This week in jurisdictionality

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Jordan J. Paust says:

    There are at least three district courts that have recognized that 1331 provides an alternative basis for suits under customary international law (as we note in our West Casebook, International Law and Litigation in the U.S. (3 ed. 2007)). And consider the recognition in Ex parte Quirin that the S.Ct. has applied the customary laws of war since the beginning of our national government without a federal statute directly implementing such law (even for criminal sanction purposes) until the 1916 Act addressed therein (which incorporated all violations of the laws of war as offenses against the laws of the United States, which today exists through 10 USC 818 — and fed. dist. cts. have jurisdiction therefore under 18 USC 3231 and 28 USC 1331. See also Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the U.S. sec. 111.
    Concerning the early ATCA or ATS (1350) cases, see
    Kiobel should not involve inquiry whether corporations can have duties and rights under treaty-based and customary international law because 20 Supreme Court cases have done so alread.
    With respect to extraterritoriality, Va. J. Int’l L. Digest (on line) should have my essay relatively soon.

  2. Jordan J. Paust says:

    — ooopps, wrong casebook date. It is 3 ed. 2009