Parrish, Evading Legislative Jurisdiction, 86 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 1 (forthcoming 2011).
80. See, e.g., United States v. Lei Shi, 525 F.3d 709, 724 (9th Cir. 2008);
81. Goldberg v. UBS AG, 690 F. Supp. 2d 92, 105 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
82. See Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 113 n.* (1987). Lower courts have applied the Fifth Amendment in this way.
83. See, e.g., United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, 274 F.3d 610, 618 (1st Cir. 2001) ("[U]nder the Fifth Amendment, a plaintiff need only show that the defendant has adequate contacts with the United States as a whole, rather than with a particular state.").
84. See, e.g., United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 189, 220-21 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (suggesting in dicta that Congress may have power to enact "foreign affairs legislation" over conduct abroad).
85. 18 U.S.C. 2423 (2006).
86. see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 813-14 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting on the statutory issue).
87. See, e.g., Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 405 F.2d 200, 206, 208-09 (2d Cir. 1968), modified on other grounds en banc,
88. 405 F.2d 215 (2d Cir. 1968).
89. 18 U.S.C. 659 (2006).
90. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 798-99 (1993)
91. see also F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 167 (2004) (describing the Court's holding in Hartford Fire).
92. See The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900);
93. The Antelope, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 66, 120-22 (1825).
94. See Beth Stephens, Federalism and Foreign Affairs: Congress's Power to "Define and Punish ⋯ Offenses Against the Law of Nations," 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 447, 449 (2000).
95. Charles D. Siegal, Deference and Its Dangers: Congress' Power to "Define ⋯ Offenses Against the Law of Nations," 21 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 865, 879 (1988).
96. United States v. Furlong, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 184, 198 (1820).
97. 120 U.S. 479, 487 (1887).
98. see also Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 432 (1920).
99. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 421 (1819).
100. United States v. Lue, 134 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 1998);
101. see also United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783, 800 (11th Cir. 2010).
102. Belfast, 611 F.3d at 806 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Lue, 134 F.3d at 84).
103. Lue, 134 F.3d at 84.
104. see Anthony A. D'Amato, The Concept of Custom in International Law 97-98 (1971).
105. Cf. Stewart Jay, The Status of the Law of Nations in Early American Law, 42 Vand. L. Rev. 819, 846 (1989)
106. Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy (The Charming Betsy), 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804);
107. see also Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, 509 U.S. 155, 178 n.35 (1993).
108. EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co. (Aramco), 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991);
109. see also Ingrid Brunk Wuerth, Authorizations for the Use of Force, International Law, and the Charming Betsy Canon, 46 B.C. L. Rev. 293, 333 n.181 (2005).
110. see also, e.g., United States v. Bond, 581 F.3d 128, 138 (3d Cir. 2009) (observing that implementing legislation "closely adheres to the language of the ⋯ Convention").
111. Apart from United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153 (1820),
112. and United States v. Arjona, 120 U.S. 479 (1887), I found only three modern cases squarely addressing the issue.
113. See United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783, 805 (11th Cir. 2010);
114. United States v. Ferreira, 275 F.3d 1020, 1027-28 (11th Cir. 2001);
115. United States v. Lue, 134 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 1998).
116. See, e.g., Bond, 581 F.3d at 135 & n.4.
117. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 818 (1985);
118. If the laws of both states relevant to the set of facts are the same, or would produce the same decision in the lawsuit, there is no real conflict between them." (quoting Robert A. Leflar, American Conflicts Law 93, at 188 (3d ed. 1977))).
119. See Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia 33-35 (1974).
120. 28 U.S.C. 1350 (2006).
121. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 713 (2004).
122. See Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2878 (2010) ("When a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none.").
123. Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, 131 S. Ct. 122 (2010) (No. 09-1418).
124. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 140-41 (2d Cir. 2010)
125. See Michael D. Ramsey, International Law Limits on Investor Liability in Human Rights Litigation, 50 Harv. Int'l L.J. 271, 319 (2009).
126. But see William S. Dodge, Alien Tort Litigation and the Prescriptive Jurisdiction Fallacy, 51 Harv. Int'l L.J. Online 35, 37 (2010).
127. 327 F.3d 56, 98-108 (2d Cir. 2003).
128. 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136-37 (1812).
129. 95 U.S. 714, 722-23 (1877).
130. 213 U.S. 347, 356 (1909).
131. Larry Kramer, Vestiges of Beale: Extraterritorial Application of American Law, 1991 Sup. Ct. Rev. 179, 186.
132. The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136-37 (1812).
133. Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy (The Charming Betsy), 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804).
134. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) at 136.
135. Am. Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356 (1909).
136. 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 610 (1818).
137. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) at 631.
138. see also G. Edward White, The Marshall Court and International Law: The Piracy Cases, 83 Am. J. Int'l L. 727, 731 (1989).
139. See Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) at 630.
140. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) at 631.
141. Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U.S. 572, 574 (1880)
142. St. Clair v. United States, 154 U.S. 134, 152 (1894);
143. United States v. Smiley, 27 F. Cas. 1132, 1134 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1864) (No. 16,317).
144. 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 144 (1820).
145. J. Q. Adams, diary entry for May 11, 1819, in 4 The Memoirs of John Quincy Adams 363 (C. Adams ed., 1874-77).
146. Alfred P. Rubin, The Law of Piracy 158 (2d ed. 1998)
147. Klintock, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) at 151-52.
148. 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 184, 198-99 (1820).
149. United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 610, 627 (1818).
150. Bullard v. Bell, 4 F. Cas. 624, 632 (C.C.D.N.H. 1817) (No. 2,121);
151. The Ann, 1 F. Cas. 926, 927 (C.C.D. Mass. 1812) (No. 397);
152. 1 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 472 (Max Farrand ed., 1911);
153. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 714-16, 719-24, 737 (2004).
154. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries *72.
155. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) at 626.
156. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 722 (internal citation omitted).
157. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) at 626.
158. See United States v. Furlong, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 184, 196-98 (1820).
159. 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153 (1820).
160. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) at 161.
161. See Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) at 161-62.
162. United States v. Furlong, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 184, 197 (1820).
163. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) at 162.
164. United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 610, 626-27 (1818).
165. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) at 627.
166. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) at 626.
167. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) at 627.
168. Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 124, at 164 (George Grafton Wilson ed., Oxford Univ. Press 1936) (1866).
169. Wheaton's treatise was later relied upon by the Supreme Court in the famous international law decision, The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 691 (1900).
170. United States v. Robins, 27 F. Cas. 825, 862 (D.S.C. 1799) (No. 16,175).
171. United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153, 161-62 (1820).
172. United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 610, 632 (1818).
173. United States v. Furlong, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 184, 197 (1820);
174. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) at 161-62.
175. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) at 161-62;
176. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) at 160.
177. United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 100 n.33 (2d Cir. 2003)
178. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) at 161, 163 n.8.
179. See In re S. African Apartheid Litig., 617 F. Supp. 2d 228, 255-76 (S.D.N.Y. 2009);
180. see also Chimène I. Keitner, Conceptualizing Complicity in Alien Tort Cases, 60 Hastings L.J. 61, 61-65 (2008);
181. Michael D. Ramsey, International Law Limits on Investor Liability in Human Rights Litigation, 50 Harv. Int'l L.J. 271, 272-75 (2009).
182. See, e.g., Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 140 (2d Cir. 2010)
183. Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233, 256 (2d Cir. 2003);
184. Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257, 273 (E.D.N.Y. 2007);
185. see also Anthony J. Colangelo, The Legal Limits of Universal Jurisdiction, 47 Va. J. Int'l L. 149, 169-70 (2006).
186. North Sea Continental Shelf (F.R.G. v. Den. & Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3, 41 (Feb. 20)
187. see also Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of The United States 102(3) (1987)
188. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea art. 101, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397
189. United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153, 159 (1820).
190. 18 U.S.C. 1651 (2006).
191. It merely held that the conduct at issue in that case, robbery on the high seas, was piracy. 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) at 161-62.
192. See, e.g., Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 749 (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring in part)
193. See Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233, 249 (2d Cir. 2003)
194. see also International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights arts. 6-27, Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171;
195. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide art. 2, Dec. 9, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 277.
196. See Flores, 414 F.3d at 249.
197. Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States 402(1)(c) (1987).
198. 28 U.S.C. 1350 (2006).
199. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza, 553 U.S. 1028 (2008) (No. 07-919)
200. (citing EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991)));
201. see also John B. Bellinger III, Enforcing Human Rights in U.S. Courts and Abroad: The Alien Tort Statute and Other Approaches, 42 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 1, 6-7 (2009).
202. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners at 12, Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza, 553 U.S. 1028 (2008) (No. 07-919).
203. 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010).
204. SEC v. Berger, 322 F.3d 187, 192-93 (2d Cir. 2003).
205. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States 402(1)(c) (1987).
206. Berger, 322 F.3d at 192-93.
207. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States 402(1)(a) (1987).
208. Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2869, 2875-76.
209. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 929P(c)(1), 124 Stat. 1376, 1864 (2010).
210. Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2883.
211. 28 U.S.C. 1350 (2006).
212. 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) (2006).
213. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 715-18 (2004).
214. Breach of Neutrality, 1 Op. Att'y Gen. 57, 58 (1795).
215. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 142 n.44 (2d Cir. 2010)
216. Breach of Neutrality, 1 Op. Att'y Gen. at 58).
217. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 715-20.
218. See Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869, 2890 (2010) (Stevens, J., concurring)
219. 630 F.2d 876, 887 (2d Cir. 1980).
220. See Harold G. Maier, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction at a Crossroads: An Intersection Between Public and Private International Law, 76 Am. J. Int'l L. 280, 281 (1982).
221. See Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Challoner, 423 U.S. 3, 3-5 (1975)
222. cited in Sosa, 542 U.S. at 706. The same should be true of international law under the ATS.
223. See Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 31-33 (5th ed. 1998).
224. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 164 (2004),
225. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 727-28.
226. For an insightful analysis of the possibilities here, see Ingrid Wuerth, The Alien Tort Statute and Federal Common Law: A New Approach, 85 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1931, 1935-38 (2010).
227. See, e.g., Khulumani v. Barclay Nat'l Bank, 504 F.3d 254, 284-91 (2d Cir. 2007) (Hall, J., concurring);
228. Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 932, 964-78 (9th Cir. 2002) (Reinhardt, J., concurring).
229. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 140-41 (2d Cir. 2010).
230. See Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244, 258-59 (2d Cir. 2009)
231. See Kiobel, 621 F.3d at 151-53 (Leval, J., concurring in the judgment).
232. see Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 115 (1987), and forum non conveniens,
233. see Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 & n.6 (1981).
234. 542 U.S. 692, 719 (2004).
235. 28 U.S.C. 1350 (2006) (emphasis added).
236. In re S. African Apartheid Litig., 617 F. Supp. 2d 228, 241-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
237. Khulumani v. Barclay Nat'l Bank, 504 F.3d 254, 260 (2d Cir. 2007).
238. S. African Apartheid Litig., 617 F. Supp. 2d at 246-47.
239. S. African Apartheid Litig., 617 F. Supp. 2d at 247.
240. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2010).
241. See Steven R. Swanson, Terrorism, Piracy, and the Alien Tort Statute, 40 Rutgers L.J. 159, 161 (2008).
242. See United States v. Klintock, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 144 (1820);
243. United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153 (1820);
244. United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 610 (1818).
245. 621 F.3d 111, 149 (2d Cir. 2010).
246. 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003).
247. Sept. 23, 1971, 24 U.S.T. 565, 974 U.N.T.S. 177 [hereinafter Montreal Convention].
248. Yousef, 327 F.3d at 89-90.
249. United States v. Yousef, 927 F. Supp. 673, 681-82 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
250. Yousef, 327 F.3d at 97, 103.
251. Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257, 280 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).
252. Yousef, 327 F.3d at 99-103.
253. See 18 U.S.C. 32(b)(3) (2006);
254. See 18 U.S.C. 32(b)(4)
255. See Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Dep't of State, Treaties in Force 324-25 (Jan. 1, 2010), available at http://www.state.gov/ documents/ organization/143863.pdf [hereinafter Treaties in Force].
256. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 138 (2d Cir. 2010).
257. See United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153, 160-61, 163 n.8 (1820);
258. cf. United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 100-03 (2d Cir. 2003)
259. Yousef, 327 F.3d at 108-09 & n.43.
260. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties arts. 34, 35, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331;
261. see also Yousef, 327 F.3d at 96
262. 28 U.S.C. 1350 (2006).
263. See Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257, 269 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)
264. 28 U.S.C. 1350.
265. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft arts. 1, 4(2), 7, Dec. 16, 1970, 22 U.S.T. 1641, 860 U.N.T.S. 105 [hereinafter Seizure of Aircraft Convention].
266. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings arts. 1, 2, 6(4), Dec. 15, 1997, 116 Stat. 721, 2149 U.N.T.S. 256 [hereinafter Bombing Convention].
267. International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages arts. 1, 5(2), 8(1), Dec. 17, 1979, T.I.A.S. 11081, 1316 U.N.T.S. 205 [hereinafter Hostage Convention].
268. Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257, at *261 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).
269. See Almog, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 280 (describing ATS defendant's reliance on Yousef for this argument).
270. 542 U.S. 692, 725 (2004).
271. United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153, 161-62 (1820).
272. See Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257, 269-70 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).
273. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 148-49 (2d Cir. 2010).
274. 471 F. Supp. 2d. at 260-63.
275. 18 U.S.C. 2331, 2333-38 (2006);
276. Almog, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 260.
277. Almog, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 260.
278. Almog, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 273;
279. Almog, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 264-65.
280. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide art. 2, Dec. 9, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 277;
281. see also Almog, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 276
282. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court art. 7, July 17, 1998, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90;
283. see also Almog, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 275-76.
284. Almog, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 280
285. Almog, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 273.
286. 18 U.S.C. 2332f, 2339C (2006).
287. See United Nations Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General: Status as at 31 December 2005, Vol. 2, 165, 166, 169 (2006) (Declarations of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria).
288. Almog, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 279, 289 n.42;
289. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 138-39 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting North Sea Continental Shelf (F.R.G. v. Den & Neth.),
290. 1969 I.C.J. 3, 42 (Feb. 20)).
291. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 818 (1985)
292. (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 312-13 (1981)).
293. See, e.g., United States v. Clark, 435 F.3d 1100, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2006);
294. United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2003);
295. United States v. Perez-Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 402-03 (3d Cir. 2002);
296. United States v. Suerte, 291 F.3d 366, 369-77 (5th Cir. 2002);
297. United States v. Cardales, 168 F.3d 548, 552-53 (1st Cir. 1999).
298. United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245, 248-49 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal citation omitted);
299. see also Yousef, 327 F.3d at 111
300. (quoting Davis, 905 F.2d at 248-49).
301. Goldberg v. UBS AG, 690 F. Supp. 2d 92, 105-06 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
302. Yousef, 327 F.3d at 79.
303. 660 F. Supp. 2d 410, 414, 434 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).
304. Goldberg v. UBS AG, 690 F. Supp. 2d 92, 107 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
305. see Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 317-18 (1981)
306. Goldberg, 690 F. Supp. 2d at 109-10.
307. Hague, 449 U.S. at 313.
308. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 822 (1985).
309. Hague, 449 U.S. at 327 (Stevens, J., concurring);
310. see also Shutts, 472 U.S. at 822
311. See Hague, 449 U.S. at 312-13.
312. See Shutts, 472 U.S. at 822.
313. see Anthony J. Colangelo, Universal Jurisdiction as an International "False Conflict" of Laws, 30 Mich. J. Int'l L. 881, 882-85 (2009);
314. cf. Shutts, 472 U.S. at 816
315. Hague, 449 U.. at 321 n.4 (Stevens, J., concurring)
316. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 95-96 (1980).
317. Hague, 449 U.S. at 318 n.24.
318. See, e.g., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 165 (2004)
319. See In re S. African Apartheid Litig., 617 F. Supp. 2d 228, 275 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (applying U.S. agency principles to Daimler).
320. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 318 n.24 (1981).
321. see also Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 822 (1985)