abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

이 페이지는 한국어로 제공되지 않으며 English로 표시됩니다.

기사

2012년 8월 8일

저자:
Paul D. Clement, Bancroft, counsel of record for amici

[PDF] Esther Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al. - Supplemental brief of amici curiae BP America, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, General Electric, Honeywell, IBM & Monsanto in support of Respondents

모든 태그 보기
The question on which this Court requested supplemental briefing—whether and under what circumstances the ATS applies to extraterritorial conduct—goes to the very heart of what has gone wrong with the ATS regime over the last 30 years. Congress enacted the ATS in 1789 to achieve a rather modest goal—namely, easing diplomatic tension with other countries by ensuring that aliens injured in the United States (or on the high seas) would not be left without a judicial remedy…Far from reducing diplomatic tension, this extraterritorial projection of the ATS has prompted complaints from our closest allies as United States courts stand in judgment of the actions of foreign governments on foreign soil, in contravention of this Court’s longstanding and oft-repeated proscription on such interference.

타임라인