Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:51:08.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second Circuit Dismisses ATS Claims Against Canadian Oil Exploration Company

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 104 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 119 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

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 28 U.S.C. §1850.

2 Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2009).

3 Id. at 256.

4 Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 453 F. Supp.2d 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); See John, R. Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 101 AJIL 210 (2007)Google Scholar.

5 582 F.3d at 247–48.

6 Khulumani v. Barclay Nat’l BankLtd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2007); See John, R. Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 102 AJIL 183 & 896 (2008)Google Scholar.

7 582 F.3d at 258.

8 Id.

9 In the proceedings below, the Department of State advised that” ‘considerations of international comity and judicial abstention may properly come into play’ in view of Canada’s objections to the litigation and the United States government’s determination that Canadian courts were capable of adjudicating plaintiffs’ claims.” Id. at 251–52.

10 In the district court, “Canada argued that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction [i] infringed on its sovereignty, [ii] chilled its ability to use ‘trade support services as “both a stick and carrot in support of peace,”’ and [iii] violated traditional restraints on the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction.” Id. at 252.

11 Id. at 254–56.

12 United States v. von Weizsaecker (Ministries case), 14 Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, at 308, 662 (1949).

13 582 F.3d at 259.

14 Id. (citation omitted)

15 Id. at 259–60.

16 Id. at 260.

17 Id. at 254.

18 Id. at 263.

19 Id. at 264.