Justice across borders: The struggle for human rights in U.S. courts

Justice Across Borders: The Struggle for Human Rights in U.S. Courts

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 1-303

  Davis, Jeffrey ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925081822     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511809521     Document Type: Book

References (293)

1. Joshua E. S. Phillips, “The Case against the Generals,” Washington Post, August 17, 2003, W06.
2. Juan Romagoza Arce, Transcript of Trial Testimony, 138, lns 6–8, Romagoza v. Garcia, 434 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2006).
3. Joshua E. S. Phillips, “The Case against the Generals,” W06.
4. Juan Romagoza Arce, “Reflections on the Verdict,” http://www.cja.org/forSurvivors/reflect.doc (Accessed September 12, 2007).
5. Joshua Ratner, “Back to the Future: Why a Return to the Approach of the Filártiga Court is Essential to Preserve the Integrity of the Alien Tort Claims Act,” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 35, Winter (2000): 83–131.
6. Sweat v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950).
7. Bolling v. Sharp, 247 U.S. 497 (1954).
8. NY Times v. NY Commission on Human Rights, 41 N.Y. 2d. 345 (1977).
9. Roshan v. Smith, 615 F.Supp. 901 (DDC 1995).
10. U.S. v. Merkt, 794 F.2d. 950 (5th Cir. 1986).
11. Filártiga v. Peñ a-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2nd Cir. 1980).
12. Jeffrey Davis, “Human Rights: Overview,” in Encyclopedia of the Modern World, ed. Peter N. Stearns (London: Oxford University Press, 2008).
13. Louis Henkin, The Age of Rights (New York: Columbia University Press), 3.
14. Louis Henkin, The Rights of Man Today (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 11.
15. Thomas Paine, Collected Writings, (New York: Library of America), 465.
16. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), Chapter 2, Section 4.
17. Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing), Book 1, Section 8.
18. Joshua Ratner, “Back to the Future,” 89.
19. Steven R. Ratner and Jason S. Abrams, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law – Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy(New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 4.
20. Jean Bodin, Les six livres de la republique(Paris: Fayard, 1986), 179–228.
21. Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, War Crimes and Realpolitik: International Justice from World War I to the 21st Century (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004), 15–20, 37.
22. Paul G. Lauren, “From Impunity to Accountability: Forces of Transformation and the Changing International Human Rights Context,” in From Sovereign Impunity to International Accountability: The Search for Justice in a World of States, ed. Rmesh Thakur and Peter Malcontent (New York: United Nations University Press, 2004), 15–20.The Treaty of Westphalia, October 24 and May 15, 1648, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/westphal.htm (Accessed September 12, 2007).
23. Samantha Powers, A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide(New York: Harper Perennial, 2003).
24. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm (Accessed September 12, 2007).
25. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm (Accessed September 12, 2007).
26. Martha Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness(Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), 25.
27. James Declaration, London, 1942, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imtjames.htm (Accessed September 14, 2007).
28. Moscow Declaration, 1943, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/moscow.htm (Accessed September 14, 2007).
29. Michael D. Biddis, “From the Nuremberg Charter to the Rome Statute: A Historical Analysis of the Limits of International Criminal Accountability,” in From Sovereign Impunity to International Accountability: The Search for Justice in a World of States, ed. Rmesh Thakur and Peter Malcontent (New York: United Nations University Press, 2004), 43.
30. Joseph Brunner, “American Involvement in the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial Process,” Michigan Journal of History, Winter (2002), 1.
31. John Crossland, “Churchill: Execute Hitler without Trial,” The Sunday Times, January 1, 2006.
32. Michael Biddiss, “From the Nuremberg Charter to the Rome Statute: A Historical Analysis of the Limits of International Criminal Accountability,” in From Sovereign Impunity to International Accountability: The Search for Justice in a World of States, ed. Ramesh Thakur and Peter Malcontent (New York: United Nations University Press, 2004), 44.
33. Michael Biddiss, “From the Nuremberg Charter to the Rome Statute,” 44.
34. Military Tribunal, Nuremberg Trial Proceedings 3, December 4, 1945.
35. Michael J. Dodson and Donald W. Jackson, “Judicial Independence in Central America,” in Judicial Independence in the Age of Democracy, ed. Peter H. Russell and David M. O’Brien, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2001), 251–255.
36. Rachel Seider, Central America: Fragile Transition(New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 1996).
37. Neil J. Kritz, “The Rule of Law in the Post-Conflict Phase: Building a Stable Peace,” in Managing Global Chaos, ed. Chester Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela Aall (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace, 1997), 587–597.
38. Laurel E. Fletcher and Harvey M. Weinstein, “Violence and Social Repair: Rethinking the Contribution of Justice to Reconciliation,” Human Rights Quarterly 24, no. 3 (2002): 573–639, 590.
39. Martha Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness(Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), 5.
40. amie Mayerfeld, “Who Shall Be Judge?: The United States, the International Criminal Court, and the Global Enforcement of Human Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly 25 (2002): 93–129, 100.
41. Julie Mertus, “Only a War Crimes Tribunal: Triumph of the International Community, Pain of the Survivors,” in War Crimes: The Legacy of Nuremberg, ed. Belinda Cooper (New York: TV Books, 1999).
42. Jennifer Widner, “Courts and Democracy in Post-Conflict Transitions: A Social Scientist’s Perspective on the Africa Case,” American Journal of International Law95, no. 1 (1998): 64–75.
43. Naomi Roht-Arriaza, “Punishment, Redress, and Pardon: Theoretical and Psychological Approaches,” in Impunity and Human Rights: International Law Practice, ed. Naomi Roht-Arriaza (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 13–23.
44. Jaime Malamud-Goti, “Transitional Governments in the Breach: Why Punish State Criminals?” Human Rights Quarterly12, no. 1 (1990): 11–13.
45. Ruti Teitel, “Transitional Jurisprudence: The Role of Law in Political Transformation,” Yale Law Journal106, no. 2009 (1997): 2047–2048.
46. Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness, 26.
47. Michael Byers, “The Law and Politics of the Pinochet Case,” Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 10 (2000): 415–441.
48. Richard Alan White, Breaking Silence: The Case That Changed the Face of Human Rights (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2004).
49. Fred Bruning and Victor Ramos, “No Surrender: Justice for Joelito,” Newsday, March 30, 2004, 2.
50. Dolly Filártiga, “American Courts, Global Justice,” New York Times, March 30, 2004.
51. Dolly Filartiga, Statement in Support of the ATS, March 29, 2004, http://www.nosafehaven.org/state_filarta.html (Accessed July 15, 2006).
52. Tel Oren v. Libya, 726 F.2d. 774, 775 (1984).
53. Alvarez-Machain v. U.S., 331 F.3d 604 (9th Cir. 2003).
54. Oral Argument Transcript, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 24–25, lns 23–24, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/03–339.pdf (Accessed September 17, 2007).
55. “Lohengrin,” in The New Arthurian Encyclopedia, ed. Norris J. Lacy (New York: Garland, 1991).
56. Anne-Marie Burley, “The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789: A Badge of Honor,” in The Alien Tort Claims Act: An Analytical Anthology, ed. Ralph G. Steinhardt and Anthony D’Amato (Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1999), 264 note 38.
57. Jennifer K. Elsea, “The Alien Tort Statute: Legislative History and Executive Branch Views,” Congressional Research Service CRS-9 (October 2, 2003).
58. Curtis A. Bradley, “The Alien Tort Statute and Article III,” Virginia Journal of International Law 42 (Winter, 2002): 587, 591.
59. Dickenson, “The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States,” 101 U.Pa.L.Rev. 26, 27 (1952).
60. Howard Tolley, “Interest Group Litigation to Enforce Human Rights,” Political Science Quarterly 105, no. 4 (1990–91): 617–638.
61. Jeff Yates and Andrew Whitford, “Presidential Power and the United States Supreme Court,” Political Research Quarterly 51, no. 2 (1998): 539–550.
62. Judge Kaufman, “we note that the foreign relations implications of this and other issues the district court will be required to adjudicate on remand underscores the wisdom of the First Congress in vesting jurisdiction over such claims in the federal district courts through the Alien Tort Statute.”
63. U.S. Senate, The Torture Victim Protection Act, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., 1991, S. Rep., 249, 4.
64. M. Cherif Bassiouni, “The History of Universal Jurisdiction,” in Universal Jurisdiction, ed. Stephen Macedo (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 40.
65. M. N. Shaw, International Law, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Grotius, 1991), 393.
66. Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts, eds., Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th ed., vol. 1 (London: Longmans, 1992), 456–479.
67. Steven R. Ratner and Jason S. Abrams, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law – Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy (New York: Oxford, 2001), 161.
68. Ratner and Abrams, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities, 161.
69. Alexander E. Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46, no. 2 (Spring 1992): 412.
70. Jeffrey T. Gayton, “From Here to Extraterritoriality: American Sovereignty Within and Beyond Borders” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin– Madison, 2003).
71. Lord Mansfield in Mostyn v. Fabrigas, 1 Cowp. 161 (1774).
72. Christopher C. Joyner, “Arresting Impunity: The Case for Universal Jurisdiction in Bringing War Criminals to Accountability,” Law and Contemporary Problems 59, no. 153 (1997): 165–170.
73. Tolley, “Interest Group Litigation to Enforce Human Rights,” 618–619.
74. Ronen Shamir, “Between Self-Regulation and the Alien Tort Claims Act: On the Contested Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility,” Law and Society Review 38, no. 4 (2004): 635–664.
75. Louis Henkin, “International Law: Politics, Values, and Functions,” in International Human Rights in Context 2nd ed., ed. Henry J. Steiner and Philip Alston (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
76. Joshua Ratner, “Back to the Future: Why a Return to the Approach of the Filártiga Court is Essential to Preserve the Integrity of the Alien Tort Claims Act,” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 35 (Winter, 2002): 83–131.
77. Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992).
78. Nelson v. Saudi Arabia, 507 U.S. 349 (1993).
79. Al-Adsani v. Kuwait, 107 I.L.R. 536 (1996).
80. Michael Byers, “The Law and Politics of the Pinochet Case,” Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 10 (2000): 415–441, 418.
81. The South African Apartheid Litigation, 346 F.Supp.2d 538 (SDNY 2004).
82. Jeffrey Davis, “Justice without Borders: International Law in U.S. Courts,” Law and Policy 28, no. 1 (2006): 60–82.
83. Father Jon Cortina, Transcript of Testimony at 390, Doe v. Saravia, 348 F.Supp.2d 1112 (E.D.Cal. 2004).
84. El Salvador, From Madness to Hope: The 12-Year War in El Salvador: Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, Section IV, D-1 (San Salvador, 1993), http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_toc.html (Accessed August 21, 2007).
85. Donald R. Songer and Ashlyn Kuersten, “The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts,” Political Research Quarterly 48, no. 1 (1995): 31–42.
86. Donald R. Songer and Reginald S. Sheehan, “Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court,” Political Research Quarterly 46 no. 2 (1993): 339–354.
87. Susan M. Olson, “Interest-Group Litigation in Federal District Court: Beyond the Political Disadvantage Theory,” Journal of Politics 52, no. 3 (1990): 854–882.
88. Steven C. Tauber, “On Behalf of the Condemned? The Impact of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund on Capital Punishment Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” Political Research Quarterly 51, no. 1 (1998): 191–219, 192.
89. Charles R. Epp, The Rights Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).
90. Kathryn Sikkink, “Human Rights, Principled Issue Networks and Sovereignty in Latin America,” International Organization47, no. 3 (1993): 411–441.
91. Howard Tolley, “Interest Group Litigation to Enforce Human Rights,” Political Science Quarterly 105 no. 4 (1990–1991): 617–638, 618.
92. Tolley, “Interest Group Litigation,” 617.
93. Harold Hongju Koh, “The 1998 Frankel Lecture: Bringing International Human Rights Home,” Houston Law Review35 (1998): 647.
94. Koh, “The 1998 Frankel Lecture,” 647.
95. Beth Stephens, “Translating Filártiga: A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,” Yale Journal of International Law 27 (Winter, 2002): 1, 14.
96. Richard Alan White, Breaking Silence: The Case That Changed the Face of Human Rights (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2004).
97. Seymour Hersh, “Ex-GI Tells of Killing Civilians at Pinkville,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 25, 1969.
98. Center for Constitutional Rights, “Synopsis of Karadzic Litigation” http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/human_rights/rightsArticle.asp?ObjID=YVnrGyqNiU&Content=57 (Accessed August 22, 2007).
99. Anne Goldstein, “Recognizing Forced Impregnation as a War Crime under International Law,” Center for Reproductive Law and Policy(1993): 22–24.
100. Gregory A. Caldeira and John R. Wright, “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court,” American Political Science Review 82 (1988): 1109–1127.
101. Lee Epstein and Joseph Kobylka, The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992).
102. Kevin T. McGuire and Gregory A. Caldeira, “Lawyers, Organized Interests, and the Law of Obscenity: Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court,” American Political Science Review 87 (1993): 717–726.
103. Karen O’Connor, Women’s Organizations’ Use of the Court(Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1980).
104. Joseph F. Kobylka, “A Court Created Context for Group Litigation: Libertarian Groups and Obscenity,” Journal of Politics 49 (1987): 1061–1078.
105. Joseph Stewart, Jr., and James E. Sheffield, Jr., “Does Interest Group Litigation Matter? The Case of Black Political Mobilization in Mississippi,” Journal of Politics 49 (1987): 780–798.
106. Reyes v. Grijalba, CJA Case Summary, http://www.cja.org/cases/grijalba.shtml.
107. CJA, Reyes v. Grijalba, Plaintiff Profile, http://www.cja.org/forSurvivors/zenaida%20for% 20survivors.shtm (Accessed August 22, 2007).
108. Gregory A. Caldeira and John R. Wright, “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court,” American Political Science Review 82 (1988): 1109–1127.
109. Lee Epstein, Conservatives in Court(Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1985).
110. Karen O’Connor, Women’s Organizations’ Use of the Court. (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books 1980).
111. Tracy E. George and Lee Epstein, “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making,” American Political Science Review86 (1992): 323–337.
112. Lee Epstein and C. K. Rowland, “Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts,” American Political Science Review85 (1991): 205–217.
113. Susan M. Olson, “Interest-Group Litigation in Federal District Court: Beyond the Political Disadvantage Theory,” The Journal of Politics 52 no. 3 (1990, August): 854–882.
114. Thoma Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink, eds., The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (New York: Cambridge University Press 1999), 5.
115. Marc Galanter, “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” Law and Society Review9 (1974): 95–160.
116. Donald R. Songer and Reginald S. Sheehan, “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals,” American Journal of Political Science 36 (1992): 235–258.
117. Al-Harith Statement and Rasul v. Rumsfeld, 414 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2006), 28.
118. Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act(the “Westfall Act”) (28 U.S.C. §2679, 1988).
119. Turkman v. Ashcroft, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39170 (E.D.NY 2006).
120. Elmaghraby v. Ashcroft, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21434 (E.D.NY 2005).
121. In re Guantánamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D.DC 2005).
122. Khalid v. Bush, 355 F. Supp. 2d 311 (D.DC 2005).
123. Nina Bernstein, “U.S. Is Settling Detainee’s Suit in 9/11 Sweep,” New York Times, February 28, 2006.
124. Nina Bernstein, “U.S. Is Settling Detainee’s Suit in 9/11 Sweep Elmaghraby, 20.
125. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Supplemental Report on September 11 Detainees’ Allegations of Abuse at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York (December 2003), 33–35.
126. APA “The APA waives sovereign immunity because it provides for judicial review of federal administrative agency action. It provides that ‘a person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.’” El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 402 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D.D.C. 2005), quoting 5 U.S.C. §702.
127. Oral Argument, Schneider v. Kissinger, 4.
128. El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 402 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D.D.C. 2005).
129. Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 292, 101 S. Ct. 2766, 69 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1981).
130. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 302 (1918).
131. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 705 (1893).
132. Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981).
133. Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363(2000).
134. Jeff Yates and Andrew Whitford, “Presidential Power and the United States Supreme Court,” Political Research Quarterly51 no. 2 (1998): 539–550.
135. Craig R. Ducat and Robert L. Dudley, “Federal District Judges and Presidential Power during the Post-War Era,” Journal of Politics 51 (1989): 98–118.
136. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 423 (1964) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211 (1962)).
137. William S. Dodge, “After Sosa: The Future of Customary International Law in the United States” (November 11, 2006), 3, http://ssrn.com/abstract=944245 (Accessed September 1, 2007).
138. Richard White, Breaking Silence(Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2004).
139. Amerada Co v. Argentina, 830 F.2d 421 (2nd Cir. 1987).
140. Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. et al., 488 U.S. 428 (1989).
141. Statements of Interest of the United States, Heimbuch v. Ishihara; In Re WWII Era Japanese Forced Labor Litigation. 164 F.Supp.2d 1160 (N.D.Cal. 2001).
142. Michael J. Matheson, Acting Legal Adviser, U.S. State Department, Statement of Interest, National Coalition Gov’t of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 329, Exhibit A (C.D. Cal. 1999).
143. U.S. Statement of Interest, Feng Suo Zhou ex rel. Estate of Doe v. Li Peng, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14648 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17232 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
144. Beth Stephens, “Upsetting Checks and Balances: the Bush Administration’s Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation,” Harvard Human Rights Journal 17(2004):
145. Lincoln Caplan, The Tenth Justice(New York: Knopf, 1987).
146. Rebecca Salokar, The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law(Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1992).
147. Jeffrey A. Segal, “Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General During the Warren and Burger Courts,” Western Political Quarterly 41 (1988): 137–52.
148. Jeffrey A. Segal and Cheryl D. Reedy, “The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: The Role of the Solicitor General,” Western Political Quarterly41 (1988): 553–68.
149. Ungaro-Benages v. Dresdner Bank AG, 379 F.3d 1227, 1236 (11th Cir. 2004).
150. Statement of Interest of the United States, 11, The South African Apartheid Litigation, 346 F.Supp.2d 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
151. Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 244 F.Supp.2d 289 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
152. In Re Agent Orange Litigation, 373 F. Supp. 2d 7, 24 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
153. Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 381 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (C.D.CA 2005).
154. The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 3 L. Ed. 287 (1812).
155. Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 486–88, 76 L. Ed. 2d 81, 103 S. Ct. 1962 (1983).
156. Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U.S. 30, 35, 89 L. Ed. 729, 65 S. Ct. 530 (1945).
157. Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18399, 21–22 (01 Civ. 9882 (DLC)) (August 30, 2005 S.D.N.Y.).
158. Jeffrey A. Segal and Harold J. Spaeth, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
159. John M. Scheb, Terry Bowen, and Gary Anderson, “Ideology, Role Orientations, and Behavior in the State Courts of Last Resort,” American Politics Quarterly 19, no. 3 (1991):324–335.
160. Chavez v. Carranza, 413 F. Supp. 2d 891, 897 (W.D.Tenn. 2005).
161. Woody Baird (Associated Press), “Former Salvadoran official held liable for torture Jury awards $6 million to four victims,” Cable News Network, Saturday, November 19, 2005, http://www.cja.org/cases/CarranzaNews/CNN11.19.05.pdf (Accessed September 22, 2007).
162. Baird, “Former Salvadoran Official.”
163. John Spragens, “Righting History: A Local Attorney Unearths the Secrets of a Bloody Decade in El Salvador,” Nashville Scene, March 2, 2006.
164. M. Cherif Bassiouni, “The History of Universal Jurisdiction,” in Universal Jurisdiction, eds. Stephen Macedo (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 40.
165. M. N. Shaw, International Law, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Grotius, 1991), 393.
166. Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts, eds., Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th ed., vol. 1 (London: Longmans, 1992), 456–479.
167. Steven R. Ratner and Jason S. Abrams. Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law – Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 161.
168. Jeffrey T. Gayton, “From Here to Extraterritoriality: American Sovereignty Within and Beyond Borders.” PhD diss., University Of Wisconsin–Madison, 2003, 9.
169. Gayton, “From Here to Extraterritoriality.”
170. Beth Stephens, “Translating Filártiga: A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,” Yale Journal of International Law 27, no.1 (Winter, 2002): 11.
171. Stephens, “Translating Filártiga.”
172. The South African Apartheid Litigation, 346 F.Supp.2d 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
173. United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. 610, 630–631 (1818).
174. The Apollon, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 362, 370 (1824).
175. Statement of Interest of the U.S. State Department, Attachment, Letter from the Ambassador of Indonesia, Doe v. ExxonMobil, 393 F. Supp. 2d 20, 22 (D.D.C. 2005).
176. In Re Estate of Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 978 F.2d 493, 499 (9th Cir. 1992).
177. Abiola v. Abubakar, 408 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2005).
178. Janice E. Thomson, “State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Empirical Research,” International Studies Quarterly 39, no. 2 (June 1995): 216.
179. Ratner and Abrams, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities, 161.
180. Alexander E. Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46, no. 2 (Spring 1992): 412.
181. United States v. La Eugenie, 26 F. Cas. 832, 847 (D. Mass. 1822).
182. Kathryn Sikkink, “Human Rights, Principled Issue-Networks, and Sovereignty in Latin America,” International Organization 47, 3 (Summer 1993): 411.
183. Gene M. Lyons and Michael Mastanduno, eds., Beyond Wesphalia? State Sovereignty and International Intervention (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1995).
184. Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 329, 360.
185. Rosner v. US, 231 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1209 (S.D.Fla. 2002).
186. Cabello v. Larios, 205 F.Supp.2d 1325, 1329 (S.D.Fla. 2002).
187. Romagoza v. Garcia, 400 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. Apr 20, 2005).
188. Jean v. Dorelien, 431 F.3d 776 (11th Cir. 2005).
189. Human Rights First, “U.S. Court Brings Archbishop Romero’s Killer to Account in Case Demonstrating Continued Importance of Key Human Rights Law,” http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/Issues/ATCA/oscar_romero_090904.htm (Accessed August 7, 2007).
190. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, Doe v. Unocal, 963 F. Supp. 880 (C.D.Cal. 1997), pars. 100–101.
191. Doe v. Unocal, 963 F. Supp. 880, 883 (C.D.Cal. 1997), citing Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Par. 24.
192. Nat’l Coalition Gov’t of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, 176 F.R.D. 329, 334 (C.D.Cal. 1997).
193. Doe v. Unocal, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (C.D.Cal. 2000), 1306.
194. Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Judge Edwards concurring).
195. Doe v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2002).
196. William S. Dodge, “After Sosa: The Future of Customary International Law in the United States,” Social Science Research Network (November 11, 2006), 3, http://ssrn.com/abstract=944245 (Accessed September 20, 2007).
197. Dodge, “After Sosa.”
198. The South African Apartheid Litigation, 346 F.Supp.2d 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
199. Presbyterian Church v. Talisman, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18399 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
200. Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 381 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (C.D.Cal. 2005).
201. Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 403 F. Supp. 2d 1019, 1029 (W.D.WA 2005).
202. Doe v. ExxonMobil, 393 F.Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2005).
203. Ibrahim v. Titan, 391 F.Supp. 10 (D.D.C. 2005).
204. Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 206–207 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
205. In Re Sinaltrainal Litigation, 474 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (S.D.F.L. 2006).
206. Filártiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2nd Cir. 1980), 881.
207. United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754, 764 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995).
208. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 852, 854, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994) (Blackmun, J., concurring)
209. Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. FL 2003).
210. Flores v. Southern Peru Copper, 414 F.3d 233, 244 (2nd Cir. 2003), quoting Filártiga, 888.
211. Beanal v. Freeport, 197 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 1999).
212. Flores v. Southern Peru Copper, 343 F.3d 140 (2nd Cir. 2003).
213. Soudavar v. Iran, 67 Fed.Appx. 618 (DC Cir. 2003).
214. Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, 197 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 1999).
215. Marc Galanter, “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead,” Law and Society Review95 (1974).
216. Rachel Chambers, “The Unocal Settlement: Implications for the Developing Law on Corporate Complicity in Human Rights Abuses,” Human Rights Brief 12, no. 1 (2005): 14-16, 15.
217. Anthony J. Sebok, “Unocal Announces it will Settle Human Rights Suits: What’s the Real Story Behind the Decision”, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050110.html (Accessed July 2, 2007).
218. E. Anthony Wayne (Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs), “Comments on Announcement of ‘Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights,’” U.S. Department of State, Dec. 20, 2000, http://www.state.gov/www/policy_remarks/2000/001220_koh_hr.html (Accessed August 13, 2007).
219. Nathaniel L. Beck, Jonathan Katz, and Richard Tucker, “Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable,” American Journal of Political Science 42, no. 4 (1998): 1260–1288.
220. Domodar N. Gujarati, Basic Econometrics (New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2002).
221. William H. Green, Econometric Analysis (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002).
222. Steven C. Tauber, “On Behalf of the Condemned? The Impact of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund on Capital Punishment Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” Political Research Quarterly51, no. 1 (March 1998): 191–219.
223. Jeffrey Davis, “Justice without Borders: International Law in U.S. Courts,” Law and Policy28, no. 1 (2006): 60–82.
224. Tauber, “On Behalf of the Condemned?” 191–219.
225. Donald R. Songer and Ashlyn Kuersten, “The Success of Amici in State Supreme Courts,” Political Research Quarterly 48, no. 1 (1995): 31–42.
226. Donald R. Songer and Reginald S. Sheehan, “Interest Group Success in the Courts: Amicus Participation in the Supreme Court,” Political Research Quarterly46 no. 2 (1993): 339–354.
227. Lee Epstein and C. K. Rowland, “Debunking the Myth of Interest Group Invincibility in the Courts,” American Political Science Review85, (1991): 205–217.
228. Susan M. Olson, “Interest-Group Litigation in Federal District Court: Beyond the Political Disadvantage Theory,” The Journal of Politics 52, no. 3 (1990): 854–882.
229. Tracy E. George and Lee Epstein, “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making,” American Political Science Review86 (1992): 323–337.
230. Davis, “Justice without Borders” 69–72.
231. Tauber, “On Behalf of the Condemned?” 197.
232. Bancoult v. McNamara, 445 F.3d 427, 430 (D.C.Cir 2006).
233. “The Chagossians’ claims included forced relocation; torture; racial discrimination; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; genocide; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligence; trespass; and destruction of real and personal property.” Bancoult at 431.
234. Doe v. ExxonMobil, 393 F.Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2005).
235. Agent Orange Litigation, 373 F. Supp. 2d 7 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
236. Jeff Yates and Andrew Whitford, “Presidential Power and the United States Supreme Court,” Political Research Quarterly51, no. 2 (1998): 539–550.
237. Howard Tolley, “Interest Group Litigation to Enforce Human Rights,” Political Science Quarterly 105, no. 4 (1990–1991): 617–638.
238. Herbert M. Kritzer, “The Government Gorilla: Why Does Government Come out Ahead?” in Litigation: Do the ‘Haves’ Still Come Out Ahead? ed. Herbert M. Kritzer and Susan S. Silbey (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003).
239. Steven Poe and Neal Tate, “Repression of Human Rights,” American Political Science Review88, no. 4 (1994): 853–872.
240. Morris A. Ratner, “Factors Impacting the Selection And Positioning Of Human Rights Class Actions in United States Courts: A Practical Overview,” New York University Annual Survey of American Law 58 (2003): 623–647, 636.
241. M. Cherif Bassiouni, “The History of Universal Jurisdiction,” in Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts And the Prosecution of Serious Crimes under International Law, ed. Stephen Macedo (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006).
242. Steven R. Ratner and Jason S. Abrams, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law – Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy(New York: Oxford, 2001), 161.
243. Jack Knight and Lee Epstein, “The Norm of Stare Decisis,” American Journal of Political Science40, no. 4 (November 1996): 1018–1035.
244. Jeffrey A. Segal and Harold J. Spaeth, “Norms, Dragons, and Stare Decisis: A Response,” American Journal of Political Science40, no. 4 (November 1996): 1064–1082.
245. Donald R. Songer, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Charles M. Cameron, “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Model of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interactions,” American Journal of Political Science38, (1994): 673–696.
246. Brinton M. Wilkins, “Splitting the Baby: An Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Take on Customary International Law Under the Alien Tort Statute in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,” Brigham Young University Law Review(2005): 1415.
247. Zachary S. Kahn, “How Far Is the ‘Door Ajar’? Whether Rape as Torture is Actionable under the Alien Tort Statute After Sosa,” Journal of Law & Gender 12 (Spring 2006): 685.
248. Christiana Ochoa, “Towards a Cosmopolitan Vision of International Law: Identifying and Defining CIL Post Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 74 (Fall 2005): 105.
249. Igor Fuks, “Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Future of ATCA Litigation: Examining Bonded Labor Claims and Corporate Liability,” Columbia Law Review106 (January 2006): 112.
250. Jill C. McGuire, “Rape under the Alien Tort Statute in the Post–Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain Era,” George Mason Law Review 13 (Summer 2006): 935.
251. James Boeving, “Half Full… or Completely Empty? Environmental Alien Tort Claims Post Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review18 (2005): 109.
252. Curtis A. Bradley, Jack L. Goldsmith, and David H. Moore, “Sosa, Customary International Law, and the Continuing Relevance of Erie,” Harvard Law Review120 (February 2007): 869.
253. Presbyterian Church v. Talisman, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17030 (SDNY 2004).
254. Jeffrey A. Segal and Harold J. Spaeth, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
255. John M. Scheb, Terry Bowen, and Gary Anderson, “Ideology, Role Orientations, and Behavior in the State Courts of Last Resort,” American Politics Quarterly 19, no. 3 (1991): 324–335.
256. Henry J. Abraham, Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointment to the Supreme Court, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
257. Donald R. Songer and Susan J. Tabrizi, “The Religious Right in Court: The Decision Making of Christian Evangelicals in State Supreme Courts,” Journal of Politics19 (1999): 507–526.
258. John C. Kilwein and Richard A. Brisbin Jr., “Policy Convergence in a Federal Judicial System: The Application of Intensified Scrutiny Doctrines by State Supreme Courts,” American Journal of Political Science 411 (1997): 122–148.
259. Claude K. Rowland, Donald R. Songer, and Robert A. Carp, “Presidential Effects on Criminal Justice in the Lower Federal Courts: The Reagan Judges,” Law and Society Review22 (1988): 191–200.
260. Jeffrey A. Segal, Donald R. Songer, and Charles M. Cameron, “Decision Making on the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” in Contemporary Courts, ed. Lee Epstein (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1995).
261. C. Neal Tate, “Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946–1978,” American Political Science Review75 (1981): 355–367.
262. Tauber, “On Behalf of the Condemned?” 198.
263. Alfonso Chardy, “Honduran Couple Details How They Were Tortured: A Married Couple Testified In Miami Federal Court How People They Believed Were Honduran Soldiers Abducted and Tortured Them for Several Days in 1982,” Miami Herald, March 17, 2006.
264. Ronen Shamir, “Between Self-Regulation and the Alien Tort Claims Act: On the Contested Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility,” Law and Society Review38, no. 4 (2004): 635–664.
265. Marc Galanter, “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead,” Law and Society Review95 (1974): 9.
266. Robert A. Stine, “Graphical Interpretation of Variance Inflation Factors,” The American Statistician 49 (1995):53–56.
267. Samprit Chaterjee and Bertram Price, Regression Analysis by Example(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1991).
268. Kathryn Sikkink, “Human Rights, Principled Issue Networks and Sovereignty in Latin America,” International Organization47, no. 3 (1993): 411–441.
269. David Jacobson and Galya Benarieh Ruffer, “Courts across Borders: The Implications of Judicial Agency for Human Rights and Democracy,” Human Rights Quarterly25, no. 1 (2003): 74–92.
270. Jane Doe, Hearing Testimony Transcribed by the Author, Doe v. Constant, 04 Civ. 10108 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
271. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 4–5, Doe v. Constant, 04 Civ. 10108 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), http://www.cja.org/cases/ConstantDocs/ConstantFindingsOfFact.pdf (Accessed September 24, 2007).
272. David Grann, “Giving ‘the Devil’ His Due,” The Atlantic Monthly287, no. 6 (June 2001): 54–72.
273. Sewell Chan, “The Saga of ‘Toto’ Constant,” New York Times, May 23, 2007.
274. http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs_full.asp?doc_no==0000222141«&title=LATIN+AME… 6/27/2006.
275. Moira Feeney “Women Recount Gang Rape, Abuse at Hearing against Haitian Death Squad Leader Emmanuel Constant,” Democracy Now, August 31, 2006, http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/31/144239 (Accessed September 24, 2007).
276. Grann, “Giving ‘the Devil’ His Due,” 65–66.
277. The South African Apartheid Litigation, 346 F.Supp.2d 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
278. Doe v. ExxonMobil Corp., 393 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2005).
279. Agent Orange Litigation, 373 F. Supp. 2d 7 (E.D.N.Y. 2005), 99, citing Rasul v. Bush, 124 S. Ct. 2686.
280. Zenaida Velásquez, Statement, http://www.cja.org/forSurvivors/zenaida%20for%20 survivors.shtml (Accessed September 25, 2007).
281. Beth Stephens, “Translating Filártiga: A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,” Yale Journal of International Law 27, 1, 11, 14 (Winter, 2002).
282. Joshua E. S. Phillips, “The Case against the Generals,” Washington Post. August 17, 2003, W06.
283. Human Rights First, “U.S. Court Brings Archbishop Romero’s Killer to Account in Case Demonstrating Continued Importance of Key Human Rights Law,” http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/Issues/ATCA/oscar_romero_090904.htm (Accessed August 7, 2007).
284. Beth Stephens, “Upsetting Checks and Balances: The Bush Administration’s Efforts to Limit Human Rights Litigation,” Harvard Human Rights Journal17 (2004): 169.
285. “Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, Fact Sheet,” Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, December 20, 2000, http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/001220_fsdrl_principles.html (Accessed August 11, 2007).
286. Robert H. Bork, “Judicial Imperialism,” Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2003, 2.
287. Robert H. Bork “Corporate Ethics: Big Oil’s Dirty Secrets,” Economist, May 10, 2003, 53.
288. Patti Wald-meir, “US Courts Should Not Punish Companies for Human Rights Violations Committed Overseas,” Financial Times, March 14, 2003.
289. Cait Murphy, “Is This the Next Tort Trap? Using an Ancient Statute, Lawyers Make Business Quake,” Fortune, June 23, 2003, Sec. 1, 30.
290. Jeffrey Davis and Edward H. Warner, “Reaching beyond the State: Judicial Independence, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Accountability in Guatemala,” Journal of Human Rights6, no. 2 (2007).
291. Ruti Teitel, “Transitional Jurisprudence: The Role of Law in Political Transformation,” Yale Law Journal106, no. 2009 (1997): 2050–2051.
292. Center for Justice and Accountability, “Project Abstract: Assessing the Impact of CJA’s El Salvador Litigation,” June 1, 2006.
293. Juan Romagoza Arce, “Reflections on the Verdict,” http://www.cja.org/forSurvivors/reflect.doc (Accessed September 12, 2007).