International law, Sixth edition
Download 7.77 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
International Law MALCOLM N. SHAW
Siderman v. Republic of Argentina 965 F.2d 699 (1992).
190 Handel v. Artukovic 601 F.Supp. 1421 (1985); 79 ILR, p. 397. 191 770 F.2d 202 (1985); 80 ILR, p. 586. 192 770 F.2d 206–7; 80 ILR, pp. 590–1. 193 34 ILM, 1995, p. 1592. 194 Ibid., p. 1600. 195 Ibid., pp. 1602–6. 196 Ibid., p. 1607. j u r i s d i c t i o n 685 the Alien Tort Act or under the general federal question jurisdiction of section 1331. 197 The Alien Tort Act was relied upon again in the Amerada Hess case which concerned the bombing of a ship in international waters by Ar- gentina during the Falklands war and where it was claimed that the federal courts had jurisdiction under the Act. A divided Court of Appeals 198 held that the Act provided, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not preclude, 199 federal subject-matter jurisdiction over suits in tort by aliens against foreign sovereigns for violations of international law. However, the Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. 200 It was noted that the Act did not expressly authorise suits against foreign states and that at the time the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act was enacted, the 1789 Act had never provided the jurisdictional basis for a suit against a foreign state. 201 Since the Congress had decided to deal comprehensively with sovereign immu- nity in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, it appeared to follow that this Act alone provided the basis for federal jurisdiction over foreign states. This basis was thus exclusive. The Court did note, however, that the Alien Tort Claims Act was unaffected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in so far as non-state defendants were concerned. 202 In Alvarez-Machain v. United States, the accused in the case noted above 203 commenced an action for compensation under the Act following his acquittal. The Court of Ap- peals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the claim that the Act required that the international law principle violated should also constitute a norm of jus cogens. The Court also rejected the contention that the applicant could sue for the violation of Mexican sovereignty implicit in his abduction. However, it affirmed that the applicant’s rights to freedom of movement, to remain in his country and to security of his person (which are part of the ‘law of nations’) were violated, while his detention was arbitrary since 197 Ibid., pp. 1607–8. Note, however, that since the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, an exception to immunity is created with regard to states, designated by the Department of State as terrorist states, which committed a terrorist act, or provided material support and resources to an indi- vidual or entity which committed such an act, which resulted in the death or personal injury of a US citizen. 198 Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. v. Argentine Republic 830 F.2d 421 (1987); 79 ILR, p. 8. 199 See below, chapter 13, p. 707. 200 Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. 109 S. Ct. 683 (1989); 81 ILR, p. 658. 201 109 S. Ct. 689; 81 ILR, pp. 664–5. 202 109 S. Ct. 690. See also Smith v. Libya 101 F.3d 239 (1996); 113 ILR, p. 534. 203 See above, p. 681. 686 i n t e r nat i o na l l aw not pursuant to a Mexican warrant. Accordingly, compensation under the Act could be claimed. 204 The Alien Tort Claims Act was further discussed by the Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, where it was held that the Alien Tort Claims Act was a jurisdictional statute creating no new causes of action and enacted on the understanding that the common law would provide a cause of action for the modest number of international law violations thought to carry personal liability at the time, being offences against ambassadors, violation of safe conducts and piracy. 205 Download 7.77 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling