ATS and the lack of corporate liability under International Law
For those interest in the fate of the american ATS, see the recent order of the US District Court of the Southern District of Indiana here (a summary of the decision by Antoine Martin, PhD reasearcher in International Law at the University of Surrey and editor of International Law Notepad website, may also be found here).
Dear Marta,
May I had a short comment to your suggestion please? As I noted in a recent Note on the Int’Law Notepad, the Flomo dismissal is interesting for at least two reasons.
First, it found that the Kiobel majority’s rule conflicted with the law in the Eleventh Circuit, and suggested that “courts not only have jurisdiction to decide whether corporations may be civilly liable under the ATS, (while) corporations are, in fact, liable.
Second, the dismissal nevertheless recognised the Kiobel arguments as ‘compelling’, and overall emphasised that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a legally cognizable claim because no corporate liability exists under the ATS.
http://internationallawnotepad.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/boimah-flomo-firestone-actacorporate-liability/