Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-72kh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T00:16:20.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Department of Justice Position in Unocal Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 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 97 , Issue 3 , July 2003 , pp. 703 - 706
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2003

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. §1350 (1994). Enacted in 1789 as part of the First Judiciary Act, this statute provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

2 Doe v.Unocal Corp., 963 F.Supp. 880,889–92 (C.D.Cal. 1997). For a discussion of the case, see 92 AJIL 309 (1998).

3 Doe v. Unocal Corp., 110 F.Supp.2d 1294 (CD. Cal. 2000).

4 Doe v. Unocal Corp., No. 00–56603, 2002 WL 31063976, at 16 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2002).

5 Brief for the United States of America, as Amicus Curiae at 2–4 (filed May 8,2003), Doe v. Unocal, Nos. 00–56603 & 00–56628 (9th Cir.)

6 Id. at 5–11 (footnote omitted).

1 The United States has also filed briefs amicus curiae addressing the scope of Section 1350 in Filartiga v. Peňa-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 (1980) (supporting jurisdiction); Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F. 2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 470V.S. 1003 (1985) (opposing certiorari); Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. v. Argentine Republic, 830 F.2d 421 (2d Cir. 1987) (arguing that the ATCA does not provide jurisdiction over foreign sovereign); Trajano et al. v. Marcos et al, 878 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1989) (offering restrictive interpretation of the ATCA); Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995) (supporting jurisdiction); and Alvarez-Machain v. Sosa, [331] F.3d [604] (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (opposing jurisdiction).

7 Brief Amid Curiae of International Law Scholars and Human Rights Organizations in Support of Plaintiffs at 1–2 (filed June 11, 2003), Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., No. 01 Civ. 9882 (S.D.N.Y.).

8 Id. at 2–4 (referring to Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)).

9 Id. at 4–7 (footnotes omitted).