A Study Of The Alien Tort Claims Act Of U.S.A.

The Alien Tort Claims Act (hereinafter referred to as ATCA) originated from article 9 of Judiciary Act of 1789, being codified as 28 U.S.C.§1350 (2000), after several times’modification, which now provides that "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." The ATCA is nearly dormant after being enacted until 1980. In Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made the ATCA on the road to renaissance. It also gave rise the controversy on the background and legislative purpose of the ATCA in the academic community. At present, it is generally viewed that the direct cause of the passage of the ATCA is a response to diplomatic crisis, such as Marbois event, and to avoid the federal government being in a disadvantaged position due to "denial of justice". Finally, federalism is dominant in the constitutional system, and the federal court is the principal judicial organ to hear cases involving foreigners.In the long-term practice, in the face of the deabte of all walks of life and the reality of social change, the ATCA is also changing constantly and its sphere of influence is expanded. The revival of the ATCA in 1980s is closely related to the upsurge of the civil rights movement in the United States, as well as the explosion of the international civil litigation.To understand the connotations of the ATCA, it is necessary to grasp the meaning of the law of nations, what is tort in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States and the standing. As the plaintiff started to bring civil action against the company, there are disagreements on whether the ATCA ought to be applied to private company. In order to provide relief to victims and avoid the companies from evading responsibility for human rights, litigation against the company will increase. After the connotation of the ATCA being clarified, the requirements of personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction must be met for, then the federal court can exercise jurisdiction. In the ATCA cases, the basis of personal jurisdiction is the defendant’ appearance in the court or agreement to the jurisdiction of the court, or there is some continuous connection between the defendant and the court, at least to meet the "minimum contact" test, and in line with the "due process" clause and will not be contrary to the traditional fair play and substantial justice.The jurisdiction of the ATCA is not the universal civil jurisdiction, but exerciesed according to the domestic law of the United States, and the cases are actually associated with the United States.Through the exercise of jurisdiction, the ATCA plays an important influence and role in making the perpetrator shoulder responsibility, help to deter potential perpetrators, relieve the victims, and contribute to the development of human rights law. Therefore, there is no need to modify or limit the ATCA.In ruling the litigation involving the ATCA, the choice of law issues is inevitably confronted with, but the ATCA itself has no choice of law rules or provisions of applicable law. Although there are many differences on the choice of law issues between the various circuit courts, on the whole they are still subjected to the guide of the Rules of Decision Act and Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. The court applied the international law and the law of the place of the tort to judge the legality of the conduct in question; as to the amount of compensation and the issue of statutes of limitation, they are governed by domestic law of the United States, including the federal common law.After the plaintiffs bring the civil action according to the ATCA, the defendant may put forward many defenses such as forum non conveniens, exhaustion of local remedy, the state immunities, acts of state doctrine, international comity, the political question doctrine, and thus many cases are dismissed.Like the United States, other countries were once confronted with tort litigation arising from in violation of international law. From the Al-Adsani case and Jones case in United Kingdom, Bouzari case in Canada, Ferrini case in Italy and Voiotia case in Greece, it can be seen that to make the defendants shoulder responsibility on account of their conduct in violation of international law has not been generally recognized by nations except the United States. The prosperity of the litigation of the alien tort in United States is rooted in the United States’ unique legal system, and it is difficult for other countries to transplant, copy and use for reference.