Universal tort jurisdiction over gross human rights violations

Netherlands Yearbook of International Law

Volumn 38, Issue , 2007, Pages 3-60

  Ryngaert, Cedric ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924746163     PISSN: 01676768     EISSN: 15740951     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0167676807000037     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. J. Terry, ‘Taking Filàrtiga on the Road: Why Courts Outside the United States Should Accept Jurisdiction Over Actions Involving Torture Committed Abroad’, in C. Scott, ed., Torture as Tort (Oxford, Hart 2001) p. 109.
2. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310, 315 (1945).
3. B. Stephens, ‘Translating Filàrtiga: A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations’, 27 Yale JIL (2002) p. 17
4. J.E. Alvarez, ‘Rush to Closure: Lessons of the Tadć judgment’, 96 Michigan LR (1998) at pp. 2101-2102 (footnotes omitted).
5. D.F. Donovan and A.E. Roberts, ‘The Emerging Recognition of Universal Civil Jurisdiction’, 100 AJIL (2006) at p. 144.
6. B. Van Schaack, ‘Justice Without Borders: Universal Civil Jurisdiction’, 99 ASIL Proc. (2005) at p. 121.
7. H.M. Osofsky, ‘Domesticating International Criminal Law: Bringing Human Rights Violators to Justice’, 107 Yale LJ (1997) at p. 214.
8. C.A. Bradley, ‘Universal Jurisdiction and US Law’, University of Chicago Legal Forum (2001) at p. 346
9. T. Meron, The Humanization of International Law (Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff 2006).
10. P.-Y. Hsu, ‘Should Congress Repeal the Alien Tort Claims Act?’, 28 S. Illinois Univ. LJ (2004) at p. 594
11. L. McGregor, ‘The Need to Resolve the Paradoxes of the Civil Dimension of Universal Jurisdiction’ ASIL Proc. (2005), at p. 126.
12. L. Abend and G. Pingree, ‘Spanish Court Looks at Tibetan Genocide Claims’, Christian Science Monitor, March 2, 2006.
13. J. Wouters and C. Ryngaert, ‘De toepassing van de Wet van 5 augustus 2003 betreffende einstige schendingen van het internationaal humanitair recht’, Nullum Crimen. Tijdschrift voor Straf- en Strafprocesrecht, dossier, April 2007, at pp. 3-4.
14. G. Conso, ‘The Basic Reasons for US Hostility to the ICC in Light of the Negotiating History of the Rome Statute’, 3 JICJ (2005) at p. 316
15. J.R. Bolton, ‘The Risks and Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from America’s Perspective’, 64 Law and Contemporary Problems (2001) at p. 173
16. G.P. Fletcher, ‘Against Universal Jurisdiction’, 1 JICJ (2003) p. 580.
17. D. Orentlicher, ‘The Future of Universal Jurisdiction in the New Architecture of Transnational Justice’, in S. Macedo, ed., Universal Jurisdiction (Philadelphia PA, University of Pennsylvania Press 2004) at p. 214, n. 2.
18. J.F. Murphy, ‘Civil Liability for the Commission of International Crimes as an Alternative to Criminal Prosecution’, 12 Harvard HRJ (1999) at p. 31
19. S.R. Ratner and J.S. Abrams, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law: Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1997) at p. 211
20. P. Akhavan, ‘Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities?’, 95 AJIL (2001) at p. 7.
21. United States v. Kordel, 397 US 1 (1969)
22. V.A. Pappalardo, ‘Isolationism or Deference? The Alien Tort Claims Act and the Separation of Powers’, 10 Michigan JIL (1989) at p. 907.
23. N. Roht-Arriaza, The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human Rights (Pennsylvania PA, University of Pennsylvania Press 2005).
24. A. Zimmermann, ‘Violations of Fundamental Norms of International Law and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters’, in C. Tomuschat and J.-M. Thouvenin, eds., The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order. Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes (Leiden, Nijhoff 2006) p. 351.
25. ICJ, Arrest Warrant (DRC v. Belgium), ICJ Rep. (2002) p. 76
26. ICJ, Arrest Warrant (DRC v. Belgium), ICJ Rep. (2002) at p. 75
27. F.A. Mann, ‘The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law’, 111 RCADI (1964-I) at p. 35)
28. R. Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1994) p. 77
29. A.V. Lowe, ‘Blocking Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: the British Protection of Trading Interests Act, 1980’, 75 AJIL (1981) at p. 263).
30. P.J. Kuyper, ‘The European Community and the US Pipeline Embargo: Comments on Comments’, 27 GYIL (1984) at p. 93.
31. Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran, (2002) 124 ILR 428, para. 67
32. A. Byrnes, ‘Civil Remedies for Torture Committed Abroad: An Obligation under the Convention against Torture?’, in Scott, Torture as Tort (Oxford, Hart 2001) n. 1, at pp. 537 et seq., 549
33. K. Parlett, ‘Universal Civil Jurisdiction for Torture’, EHRLR (2007) p. 399.
34. G. Fitzmaurice, ‘The General Principles of International Law’, 92 RCADI (1957-II) p. 218.
35. M. Akehurst, ‘Jurisdiction in International Law’, 46 BYIL (1972-73) p. 172.
36. H.L. Buxbaum, ‘The Private Attorney General in a Global Age: Public Interests in Private Antitrust Litigation’, 26 Yale JIL (2001) pp. 220 and 223-224.
37. E. Kontorovich, ‘Implementing Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain: What Piracy Reveals About the Limits of the Alien Tort Statute’, 80 Notre Dame LR (2004) p. 160.
38. R. Dworkin, Law ‘s Empire (Cambridge, Harvard University Press 1986) p. 255
39. D.F. Donovan, ‘Universal Civil Jurisdiction – the Next Frontier; Introductory Remarks’, ASIL Proc. (2005) p. 117
40. Jones v. Saudi Arabia, [2004] EWCA Civ 1394, § 79.
41. B. Stephens, ‘Upsetting Checks and Balances: The Bush Administration’s Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation’, 17 Harvard HRJ (2004), at p. 182 (2004).
42. International Court of Justice, Arrest Warrant (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium, 2002), joint separate opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal, § 45, available at .
43. R.H. Bork, ‘Judicial Imperialism’, Wall Street Journal, 12 July 2004, at A16
44. J. Wouters, L. De Smet and C. Ryngaert, ‘Tort Claims against Multinational Companies for Foreign Human Rights Violations Committed Abroad: Lessons from the Alien Tort Claims Act’, in P.J. Slot and M. Bulterman, eds., Globalisation and Jurisdiction (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 2004) pp. 183-200.
45. B. Stephens, ‘Expanding Remedies for Human Rights Abuses: Civil Litigation in Domestic Courts’, 40 German YIL (1997) pp. 133-134.
46. R.R. Dubinsky, ‘Human Rights Law Meets Private Law Harmonization: The Coming Conflict’, 30 Yale JIL (2005) at pp. 264-265.
47. G.C. Hufbauer and N.K. Mitrokostas, Awakening Monster: the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 (Washington DC, Institute for International Economics 2003) viii + 86 pp.
48. K.L. Boyd, ‘Universal Jurisdiction and Structural Reasonableness’, 40 Texas ILJ (2004) p. 5, n. 26 (2004).
49. M.P. Gibney, ‘On the Need for an International Civil Court’, 26-Fall Fletcher F. World Aff. (2002) at pp. 53-54.
50. L. Dhooge, ‘The Alien Tort Claims Act and the Modern Transnational Enterprise: Deconstructing the Mythology of Judicial Activism’, 35 Georgetown JIL (2004) at p. 68.
51. M.T. Kamminga, ‘Universal Civil Jurisdiction: Is It Legal? Is It Desirable?’, ASIL Proc. (2005) at p. 125.
52. A.-M. Slaughter and D.L. Bosco, ‘Alternative Justice: Facilitated by Little-Known 18th-Century Law’, May 2001, available at
53. K.L. Boyd, ‘The Inconvenience of Victims: Abolishing porum non Conveniens in US Human Rights Litigation’, 39 Virginia JIL (1998) at p. 83.
54. B. Pearce, ‘The Comity Doctrine as a Barrier to Judicial Jurisdiction: A U.S.- E.U. Comparison’, 30 Stanford JIL (1994) at p. 525.
55. F.A. Mann, ‘The Doctrine of Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years’, 186 RCADI (1984-III), at p. 87
56. M. Rosen, ‘The Alien Tort Claims Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: A Policy Solution’, 6 Cardozo JI & Comp. L (1998) at p. 512.
57. C. Kessedjian, ‘Les actions civiles pour violation des droits de l’homme – Aspects du droit international privé’, November 2003, offprint, at 12
58. C. Kessedjian, ‘Les actions civiles pour violation des droits de l’homme, aspects de droit international privé’, in Travaux du comité français de droit international privé, années 2002-2003, 2003-2004 (2005) at pp. 151 et seq.
59. C. Ryngaert, comment to Cass. 29 June 2005, (2004) Tijdschrift voor Vreemdelingenrecht 229
60. C. Ryngaert, ‘Beginselenstrijd over de overgangsregeling van de Genocidewet: het legaliteitsbeginsel versus het non-discriminatiebeginsel. Kritische aanmerkingen bij Cass., 28 maart 2007, Total, 17 Rechtskundig Weekblad (2008) pp. 795-798
61. N. Benaïssa, ‘La loi de compétence universelle. Commentaire des arrêts rendus les 23 mars et 13 avril 2005 par la Cour d’Arbitrage’, 124 Journal des Tribunaux (2005) p. 389
62. W. Verrijdt, ‘Universele jurisdictie na de Genocidewet. Invloed van de recente uitspraken van het Arbitragehof en het Hof van Cassatie’, Chroniques de Droit Public Publiekrechtelijke Kronieken (2006) p. 88
63. S. Dewulf, comment to Constitutional Court judgment nr. 104/2006, Nullum Crimen (2006) p. 387.
64. Doe v. Unocal Corp., 963 F. Supp. 880 (C.D. Cal 1997)
65. C. Scott, ‘Translating Torture into Transnational Tort: Conceptual Divides in the Debate on Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Harms’, in Scott, Torture as Tort (Oxford, Hart 2001) n. 1, at p. 57.
66. US Supreme Court, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 23 January 2004, at p. 6, available at (emphasis added).
67. L. Reydams, ‘Universal Jurisdiction in Context’, ASIL Proc. (2005) at p. 118.
68. C. Ryngaert, ‘The European Commission’s Amicus Curiae Brief in the Alvarez-Machain Case’, 6 International Law Forum (2004) pp. 55-60.