Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-07T05:16:18.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Law Claims: The Next Phase of Human Rights Litigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Beth Stephens
Beth Stephens*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University School of Law
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
State Law Litigation of International Norms
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 108 , 2014 , pp. 442 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

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

1 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013).

2 For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see Hoffman, Paul & Stephens, Beth, International Human Rights Cases Under State Law and in State Courts, 3 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 9 (2013)Google Scholar. For an analysis of the thirty-year history of modern human rights litigation, see Stephens, Beth, The Curious History of the Alien Tort Statute, 89 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1467 (2014)Google Scholar.

3 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (note) (2006).

4 Chowdhury v. Worldtel Bangladesh Holding, Ltd., 746 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2014).

5 18 U.S.C. §§ 2331, 2333–38 (2006).

6 18 U.S.C. § 1595 (2006).

7 28 U.S.C. § 1605A (2006).

8 See Stephens, Curious History, supra note 2, at 1477–78.

9 See, e.g., Estate of Domingo v. Republic of the Philippines, 694 F. Supp. 782, 784 (W.D. Wa. 1988).

10 See, e.g., Linder v. Calero Portocarrero, 963 F.2d 332, 333–34 (11th Cir. 1992).

11 Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 885 (2d Cir. 1980).

12 Doe v. Unocal Corp., Nos. BC 237980, BC 237679, 2002 WL 33944506 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 11, 2002). See Unocal Settles Rights Suit in Myanmar, N.Y. Times, Dec. 14, 2004, at C6.

13 See Reisinger, Sue, Pfizer Settles Lawsuits over Drug Trials on Children in Nigeria, Corp. Couns. (Feb. 23, 2011)Google Scholar, http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202482854504.

14 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–80 (2009).

15 Elmaliach v Bank of China Ltd., 2013 NY slip. op. 05858 [110 AD3d 192] (Sept. 17, 2013).

16 Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014).

17 Supplemental Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Partial Support of Affirmance at *13, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (No. 10-1491), 2012 WL 2161290.

18 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, S. Exec. Doc. No. E, 95-2, 999 U.N.T.S. 171; 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-84 (daily ed. Apr. 2, 1992) (Understanding 5).