Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:01:37.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Emerging Recognition of Universal Civil Jurisdiction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Donald Francis Donovan  and
Anthea Roberts
Donald Francis Donovan
Affiliation:
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Anthea Roberts
Affiliation:
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Modern international law takes as a fundamental value the condemnation and redress of certain categories of heinous conduct, such as genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity. Recognizing the need to end impunity for those crimes, international law permits a state, by the principle of universal jurisdiction, to prosecute them even when they take place outside its territory and do not involve its nationals.

In virtually all domestic legal systems, an individual who engages in wrongful conduct causing personal inj ury or death will be subject not only to criminal prosecution, but to a civil action by the injured party. Yet, though the principle of universal jurisdiction is well established in the criminal sphere, it is still regarded as novel in the civil context.

Recent developments—most notably the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain—will cause greater examination of the function and scope of universal jurisdiction as authorization for national courts to hear civil claims based on heinous conduct proscribed by international law. We here consider whether a civil dimension of universal jurisdiction has emerged, whether it should correspond to the criminal dimension, and whether its use as a basis of jurisdiction should depend on the absence of effective remedies in jurisdictions with traditional links to the proscribed conduct.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 100 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 142 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 542 U.S. 692 (2004); see Brad, R. Roth Case Report: Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain; United States v. Alvarez- Machain, in 98 AJIL 798 (2004).Google Scholar

2 S.S. “Lotus” (Fr. v. Turk.), 1927 PCIJ (ser. A) No. 10, at 18-19 (Sept. 7), available at <http://www.icjcij.org>.

3 Lowe, Vaughan Jurisdiction, in International Law 336(Malcolm, D. Evans ed., 2003)Google Scholar (stating that the best view is that some clear connecting factor, such as territoriality or nationality, is necessary); see also Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), 2002 ICJ Rep. 3, 78,¶ 51 (Feb. 14) (joint sep. op. Higgins, Kooijmans, Buergenthal, JJ.) (Lotus represents the “high water mark of laissez-faire in international relations”), available at <http://www.icj-cij.org>. The argument that international law imposes virtually no limits on civil jurisdiction, as opposed to criminal jurisdiction, is based on Lotus, and hence subject to the same criticisms. Compare Akehurst, Michael Jurisdiction in International Law, 1972-73 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 145, 177 Google Scholar (concluding that customary international law imposes no limits on civil jurisdiction), and Fitzmaurice, Gerald The General Principles of International Law, 92 Recueil des Cours 1, 218 (1957 II)Google Scholar (same), with Mann, F. A. The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law, 111 Recueil des Cours 1, 73–81 (1964 I)Google Scholar (substantial limits on civil jurisdiction), and Mann, F. A. The Doctrine of Jurisdiction Revisited After Twenty Years, 186 Recueil des Cours 19,20 -33,67-77 (1984 III)Google Scholar (same).

4 Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of The United States §403 (1987) [hereinafter Restatement].

5 Id. §404 cmt. a.

6 These rationales are frequently conflated. See generally Kontorovich, Eugene The Piracy Analogy: Modern Universal Jurisdiction ‘s Hollow Foundation, 45 Harv. Int’l L.J. 183 (2004)Google Scholar (criticizing reliance on piracy to support the argument that universal jurisdiction originally existed to permit any nation to punish the most heinous crimes). See also Filartiga, v. Pena-Irala 630 F.2d 876, 890 (2d Cir. 1980)Google Scholar (“for purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become—like the pirate and slave trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind”).

7 See Restatement, supra note 4, §404; Committee on International Human Rights Law and Practice, International Law Association, Final Report on the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences 4 - 9 (2000) [hereinafter ILA Report]; Africa Legal Aid, The Cairo-Arusha Principles on Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences, pmbl., princ. 4 (2002), at <http://www.kituochakatiba.co.ug/cairo-arusha.htm> [hereinafter Cairo-Arusha Principles] (stating that, in addition to crimes currently recognized under international law, certain crimes that have major economic, social, or cultural consequences should be subject to universal jurisdiction).

8 Anne-Marie, Slaughter Defining the Limits: Universal Jurisdiction and National Courts, in Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes Under International Law 168, 170 (Macedo, Stephen ed., 2004)Google Scholar [hereinafter Universal Jurisdiction]. For example, Att’y Gen. v. Eichmann, 36 ILR 277,303-04 (1968) (Isr. S.Ct. 1962), and Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F. 2d 571, 582-83 (6thCir. 1985), cert, denied, 475 U.S. 1016 (1986), can be justified on the basis of protective and passive personality principles as well as universal jurisdiction.

9 See Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, supra note 3, at 76, ¶ 45 (joint sep. op.) (observing that “a State is not required to legislate up to the full scope of the jurisdiction allowed by international law”). Whether over time such restraint might form the basis for a customary norm will depend on states’ opinio juris about whether restraint in these circumstances is permitted or mandatory.

10 Authorities differ over whether and when adjudication corresponds to prescriptive or enforcement jurisdiction, or whether it represents a third form of jurisdiction. Compare Restatement, supra note 4, §401 (distinguishing jurisdiction to prescribe, adjudicate, and enforce), with Luc Reydams, Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives 25 n.68 (2003) (distinguishing between prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction, by reference to the substantive power exercised, and legislative, judicial, and executive jurisdiction, by reference to the branches of state authority), and Brownlie, Ian Principles of Public International Law 297 (6th ed. 2003)Google Scholar (distinguishing between legislative, or prescriptive, jurisdiction and executive, or enforcement, jurisdiction).

11 See Paul, R. Dubinsky Human Rights Law Meets Private Law Harmonization: The Coming Conflict, 30 Yale J. Int’l L. 211, 269–70 (2005)Google Scholar (using a three-part schema, universal jurisdiction can be a form of prescriptive or adjudicatory jurisdiction); Bodansky, Daniel Human Rights and Universal Jurisdiction, in World Justice? U.S. Courts and International Human Rights 1, 9–11 (Gibney, Mark ed., 1991) (same)Google Scholar; Roger, O’Keefe Universal Jurisdiction: Clarifying the Basic Concept, 2 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 735, 745 (2004)Google Scholar (using a two-part schema, universal jurisdiction is a form of prescriptive jurisdiction).

12 As a form of prescriptive jurisdiction, universal jurisdiction would displace ordinary choice-of-law rules, permitting the forum state to apply its own substantive laws (including those derived from international law) to the conduct instead of the laws of the jurisdiction where, for example, the criminal act or tort took place. As a form of adjudicatory jurisdiction, universal jurisdiction would permit the court to hear a case with which the state had no connection but would not dictate the governing substantive law.

13 For example, U.S. courts have found that they cannot proceed without an independent basis for personal jurisdiction that satisfies the Constitution’s due process requirements even over offenses listed as being of universal concern in the Restatement, supra note 4, §404. U.S. Const, amends. V, XIV. It remains to be considered whether the requirements of due process must themselves take account of the universally proscribed character of the conduct giving rise to universal jurisdiction.

14 See generally Fox, Hazel The Law of State Immunity 523-29 (2002)Google Scholar; Ragazzi, Maurizio The Concept of International Obligations erga Omnes 189-218 (1997).Google Scholar

15 Prosecutor v. Furundžija, No. IT-95-17/1-T, ¶156 (Dec. 10, 1998), reprinted in 38 ILM 317 (1999); M. Cherif, Bassiouni International Crimes:Jus Cogens and Obligations erga omnes, L. & Contemp. Probs., Autumn 1996, at 63, 72.Google Scholar

16 Kenneth, C. Randall Universal Jurisdiction Under International Law, 66 Tex. L. Rev. 785, 829–31 (1988)Google Scholar. But see Hlggins, Rosalyn Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It 57 (1994)Google Scholar (arguing that Barcelona Traction dictum concerning erga omnes obligations cannot justify national exercises of universal criminal jurisdiction).

17 See Lori, F. Damrosch Comment: Connecting the Threads in the Fabric of International Law, in Universal Jurisdiction, supra note 8, at 91, 94Google Scholar; cf. Princeton Univ. Program in Law & Pub. Affairs, The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction 29, princ. 2 (2001)Google Scholar [hereinafter Princeton Principles] (stating that universal jurisdiction over jus cogens crimes is “without prejudice” to universal jurisdiction over other international crimes).

18 See generally Universal Civil Jurisdiction—The Next Frontier? 99 ASIL Proc. 117 (2005).

19 28 U.S.C. §1350(2000).

20 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).

21 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

22 Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 888; In re Estate of Marcos, Human Rights Litig., 25 F.3d 1467, 1475 (9th Cir. 1994).

23 As noted supra note 13, however, U.S. courts still require personal jurisdiction to be established, but this may be done by using tag jurisdiction, so that cases can proceed without any connection to the United States other than the transitory presence of the defendant at the time of service.

24 See, e.g., Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 878-80 (claim about torture committed in Paraguay by Paraguayan official); Kadic v. Karadžić, 70 F.3d 232,236 (2d Cir. 1995) (claim about atrocities committed in Bosnia by leader of Bosnian Serb forces); In re Estate of Marcos, Human Rights Litig., 978 F.2d 493,495-96 (9th Cir. 1992) (claim for torture and wrongful death committed in the Philippines by former Philippine president).

25 See, e.g., Kadic, 70 F.3d at 240; Presbyterian Church v. Talisman Energy, 244 F.Supp.2d 289, 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Beanal v. Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., 969 F.Supp. 362, 371 (E.D. La. 1997).

26 Restatement, supra note 4, §404, cmt. b.

27 ILA Report, supra note 7, at 3 n.6.

28 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, supra note 3, at 77,148 (joint sep. op.).

29 Brief of the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Swiss Confederation and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as Amici Curiae at 2 - 3 , Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (No. 03-339) [hereinafter Governments’ Brief].

30 Id. at 6 (footnote omitted).

31 Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992) (codified at 28 U.S.C. §1350 note).

32 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 UNTS 112; Governments’ Brief, supra note 29, at 6 n.8.

33 Governments’ Brief, supra note 29, at 24-25 n. 36.

34 Brief of Amicus Curiae the European Commission at 17-22, Sosa, 542 U.S. 692 (No. 03-339)

35 Sosa, 542 U.S. at733n.21.

36 Id. at 760-63.

37 Id. at 762.

38 Id. at 762, 763.

39 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, supra note 32, Art. 5(2).

40 Id, Art. 14(1).

41 Id, An. 14(2).

42 Byrnes, Andrew Civil Remedies for Torture Committed Abroad: An Obligation Under the Convention Against Torture? in Torture as Tort: Comparative Perspectives on the Development of Transnational Human Rights Litigation 537, 545–48 (Scott, Craig ed., 2001)Google Scholar (noting the U.S. argument that the omission of the territorial qualifier was inadvertent); Curtis, A. Bradley Universal Jurisdiction and U.S. Law, 2001 U. Chi. Legal F. 323, 346 n. 102Google Scholar (noting the U.S. “understanding” that Article 14 was limited to acts of torture occurring within a state’s jurisdiction).

43 136 Cong. Rec. S17.486, S17.492 (daily ed. Oct. 27, 1990), reprinted in Contemporary Practice of the United States, 85 AJIL 335, 337 (1991).Google Scholar

44 Torture Victim Protection Act, supra note 31.

45 House Comm . on the Judiciary, Torture Victim Protectionact of 1991 , H.R . Rep . no . 102–367 (1991),Google Scholar reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.CA.N. 84, 84-88.

46 Scott, Craig Remarks, in The Alien Tort Claims Act Under Attack , 98 ASIL Proc. 58, 60–61 (2004)Google Scholar (suggesting that Article 14 (2) may be read as both creating permissive jurisdictional space and encouraging states to enter that space).

47 Another relevant form of state practice, however, is that most states have acquiesced in the assertion of universal civil jurisdiction by U.S. courts, even if they have not emulated it. See Cassese, Antonio International Criminal Law 290–91 n.29 (2003).Google Scholar

48 See Stephens, Beth Translating Filártiga: A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations, 27 Yale J. Int’l L. 1, 10–17 (2002)Google Scholar; see also Lori Fisler, Damrosch Enforcing International Law Through Non-Forcible Measures, 269 Recueil des Cours 9, 183–86 (1997)Google Scholar (discussing reasons for the lack of international human rights cases in countries other than the United States).

49 Prosecutor v. Furundžija, No. I T - 9 5 - 1 7 / l - T , f l 5 5 (Dec. 10,1998), reprinted in 38 ILM 317 (1999). Standing alone, this statement could be consistent with an endorsement of either universal jurisdiction or the application of ordinary choice-of-law principles, subject to a refusal to give effect to national laws prohibited by international law.

50 Human Rights Committee, International Law Association (British Branch), Report on Civil Actions in the English Courts for Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad, 2001 Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 129, 131 Google Scholar [hereinafter British ILA Report].

51 Id. at 132-34.

52 Id. at 165.

53 Al-Adsani v. Kuwait, 103 ILR 420 (Q.B. 1995).

54 Al-Adsani v. Kuwait, 100 ILR 463 (C.A. 1994).

55 Al-Adsani v. Kuwait, 107 ILR 536 (C.A. 1996). A challenge to the immunity decision, based on the prohibition of torture and guarantee of access to courts contained in the European Convention on Human Rights, was rejected by the European Court of Human Rights. Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, App. No. 35763/97, 2001-XI Eur. Ct. H.R., ¶ ¶ 40,66-67 (Nov. 21,2001). The Court, however, divided 9-8 on the question of access to courts, with the minority arguing that jus cogens prohibitions supersede national immunity laws in both the civil and the criminal contexts. See id. (Rozakis, Caflisch, JJ., dissenting) (Bravo, J., dissenting) (Loucaides, J., dissenting).

56 Al-Adsani, 107 ILR at 536 (C.A. 1996).

57 Jones v. Saudi Arabia, [2004] EWCA (Civ) 1394, [1], available at <http://www.bailii.org>.

58 Id. 121.

59 Id.

60 Id. 199.

61 Bouzari v. Iran, C38295, [2004] O.J. 2800, ¶¶ 8 1 , 95 (Ont. Ct. App. June 30, 2004), available at <http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2004/june/bouzariC38295.htm>.

62 Id. ¶¶72-81.

63 Cass., sez. un., 6 Nov. 2003, n.5044, 87 Rlvista di Diritto Internazionale 539, ¶12 (2004) [hereinafter Ferrini v. Germany]; see Bianchi, Andrea Case Report: Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany, 99 AJIL 242 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Ferrini v. Germany, supra note 63, ¶9. But see Gattini, Andrea War Crimes and State Immunity in the Ferrini Decision , 3 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 224, 229 (2005)Google Scholar (criticizing the Court for failing to distinguish between individual and state crimes); Bianchi, supra note 63, at 246 (same).

65 Ferrini v. Germany, supra note 63, ¶10.

66 Id. ¶ 12.

67 Hague Conference on Private International Law, Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Oct. 30, 1999, Prel. Doc. No. 11 (Aug. 2000), at <http://www. hcch.net/upload/wop/jdgmpdll.pdf>.

68 For the drafting history of this provision, see Beth Van, Schaack In Defense of Civil Redress: The Domestic Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in the Context of the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention, 42 Harv. Int’l L.J. 141, 182–89 (2001).Google Scholar

69 See Dogauchi, Masato & Trevor, C. Hartley Preliminary Draft Convention on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements, Draft Report, Prel. Doc. No. 26, ¶¶4-5 (Dec. 2004), at <http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/jdgm_pd26e.pdf>>Google Scholar . In order to move past this stalemate, work continued on certain core jurisdictional issues, starting with a convention on exclusive choice of court agreements in business-to-business cases. Id. ¶¶ 5 - 6 . Given the narrowed focus, the resulting Convention on Choice of Court Agreements no longer has implications for universal civil jurisdiction. Id. ¶7; see also Hague Conference on Private International Law, Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (June 30, 2005), at <http://www.hcch.net>.

70 Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: 14 Principles on the Effective Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction, princ. 11 (AI index IOR 53/01/99,1999) [hereinafter Amnesty Principles].

71 Cairo-Arusha Principles, supra note 7, pmbl.

72 Id., princ. 17. See generally Kwakwa, Edward The Cairo-Arusha Principles on Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences: Developing the Frontiers of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, 2002 Afr. Y.B. Int’l L. 407, 417 (deeming Cairo-Arusha Principles’ reparations idea “relatively new”).Google Scholar

73 Princeton Principles, supra note 17.

74 Factory at Chorzów(Ger. v.Pol.), Indemnity, 1928 PCIJ (ser. A) No. 17, at 29 (Sept. 13). See generally Christine, D. Gray Judicial Remedies in International Law (1987).Google Scholar

75 See, e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res. 217A (III), Art. 8, UN Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, Art. 2(3), 999 UNTS 171. See generally Shelton, Dinah Remedies in International Human Rights Law (2d ed. 2005).Google Scholar

76 See Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, Art. 75(2), 2187 UNTS 3 [hereinafter Rome Statute] (Court may order convicted person to pay reparations); Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, GA Res. 40/34, annex, paras. 8-17 (Nov. 29,1985) (addressing restitution, compensation, and assistance to victims). See generally McKay, Fiona Civil Reparation in National Courts for Victims of Human Rights Abuse, in Justice for Crimes Against Humanity 283 (Lattimer, Mark & Sands, Philippe eds., 2003).Google Scholar

77 UN Comm’n on Hum. Rts. Res. 2005/35,UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/L.lO/Add.U; see also, e.g., UK Comm’n on Hum. Rts., Sub-Comm’n on Prevention of Discrimination & Protection of Minorities, Study Concerning the Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8 (prepared by Theo van Boven); UN Comm’n on Hum. Rts., The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62, annex (prepared by M. Cherif Bassiouni).

78 See Stephens, supra note 48, at 51.

79 Chibundu, M. O. Making Customary International Law Through Municipal Adjudication: A Structural Inquiry, 39 VA. J. Int’l L. 1069, 1133 (1999).Google Scholar

80 See Van Schaack, supra note 68, at 156-59.

81 See id. at 157-58 (discussing deterrence rationale for tort law). Some commentators object that treating gross human rights violations as torts for purposes of compensatory regimes reduces them from serious international crimes to mere domestic wrongs. See Lyal, S. Sunga Individual Responsibility in International Law for Serious Human Rights Violations 113 (1992)Google Scholar. It is hard to see, however, how enlarging the range of available sanctions to include compensation of the victim, without eliminating the right to prosecute, could be viewed as diminishing the seriousness of the conduct, as opposed to increasing the options for enforcement and accountability, unless the possibility of civil claims were to lessen the likelihood of criminal prosecutions by states.

82 See, e.g., Code de Procédure Pénale Arts. 689-2 to -10 (universal jurisdiction), Arts. 2-3 (action civile) (Fr.); Völkerstrafgesetzbuch [Code of Crimes Against International Law] §1 (universal jurisdiction) (Ger.); Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Federal Criminal Procedure Code] §§403-406c (action civile) (Ger.); Ley orgánica del poder judicial [Organic Law of the Judiciary] Art. 23(4) (universal jurisdiction); Ley de enjuiciamiento criminal [Criminal Proceedings Law] Art. 112 (criminal complaint also a civil claim unless victim expressly states otherwise); see also Redress, Universal Jurisdiction in the European Union, at <http://www.redress.org/conferences/country-%20studies.pdf> (document for conference entitled Legal Remedies for Victims of “International Crimes,” Nov. 24-25, 2002).

83 Even some common law states, such as the United States, are amending their criminal statutes to incorporate provisions for reparations. See Kleinhaus, Brian Serving Two Masters: Evaluating the Criminal or Civil Nature of the VWPA and MVRA Through the Lens of the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Abatement Doctrine, and the Sixth Amendment, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2711 (2005)Google Scholar (discussing restitution provisions under the Victims Witness and Protection Act of 1982 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C, with restitution provision at 18 U.S.C. §3663 (2000)) and the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. §3663A (2000))).

84 Cf Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 763 (2004) (Breyer, J., concurring) (stating that acceptance of universal criminal jurisdiction for certain crimes implies acceptance of “a significant degree” of civil liability for the same crimes, given that some legal systems permit civil damages as part of criminal proceedings). Although several civil actions have been attached to criminal cases brought on the basis of universal jurisdiction, no such case appears to have yet resulted in a monetary award.

85 Rome Statute, supra note 76, Art. 75; see also International Criminal Court, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Doc. ICC-ASP/1/3 (pt. 11-A), Rules 94-98 (Sept. 9, 2002) (outlining procedure for requesting, assessing, and paying reparations for victims).

86 See Terrier, Frank The Procedure Before the Trial Chamber, in 2 The Rome statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary 1277, 1317 (Cassese, Antonio Gaeta, Paola & John R. W. D., Jones eds., 2002)Google Scholar (noting that reparations provisions were borrowed from civil law model).

87 Muttukumaru, Christopher Reparation to Victims, in The International Criminal Court: the Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results 262, 264 (Roy, S. Lee ed., 1999)Google Scholar; see also David, Donat-Cattin Article 75: Reparations to Victims, in Commentary on the Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court 965, 967 (Triffterer, Otto ed., 1999)Google Scholar (noting acceptance of reparations provision because it was necessary for full vindication of victims’ rights).

88 See supra notes 40, 70-71 and corresponding text.

89 See Reydams, supra note 10, at 3 (recognition of universal criminal jurisdiction requires recognition of universal civil jurisdiction, because “qui peut le plus peut le moins, the greater includes the lesser”).

90 Cf. Sosa, 542 U.S. 692, 727 (2004) (noting concern over whether to “permit enforcement without the check imposed by prosecutorial discretion”); Steven, R. Ratner Belgium‘s War Crimes Statute: A Postmortem, 97 AJIL 888, 896 (2003)Google Scholar (advocating prosecutorial screening).

91 Bradley, supra note 42, at 347.

92 For example, victim-initiated investigations and investigations of high-ranking foreign officials under Belgium’s universal jurisdiction laws led to an outcry by other states, resulting in amendments to the legislation that require a link between Belgium and the nationality or residence of the plaintiff or accused, recognize immunity of high-ranking foreign officials while in office, and prohibit victim-initiated cases where the only basis for jurisdiction is the victim’s nationality. See Ratner, supra note 90, at 889 - 91 (discussing Loi relative aux violations graves du droit humanitaire, Aug. 5, 2003, Moniteur Belge, Aug. 7, 2003).

93 According to one study, approximately 80 percent of the human rights cases brought under the ATS and the TVPA in the United States since 1980 have been dismissed on these and similar bases. K. Lee, Boyd Universal Jurisdiction and Structural Reasonableness, 40 Tex. Int’l L.J. 1, 2 & n.6 (2004)Google Scholar; see also id. at 12-42 (describing how a variety of legal doctrines and procedural limits are used to restrict universal jurisdiction in the United States).

94 In the United States, for example, the federal executive branch, which is responsible for the conduct of foreign relations, has the opportunity to bring to a court’s attention interests akin to those that might be considered by a public prosecutor, see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §517 (2000), but those views are not controlling. See Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 702 & n.23 (2004) (Department of State’s opinion regarding immunity in a particular case, while not conclusive, “might well be entitled to deference as the considered judgment of the Executive on a particular question of foreign policy”); Presbyterian Church v. Talisman Energy, Inc., No. 01 Civ. 9882 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2005) (denying motion to dismiss based on international comity and undue interference with foreign affairs power, despite statements of interest by the U.S. and Canadian governments); see also Gerald, L. Neuman The Abiding Significance of Law in Foreign Relations, 2004 Sup. Ct. Rev. 111, 111, 141 Google Scholar (Altmann “confirmed the continuing significance of law as an element of foreign relations” by giving executive views on sovereign immunity “serious weight, not controlling effect”).

95 Compare, e.g., Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, supra note 3, at 39-40 , ¶¶ 9-12 (Feb. 14) (Guillaume, J. & Pres., sep. op.) (finding no basis in international law for exercise of universal jurisdiction in absentia), with id. at 80-81, ¶¶53-58 (joint sep. op.) (arguing that universal jurisdiction in absentia is permissible), and id. at 170-73, ¶¶54 - 58 (Van den Wyngaert, J. ad hoc, dissenting) (concluding that international law does not prohibit universal jurisdiction in absentia).

96 1 Oppenheim’s International Law 467 (Jennings, Robert & Watts, Arthur eds., 9th ed. 1996)Google Scholar; see also Law No. 95-1 of January 2, 1995, tit. 1, ch. 1, Art. 2, Journal officiel de la République Française [J.O.] [Official Gazette of France], Jan. 3, 1995, p. 71 (requiring individuals alleged to have committed war crimes in the territory of the former Yugoslavia to be in France in order to be prosecuted by French courts); Cass, crim., Jan. 6, 1998 (decision), in Alland, Denis & Frédérique, Ferand Jurisprudence française en matière de droit international public, 102 Revue Gènèrale de Droit International Public 825, 827 (1998)Google Scholar (requiring individuals alleged to have committed war crimes in the territory of Rwanda to be in France in order to be prosecuted by French courts); In re Bouterse, Hoge Raad der Nederlanden [HR] [Supreme Court of the Netherlands] .Sept. 18,2001, No. 749/01 (CW 2323) §8.5 (finding no jurisdiction to prosecute under legislation implementing Convention Against Torture where accused was not arrested in or in the custody of the Netherlands); StPO Art. 153f (2)(3)-(4), as amended by Law introducing Völkerstrafgesetzbuch Art. 3(5), June 26, 2002, in Bundesgesetzblatt [Federal Official Journal], Teil I at 2253, 2259 (Ger.) (presence of suspect not required, but prosecutor has discretion to close investigation if suspect’s presence not expected).

97 Whether corporations can be held liable for violations of international law under the ATS is currently the subject of litigation in U.S. courts. The recent case against Unocal was settled out of court, see International Labor Rights Fund, Settlement of Unocal Case, December 2004 (Dec. 13, 2004), at <http://www.laborrights.org/projects/corporate/unocal/settlement 1204.htm>..>Google Scholar Other cases have recognized the possibility of corporate liability under the ATS and international law, though no final judgment against a corporation has yet been issued. See, e.g., Presbyterian Church v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 374 F.Supp.2d 331, 333-35 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (denying motion to dismiss and holding that corporation could be liable under ATS); see also Cairo-Arusha Principles, supra note 7, princ. 2 (universal jurisdiction applies to natural persons and “other legal entities”).

98 Van Schaack, supra note 68, at 198.

99 Id.

100 Diane, F. Orentlicher The Future of Universal Jurisdiction in the New Architecture of Transnational Justice, in Universal Jurisdiction, supra note 8, at 214, 236.Google Scholar

101 Rome Statute, supra note 76, Art. 17(l)(a); see also id., Art. 17(l)(b) (precluding ICC jurisdiction where a state has investigated but, in good faith, decided not to prosecute); id., pmbl. (emphasizing that ICC is complementary to national criminal jurisdictions).

102 See, e.g.,StPO Art. 153f(2)(4) (Ger.) (prosecutors may decline to investigate case where prosecution has begun in country that has jurisdiction based on territoriality or nationality of the victim or suspect); Loi relative aux violations graves du droit humanitaire (Belg.), supra note 92, Art. 16 (amending Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 10 §1 bis (4) to state that prosecutor will request magistrate to investigate complaint unless the interests of justice or international obligations require that the matter be brought before an international tribunal or tribunal of another state, provided that alternative tribunal is competent, independent, impartial, and fair).

103 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, supra note 3, at 81-82, ¶59 (joint sep. op.).

104 See ILA Report, supra note 7, at 20-21; Cairo-Arusha Principles, supra note 7, pmbl.; M. Cherif Bassiouni, Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice, 42 VA. J. Int’l L. 81, 91 n.37 (2001); Ratner, supra note 92, at 895.

105 Princeton Principles, supra note 17, at 53 (Commentary).

106 Id. at 32, princ. 8.

107 Cf. Orentlicher, supra note 100, at 236 (noting that the jurisdictional preference, embodied in Princeton Principles, for states with significant links to the acts in question may enhance legitimacy of universal jurisdiction).

108 Torture Victim Protection Act, supra note 31, §2(b).

109 H.R. Rep. NO. 102-367, supra note 45, 1992 U.S.C.CA.N. at 85, 87-88.

110 Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, supra note 67, Art. 18(3). The provision is quoted in full in text at note 67 supra.

111 Compare Dubinsky, supra note 11, at 315-16 (advocating exhaustion requirement), with Van Schaack, supra note 68, at 192-93 (opposing exhaustion requirement).

112 See Princeton Principles, supra note 17, at 32-33, princ. 8; Restatement, supra note 4, §403; see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 818-22 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (applying Restatement factors to determine whether Sherman Act should apply extraterritorially).

113 For example, the use of balancing tests in other controversial bases of jurisdiction, such as the effects doctrine, e.g., Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004); Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of Am. N.T. & S.A., 549 F.2d 597, 614-15 (9th Cir. 1976), has been criticized as a mere fig leaf to cover unwarranted assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

114 See supra note 101 and corresponding text. Some national courts have also considered whether universal jurisdiction should operate as a subsidiary form of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional español reconociendo el principio de jurisdicción penal universal en los casos de crímines contra la humanidad, II. Fundamentos jurídicos ¶4, STC 237/2005 (Sept. 26, 2005), available at <http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/guatemala/doc/tcgtml.html> (recognizing universal jurisdiction but declaring it subsidiary to the jurisdiction of the territorial state).

115 See Torture Victim Protection Act, supra note 31, Art. 2(b); see also S. Rep. No. 102-249, pt. IV(F), 1991 WL 258662, at *9 - 10 (Judiciary Committee report on TVPA) (defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that domestic remedies were not exhausted, which victim may rebut by showing such remedies were “ineffective, unobtainable, unduly prolonged, inadequate or obviously futile,” but “the ultimate burden of proof and persuasion on the issue of exhaustion of remedies . . . lies with the defendant”); see also Oppenheim’s International Law, supra note 96, at 522-26 (under general international law, defendant state must show existence of local remedies, thus requiring opponent to show that such remedies were “exhausted or inadequate”).

116 For example, both the legal adviser of the U.S. State Department and the minister of justice and constitutional development of the Republic of South Africa filed letters in In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig., 346 F.Supp.2d 538, 553 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), arguing, respectively, that the case concerning reparations for apartheid imposed a risk to the foreign policy objectives of the United States and interfered with South Africa’s sovereign right to address issues of domestic concern. While the views of the United States on its foreign policy interests would be relevant as a matter of U.S. law, the willingness and ability of South Africa to provide a forum and remedy would be relevant to the propriety of the exercise of universal civil jurisdiction as a matter of international law.

117 For example, the forum court should consider whether the individual circumstances of the plaintiff might make illusory the prospect of resort to the local tribunal. Cf. M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1972) (forum selection clause enforceable in absence of a showing that enforcing would “effectively deprive []” plaintiff of its right to bring claim).

118 See Brief of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, supra note 34, at 24; British ILA Report, supra note 50, at 132. But see Rome Statute, supra note 76, Art. 75(6) (right to reparation under the ICC not to be interpreted as “prejudicing the rights of victims under national or international law”).

119 Orentlicher, supra note 100, at 229.

120 See Mushikiwabo v. Barayagwiza, No. 94 Civ. 3627, 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4409, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 1996) (TVPA exhaustion requirement met where Rwandan judicial system virtually inoperative).

121 See Tachiona v. Mugabe, 216 F.Supp.2d 262, 275 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (TVPA exhaustion requirement met where Zimbabwean judicial system sufficiently under control of defendant).

122 See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No. 96 Civ. 8386, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3293, at *56-57 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2002) (defendant failed to show nonexhaustion under TVPA by failing to demonstrate that Nigerian courts were just and amenable to suit); Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162,178 (D. Mass. 1995) (TVPA exhaustion not required when foreign remedies are ‘“unobtainable, ineffective, inadequate, or obviously futile’“) (quoting S. Rep. NO. 102-249, supra note 115).

123 President Thabo Mbeki, Statement to the National Houses of Parliament and the Nation, at the Tabling of the Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Apr. 15, 2003), available at <http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mbeki/2003/tm04l5.html>; see also supra note 116. But see Cairo-Arusha Principles, supra note 7, princ. 14 (alternative forms of justice do not relieve duty to prosecute or extradite).

124 Prosecutor v. Furundžija, No. IT-95-17/1-T, ¶ 155 (Dec. 10, 1998), reprinted in 38 ILM 317 (1999).

125 Prosecutor v. Kallon, Kamara, Decision on Challenge to Jurisdiction, Nos. SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E), SCSL-2004 -16 -AR72(E), ¶ 71 (Mar. 13,2004); see also María, del Carmen Márquez Carrasco & Joaquín, Alcaide Fernández Case Report: In re Pinochet, in 93 AJIL 690, 694 (1999)Google Scholar (discussing Spanish court holding that Chilean amnesty law did not preclude exercise of universal criminal jurisdiction over jus cogens crimes committed by Gen. Augusto Pinochet).

126 See Amnesty Principles, supra note 70, princ. 6; Cairo-Arusha Principles, supra note 7, princ. 15; Princeton Principles, supra note 17, at 31, princ. 7.

127 For example, Slye argues that to merit recognition as legitimate, an amnesty must be democratically created, carve out those most responsible for serious violations of international law, impose some form of public procedure or accountability on its recipients, allow victims to challenge the amnesty, provide for reparations to the victims, and facilitate the transition to a more human-rights-friendly regime. Ronald C. Slye, The Legitimacy of Amnesties Under International Law and General Principles of Anglo-American Law: Is a Legitimate Amnesty Possible? 43 VA. J. int’l L. 173, 245-46 (2002); see also Leila Nadya, Sadat Universal Jurisdiction, National Amnesties, and Truth Commissions: Reconciling the Irreconcilable, in Universal Jurisdiction, supra note 8, at 193,Google Scholar 194 (amnesties should be “presumptively invalid,” but presumption may be overcome).

128 For example, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1441(d), 1602-1611, continues to apply in cases brought under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. §1350. Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping, 488 U.S. 428, 438 (1989).

129 See, e.g., Reginav. BowSt. Metro. Stipendiary Magistrate, Exparte Pinochet (No. 3), [2001] 1 A.C. 147, 264 (Lord Hutton), 278 (Lord Millett), 287 (Lord Phillips) {obiter comments supporting state immunity in civil proceedings); Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, supra note 55,166 (finding state immunity can apply to civil claims for torture committed abroad); Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran, supra note 61 (same); Jones v. Saudi Arabia, supra note 57, ¶¶ 82 - 92 (state immunity applies to civil claims against states but not necessarily those against state officials) ; Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, Areios Pagos [AP] [Supreme Court] 11 /2000 (Greece) (state immunity does not apply to violations of jus cogens norms); Ferrini v. Germany, supra note 63 (state immunity does not apply to norms subject to universal criminal or civil jurisdiction); see also Gavouneli, Maria & Bantekas, Ilias Case Report: Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, in 95 AJIL 198 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, opened for signature]an. 17, 2005, GA Res. 59/38, Art. 12 (Dec. 2,2004) (no general exception to sovereign immunity fox jus cogens violations; unless otherwise agreed between the states, sovereign immunity is precluded in actions seeking pecuniary damages for death or personal injury when those acts occurred in whole or in part in the territory of the state hearing the claim).

130 Naomi, Roht-Arriaza The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in The Age of Human Rights 194–95 (2005).Google Scholar