Justice Across Borders: The Struggle for Human Rights in U.S. Courts

Portada
Cambridge University Press, 2008 M06 2
This book studies the struggle to enforce international human rights law in federal courts. In 1980, a federal appeals court ruled that a Paraguayan family could sue a Paraguayan official under the Alien Tort Statute – a dormant provision of the 1789 Judiciary Act – for torture committed in Paraguay. Since then, courts have been wrestling with this step toward a universal approach to human rights law. Davis examines attempts by human rights groups to use the law to enforce human rights norms. He explains the separation of powers issues arising when victims sue the United States or when the United States intervenes to urge dismissal of a claim and analyses the controversies arising from attempts to hold foreign nations, foreign officials, and corporations liable under international human rights law. While Davis's analysis is driven by social science methods, its foundation is the dramatic human story from which these cases arise.
 

Comentarios de la gente - Escribir un comentario

No encontramos ningún comentario en los lugares habituales.

Contenido

ONE
1
people It must also reach men who possess themselves of
11
International Law and Human Rights
12
international law narrowly in order to exclude doctrines that addresses
20
TWO
23
a serious interference with the ability of the political branches
36
THREE
44
Last Name
46
Zhou v Peng
115
Table 44 US Amicus Briefs in Court of Appeals Cases
116
UngaroBenages v
117
you make of this? This description portrays an ad hoc
118
FIVE
164
pointed out that the limitations period should be tolled where
167
After the judgment Carranza filed a motion to have it
169
fabrication of murder charges against SaroWiwa and Kpuinen and bribed
177

things these crazy things like sue for torture
54
commanders responsible for human rights violations As Weiss explained
56
FOUR
89
approving more aggressive interrogation techniques that allegedly departed
90
been unable to overcome the overnments soverei n immunit
91
Table 41 District Court Cases against the US Government andor
92
Khalid v Bush
93
Table 42 Court of Appeals Cases against the US Government
94
AlvarezMachain v US
95
The Political Question Doctrine
99
already made cases may be nonjusticiable under the d0ctrine45 Finally
100
in protection of national security8 Because the plaintiffs challenged the
102
In addition courts are granted the authority over all Cases
105
a minority However he saw a larger purpose behind these
106
Table 43 US Statements of Interest in District Court Cases
114
Supreme Court rejected the Alien Tort Claims Act as an
186
SIX
204
against corporations Unocal was not accused of directly committing the
207
international law regardless of the perpetrators status In ATS cases
213
violation of international law that was universal and obligatory Once
215
law75 He pointed to a case from 1795 to demonstrate
217
attack 8 The court noted that Occidental had enlisted defendant
218
even for direct violation of international law would dramatically expand
235
as well Another scholar Anthony Sebok argued that this division
236
SEVEN
239
archipelago was removed two years later15 One plaintiff Jeanette Therese
243
200459 The plaintiff argued that the construction of the memorial
251
EIGHT
266
Most ATS cases arise from nations with oppressive political systems
280
cant go home probably ever but they can actually
287

Otras ediciones - Ver todas

Términos y frases comunes

Pasajes populares

Página 13 - Crimes against humanity: Namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Página 12 - The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; b) War crimes : namely, violations of the laws or customs of war.
Página 12 - CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory...
Página 11 - On the other hand the very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the state if the state in authorizing action moves outside its competence under International Law.
Página 5 - What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses.
Página 8 - The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that Civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

Acerca del autor (2008)

Professor Davis has taught constitutional law, comparative law, and judicial politics courses for more than six years and has won several teaching awards. He has published articles on human rights accountability, judicial decision-making, and judicial fairness in several journals. In addition, Professor Davis has conducted research and analysis on a volunteer basis for two international human rights organizations. Before beginning his academic career, Professor Davis practised law as a state Assistant Attorney General, as an attorney for the Atlanta School Board, and as the Legal Aide to the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives.

Información bibliográfica