{
  "id": "RL32118",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32118",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 104156,
      "date": "2003-10-02",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-08T14:37:02.781544",
      "title": "The Alien Tort Statute: Legislative History and Executive Branch Views",
      "summary": "The Alien Tort Statute (ATS), also known as the Alien Tort Claims Act (ACTA), provides that\n\"district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only,\ncommitted in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.\" The Second Circuit's\n1980 decision in  Filartiga v. Pena-Irala,  a case involving torture and wrongful death that\noccurred\nin Paraguay, opened the door for the use of the ATS for aliens to assert jurisdiction in federal court\nfor human rights violations and other violations of international law. Since 1980, the ATS has been\nasserted in numerous cases, with varying success, involving issues ranging from environmental torts\nand expropriation to torture and genocide. While human rights advocates and plaintiffs' lawyers\nmay see great promise in the ATS as a way to vindicate human rights worldwide, others warn that\nit could easily spiral out of control, resulting in a deluge of foreign cases in federal courts, to the\npossible detriment of U.S. foreign policy interests. Of particular concern to many is the apparent rise\nin litigation against U.S. companies operating abroad that are accused of complicity in human rights\nabuses committed by the governments of their host countries. \n  The Bush Administration is seeking to overrule  Filartiga  and its progeny, and has\n set forth its\ninterpretation of the ATS in an  amicus  brief to the 9th Circuit in  Doe v.\nUnocal , in which plaintiffs,\ncitizens of Burma, filed suit against Unocal, a U.S. corporation, for its alleged complicity with the\nBurmese military to use forced labor in connection with the company's oil pipeline project, as well\nas other human rights abuses allegedly committed by the military. \n  The ATS originated as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. This report traces the legislative\nhistory of the Alien Tort Statute and summarizes some of the theories that have been put forth to\nexplain the congressional intent behind its enactment. These include the theory that its purpose was\nto give federal courts jurisdiction over matters concerning foreigners and foreign affairs, that the\nstatute was meant to preclude the denial of justice to aliens (possibly a cause for war), or to address\na few offenses against the law of nations that could be committed by individuals (as opposed to\nStates), such as piracy or the violation of diplomatic privileges. Also noted are the theories that the\nATS is an assertion of universal jurisdiction, or that it was meant to cover only a limited type of\noffenses related to the law of prize. The report provides a historical overview of court decisions\ninterpreting the ATS, followed by an overview of the positions taken by the U.S. government in\npublished opinions of the Attorney General and in court briefs related to ATS claims.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32118",
          "sha1": "516042394a8bbdda5c796a36ccb572771847dd6c",
          "filename": "files/20031002_RL32118_516042394a8bbdda5c796a36ccb572771847dd6c.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20031002_RL32118_516042394a8bbdda5c796a36ccb572771847dd6c.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Foreign Affairs"
  ]
}