The Paradox of Kiobel in Europe
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9545752 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Caroline Kaeb (Northwestern University, corresponding author), David Scheffer, David J Scheffer |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 107 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 852-857 |
| Publication date | 2013-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Journal of International Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0002-9300 • E-ISSN: 2161-7953 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.4.0852 |
| OpenAlex | W2296775733 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 7 |
One of the most striking features of Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court’s judgment in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co . is how it pays homage to foreign governments’ opposition to the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), as voiced most prominently from European foreign ministries. “[F]oreign policy concerns” and the overarching goal to avoid diplomatic tensions with foreign sovereigns are themes heavily informing the Roberts opinion. The majority found the presumption against extraterritoriality applicable to the ATS in large part due to fear of “unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of [U.S.] foreign policy” if the Court allowed the ATS to “reach conduct occurring in the territory of a foreign sovereign.” In that light, the Kiobel judgment can be understood primarily as a decision prohibiting the overreach of U.S. law and protecting jurisdictional prerogatives of lex loci delicti and state of incorporation alike
Alien Tort Statute · Extraterritoriality · Foreign policy · Jurisdiction · Liability · Opposition (politics · Political science · Presumption · Sovereignty · Supreme court · Tort · Treaty · Corporate Law and Human Rights · International Law and Aviation · International Law and Human Rights · Law
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |