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

Գրքի շապիկի երեսը
Cambridge University Press, 02 հնս, 2008 թ.
This book studies the struggle to enforce international human rights law in federal courts. In 1980, a federal appeals court ruled that a Paraguayan family could sue a Paraguayan official under the Alien Tort Statute – a dormant provision of the 1789 Judiciary Act – for torture committed in Paraguay. Since then, courts have been wrestling with this step toward a universal approach to human rights law. Davis examines attempts by human rights groups to use the law to enforce human rights norms. He explains the separation of powers issues arising when victims sue the United States or when the United States intervenes to urge dismissal of a claim and analyses the controversies arising from attempts to hold foreign nations, foreign officials, and corporations liable under international human rights law. While Davis's analysis is driven by social science methods, its foundation is the dramatic human story from which these cases arise.

From inside the book

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.


Zhou v Peng
Table 44 US Amicus Briefs in Court of Appeals Cases
UngaroBenages v
you make of this? This description portrays an ad hoc
pointed out that the limitations period should be tolled where
After the judgment Carranza filed a motion to have it
fabrication of murder charges against SaroWiwa and Kpuinen and bribed

things these crazy things like sue for torture
commanders responsible for human rights violations As Weiss explained
approving more aggressive interrogation techniques that allegedly departed
been unable to overcome the overnments soverei n immunit
Table 41 District Court Cases against the US Government andor
Khalid v Bush
Table 42 Court of Appeals Cases against the US Government
AlvarezMachain v US
The Political Question Doctrine
already made cases may be nonjusticiable under the d0ctrine45 Finally
in protection of national security8 Because the plaintiffs challenged the
In addition courts are granted the authority over all Cases
a minority However he saw a larger purpose behind these
Table 43 US Statements of Interest in District Court Cases
Supreme Court rejected the Alien Tort Claims Act as an
against corporations Unocal was not accused of directly committing the
international law regardless of the perpetrators status In ATS cases
violation of international law that was universal and obligatory Once
law75 He pointed to a case from 1795 to demonstrate
attack 8 The court noted that Occidental had enlisted defendant
even for direct violation of international law would dramatically expand
as well Another scholar Anthony Sebok argued that this division
archipelago was removed two years later15 One plaintiff Jeanette Therese
200459 The plaintiff argued that the construction of the memorial
Most ATS cases arise from nations with oppressive political systems
cant go home probably ever but they can actually

Այլ խմբագրություններ - View all

Common terms and phrases

Սիրված հատվածներ

Էջ 13 - Crimes against humanity: Namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Էջ 12 - The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; b) War crimes : namely, violations of the laws or customs of war.
Էջ 12 - CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory...
Էջ 26 - The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.
Էջ 11 - On the other hand the very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the state if the state in authorizing action moves outside its competence under International Law.
Էջ 98 - 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.
Էջ 5 - What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses.
Էջ 32 - ... and concerning the rights of persons within the territory and dominion of one nation, by reason of acts, private or public, done within the dominions of another nation — is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice, as often as such questions are presented in litigation between man and man, duly submitted to their determination.
Էջ 8 - The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that Civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.
Էջ 98 - The official position of defendants, whether as heads of state or responsible officials in government departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

Հեղինակի մասին (2008)

Professor Davis has taught constitutional law, comparative law, and judicial politics courses for more than six years and has won several teaching awards. He has published articles on human rights accountability, judicial decision-making, and judicial fairness in several journals. In addition, Professor Davis has conducted research and analysis on a volunteer basis for two international human rights organizations. Before beginning his academic career, Professor Davis practised law as a state Assistant Attorney General, as an attorney for the Atlanta School Board, and as the Legal Aide to the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives.

Բիբլիոգրաֆիական տվյալներ