218 Pages
English

Private law remedies for extraterritorial human rights violations [Elektronische Ressource] / vorgelegt von Eric Engle

-

Gain access to the library to view online
Learn more

Description

Private Law Remedies for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Fakultät für Rechtswissenschaft der Universität Bremen vorgelegt von Eric Engle (geb. in New York) Gutachter: 1. Prof. Dr. Gert Brüggemeier 2. Prof. Dr. Josef Falke Kolloquium am: 30. Januar 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................7 Limits of the Inquiry ..........................................................................................7 Interest of th.........................................................................................8 Research Objectives ...........................................................................................9 Problématique .....................................................................................................8 Method ................................................................................................................9 Existing Literature ..............................................................................................9 Outline ................................................................................................................9 Chapter I: The Torture Victim’s Protection Act, the Alien Tort Claims Act, and Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge .................................................13 Abstract .................................

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Published 01 January 2006
Reads 15
Language English

Private Law Remedies
for Extraterritorial Human Rights Violations
Inauguraldissertation
zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde
der Fakultät für Rechtswissenschaft
der Universität Bremen
vorgelegt von
Eric Engle
(geb. in New York) Gutachter: 1. Prof. Dr. Gert Brüggemeier
2. Prof. Dr. Josef Falke
Kolloquium am: 30. Januar 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ......................................................................................................7
Limits of the Inquiry ..........................................................................................7
Interest of th.........................................................................................8
Research Objectives ...........................................................................................9
Problématique .....................................................................................................8
Method ................................................................................................................9
Existing Literature ..............................................................................................9
Outline ................................................................................................................9
Chapter I:
The Torture Victim’s Protection Act, the Alien Tort Claims Act,
and Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge .................................................13
Abstract ............................................................................................................13
Introduction ......................................................................................................14
I. The ATCA and the TVPA ...........................................................................14
A. Obstacles to Succeeding Under the ATCA/TVPA ................................17
1. Jurisdictional Requirements ..............................................................17
2. Exhaustion .........................................................................................18
3. Comity ...............................................................................................18
4. Forum non conveniens .......................................................................18
5. Act of State Doctrine .........................................................................19
6. Political Question Doctrine ...............................................................21
7. Immunity ............................................................................................22
8. Burdens of Proof ................................................................................25
II. Foucault – A Methodological Framework to Understand Torture .............26
III. The Use of Torture: A Shameful Chapter in the History of European
Society .........................................................................................................28
A. Theory of Torture ...................................................................................30
B. Four Reasons Why Torture Disappeared ...............................................31
IV. Contemporary Events .................................................................................33
V. Conclusion ...................................................................................................36
Chapter II:
Alvarez-Machain v. United States and Alvarez-Machain v. Sosa:
The Brooding Omnipresence of Natural Law .............................................37
Abstract ............................................................................................................37
I. Introduction .................................................................................................38 A. The Issues Presented to the Supreme Court in Sosa ..............................40
B. The Unsettled Issues which caused the Sosa Court to grant certiorari ..42
1. What Substantive Law is to be Applied? ..........................................42
2. Does the ATS Only Apply to Violations of Jus Cogens? .................43
II. Practical Analysis: The Issues the Justice Department and its Agent Sosa
Presented ......................................................................................................44
A. “Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug
Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce
a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against
a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted
criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country” .....................44
1. Customary International Law Prohibits Abduction by one State
of any Person in another State Absent Consent of that State ............45
2. Customary International Law as Part of the Common Law:
The Kidnapping of Alvarez-Machain was Illegal under
Common Law ....................................................................................46
a. Comparative Law: Customary International Law is an Integral
Part of the Common Law in Britain, Canada, and Australia ........47
b. Legal History: Customary International Law has been Part
of the Common Law for Centuries ...............................................48
i. What Blackstone can tell us about the Alien Tort Statute .......48
ii. What Coke can tell us about the Alien Tort Statute ................51
3. The Government’s Abduction, while Illegal under International
Law may have been Legal under National Law if a statute had
displaced the customary law. In all events, the Government’s
Abduction was Constitutional ...........................................................53
B. Is the Alien Tort Statute solely a grant of jurisdiction, or does it
provide a cause of action for aliens who are victimized by tortious
violations of international law? ..............................................................55
C. “If it is proper to imply or create a cause of action under the ATS,
whether those actions should be limited to suits for violations
of international legal norms to which the United States has assented” .63
1. Plain Meaning Argument – The ATS facially does not distinguish
between jus cogens norms and other rules of international law ........66
2. Historical Argument – At the time of drafting of the ATS
international law did not distinguish between jus cogens
norms and ordinary rules of international law ...................................66
3. Systematic Argument – The hermeneutic separation of the
international legal system into a “public-state” and “private-
international” sphere did not exist a the time of the drafting
2of the ATS, is increasingly ignored today, and provides
no argument, that the ATS address only jus cogens violations .........67
4. Individual Rights under International Law .......................................68
a. Abduction ......................................................................................68
b. State Action ..................................................................................70
D. “Whether a detention that lasts less than 24 hours, results in no
physical harm to the detainee, and is undertaken by a private
individual under instructions from senior United States law
enforcement officials, constitutes a tort in violation of the
law of nations actionable under the ATS” .............................................72
III. Theoretical Synthesis: The Natural Law/Positivism Dichotomy in Sosa ..73
A. The False Dichotomy of Positivism and Natural law ............................74
1. Aristotle .............................................................................................74
2. Hobbes ................................................................................................78
B. The Implications of Re-Cognizing the False Dichotomy
of “Naturalism v. Positivism” ................................................................81
C. Examining the ATS in Light of the False Dichotomy ...........................83
IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................84
A. Aristotle and Hobbes ..............................................................................85
B. Sosa and Machain ...................................................................................86
Chapter III:
U.S. Corporate Liability for Torts of (Foreign) Subsidiaries ....................89
Abstract ............................................................................................................89
Introduction ......................................................................................................90
A. Practical Scenarios ..................................................................................92
B. Historical Perspective .............................................................................94
I. Imputed Liability .........................................................................................96
A. Respondeat Superior ...............................................................................97
B. Liability based on a Theory of Agency ..................................................97
II. Direct Liability ............................................................................................98
A. Joint and Several Liability ......................................................................98
B. Fraud .......................................................................................................99
C. Piercing the Corporate Veil – Theories of Veil Piercing .......................99
1. The Alter Ego Theory ......................................................................100
2. The Identity Theory .........................................................................101
3. The Instrumentality Theory .............................................................101
4. Fraud as the Basis for Piercing the Corporate Veil .........................102
5. Piercing the Corporate Veil under a Theory of Agency ..................102
6. Balancing Tests ................................................................................103
7. Reverse Piercing the Corporate Veil ...............................................105
3D. Independent Contractors/Subcontractors .............................................105
E. RICO .....................................................................................................106
III. Piercing the Corporate Veil in the EU: Liability of a Parent
Company in the EU for the Tortious Act of a Subsidiary .........................107
Conclusion: The Transnational Corporate Group in International Law ........109
Chapter IV:
Corporate Social Responsibiliy (CSR): Market Based Remedies
for International Human Rights Violations? .............................................113
Abstract ..........................................................................................................113
Introduction ....................................................................................................114
A. The International Legal Personality of Non-State Actors ....................117
1. Multinational Corporations .............................................................117
2. Individuals .......................................................................................119
3. Limits on the International Legal Personality of Non-State Actors 120
4. Conclusion .......................................................................................121
B. Market Based Remedies .......................................................................121
1. Disincentives for Unethical Action .................................................121
2. Incentives to Act Ethically ..............................................................122
C. Corporate Governance ..........................................................................123
1. Non-Binding Codes of Conduct ......................................................123
a. Advantages of Codes of Conduct ...............................................124
b. Disadvantages of Codes of Conduct ...........................................124
2. Shareholder Activism through Shareholder Proposals ....................125
3. Prohibition of Deceptive Trade Practices ........................................127
4. Reform Proposals ............................................................................128
a. Taxation ......................................................................................128
b. Securities Regulations .................................................................128
c. Annual Reporting Requirements / Social Audits ........................129
D. Lex Mercatoria .....................................................................................130
Conclusion ......................................................................................................131
Chapter V:
Alien Torts in Europe? Human Rights and Tort in European Law .......133
Abstract ..........................................................................................................133
Part I: Private Law Protection of Human Rights in various
Member States of the European Union ...........................................134
Introduction ...............................................................................................134
I. The Common Law: Tort Remedies to Human Rights .........................136
4A. Common Law Doctrines Common to both British
and U.S. Law in Transnational Law ................................................137
1. Immunity .....................................................................................137
2. Act of State Doctrine ..................................................................137
3. Comity ........................................................................................138
4. Forum non conveniens ................................................................139
5. International Law and the Common Law ...................................139
B. Extraterritorial Human Rights Protection
in Domestic British Law: The Pinochet Cases ................................140
Synthesis ..........................................................................................147
1. Arguments for Torts in the Common Law
Based on Crimes in Customary International Law .....................147
2. Human Rights Protection through the Ordinary
Common Law Tort Regime ........................................................150
II. Tort Remedies to Human Rights Violations in Civil Code Countries .150
A. France ..............................................................................................150
1. Customary Law ...........................................................................152
2. Statute Law .................................................................................153
a) A Hybrid of Tort and Crime: Action Civile ..........................153
b) Article 689 French Code of Criminal Procedure
(Code de Procédure Pénale) ...................................................155
3. Case Law .....................................................................................156
a) In Re Munyeshyaka ................................................................156
b) In Re Javor .............................................................................157
B. Belgium ............................................................................................160
1. The New Legislation ...................................................................161
2. The Action Civile in Belgium ....................................................162
3. Case Law 163
a) The Ariel Sharon Cases .........................................................163
b) Belgium v. Congo ...................................................................164
i. Immunity ...........................................................................164
ii. Relative and Universal Jurisdiction ..................................166
C. Senegal – The Habré Cases .............................................................169
D. Germany ..........................................................................................172
1. German Statute Law ...................................................................172
a) Adhäsionsverfahren ...............................................................172
b) § 7 German Criminal Code (StGB) .......................................173
2. German Case Law .......................................................................174
a) Malenkovic .............................................................................174
b) The Distomo Case ..................................................................178
5Synthesis: Private Law Protection of Human Rights
in the EU Member States ......................................................................180
Part II: Private Law Protection of Human Rights
under the European Convention of Human Rights .........................181
Introduction ...............................................................................................181
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) .............................181
A. The Terms of the European Convention on Human Rights ............181
1. Article 1 ECHR ...........................................................................181
2. Article 5 – Right to Liberty and Security ...................................184
3. Article 3 – Freedom from Torture ..............................................184
4. Article 6 – Right to a Fair Trial ..................................................185
5. Article 13 – Right to an Effective Remedy ................................185
B. Cases Litigated under the Convention .............................................187
1. Bankovic ......................................................................................187
2. Al-Adsani ....................................................................................189
3. Brumarescu& Loizidou: Extraterritoriality and Expropriation .191
4. Tugar v. Italy ..............................................................................193
Conclusion .................................................................................................194
Statutes, Cases, Bibliography ......................................................................197
Constitutions ...................................................................................................197
Conventions, Treaties and U.N. Documents ..................................................197
Statutes ...........................................................................................................198
Cases ...............................................................................................................198
International Court of Justice (ICJ) ................................................................198
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ...................................................198
European Court of Justice ..............................................................................199
Common Law Jurisdictions ............................................................................199
Australia .........................................................................................................199
Canada ............................................................................................................199
Eire .................................................................................................................199
United Kingdom .............................................................................................199
United States ..................................................................................................200
Civil Law Jurisdictions ...................................................................................207
France .............................................................................................................207
Belgium ..........................................................................................................207
Senegal ...........................................................................................................208
Germany .........................................................................................................208
Greece .............................................................................................................208
Books & Articles ............................................................................................208
Briefs of Litigants ...........................................................................................216
6
Introduction
The rise of privately enforceable rights in national courts based on substantive
international law is an undeniable global phenomenon. Private rights are one
response to the necessity of legal institutions to cope with globalisation. More-
over, the existence of privately enforceable rights is one more piece of evi-
dence that the state-centred international system has undergone fundamental
and irreversible change in the last 50 years. Privately enforceable rights and
corresponding private duties based in substantive international law and enfor-
ceable in domestic courts are also evidence that monist theories of internatio-
nal law are empirically more correct than dualist theories. Finally, privately
enforceable human rights undermine the claims of realism to primacy in inter-
national relations theory. Realism posits that international relations are funda-
mentally based on power politics and are zero sum. The rise of trading blocs,
privatisation, and individual human rights all demonstrate the des-integration
of the state due to globalisation and localisation and tend to invalidate the rea-
lists. For all these reasons, the issue of private law rights under international
law is a timely topic.
Our examination centres on one aspect of this complex of problems: the
availability and limits of private law remedies to human rights violations –
largely, torts. This thesis presents a comparative inquiry into those rights and
duties based on international law recognized in national legal orders. Happily,
and perhaps surprisingly, tort law can contribute to the defense of human
rights. But that possibility is qualified by numerous serious limitations: proce-
durally, litigants usually invoke universal jurisdiction in cases of human rights
violations heard in first world courts. Jurisdiction to adjudicate is usually
accepted without problem. But precisely because certain violations of human
rights are of universal concern there are numerous jurisdictional limitations on
substantive rights while very real are not insurmountable. That is the principal
contradiction of international tort law: the theoretical availability of universal
rights, contradicted by the practical unavailability of relief, theoretically due to
jurisdictional limitations, practically due to judgement proof defendants. The
practical and procedural limitations are not however so great as to extinguish
or obviate all human rights claims in private law.
Limits of the Inquiry
The thesis limits its inquiry to a few countries. Principally, the United States,
and secondarily Britain, France, Belgium, and Germany. The law of Senegal, a
former French colony, is also examined briefly as is Israeli and Greek law. All
countries examined permit some form of extraterritorial human rights enforce-
ment including private law enforcement. In practice, most countries examined
7
permit private law enforcement for human rights violations. Numerous count-
ries could not be examined due to limits on space and language. For example,
Spain offers generous extraterritorial human rights protection but is not exa-
mined. Extraterritorial jurisdiction in Eastern Europe was not examined. The
thesis limits itself to a discussion of private law rights, principally under inter-
national law, though complementary remedies in domestic law such as the
TVPA (Torture Victim Protection Act) are considered secondarily.
Interest of the Inquiry
A technological revolution has resulted in a smaller world. Global communica-
tion is instant and inexpensive. Transportation is also increasingly inexpensive.
The result is a world that is more and more closely integrated economically.
This process is described as globalisation.
Globalisation requires instruments of governance. The telecom and transporta-
tion revolutions allow, even necessitate, the creation of subnational and super-
national governance. The devolution of state power by privatisation, decentra-
lisation, and the sublimation of state power to transnational and global govern-
ing bodies (EU, WTO, NAFTA, MERCOSUR, etc.). This twin phenomena,
globalisation and devolution, explains why private remedies are of increasing
importance.
Research Objectives
The objectives of this work are as follows:
1. To determine whether extraterritorial jurisdiction in U.S. law is consistent
with U.S. international obligations. I conclude that the ATS (Alien Tort Sta-
tute) and TVPA are not at all idiosyncratic.
2. To determine whether and how private law remedies can reduce violations
of international human rights laws. I conclude that private law can and does
play an important supplementary role in the defence of human rights.
3. To determine how European and U.S. laws can influence each other to
improve protection of human rights globally. I note that both EU and U.S. laws
permit extraterritorial defence of human rights in their domestic private law
but that they use different instruments to do so. The U.S. appears to rely prima-
rily on private law remedies and secondarily on criminal prosecution. The EU
in contrast relies primarily on criminal law (public law) first but does accord
private law a secondary role in defence of human rights. The normative con-
clusion is obvious: the U.S. and the EU can each learn from the other.
Problématique
The guiding star of this work is simple: Most human rights abuse occurs in the
third world. Some human rights abuse in the third world is profitable and
8