skip to Main Content

Book Review: Foreign Policy of the European Union—Assessing Europe’s Role in the World. By Federiga Bindi and Irina Angelescu (eds.)

For­eign Pol­i­cy of the Euro­pean Union—Assessing Europe’s Role in the World sets out to treat the for­eign rela­tions of the EU in a holis­tic, all-encom­pass­ing man­ner. For this pur­pose the book is divid­ed into five parts, each of which devel­ops a dif­fer­ent per­spec­tive on the EU’s exter­nal actions.

Read More

Of Great Fears and Greater Hopes: The GPH-MILF Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro

By: Celeste Marie R. Cruz[*]

Pro­logue

Peace and eco­nom­ic devel­op­ment have long remained elu­sive to the con­flict-torn region of Mus­lim Min­danao in the Philip­pines. Since the late 1960s, the Con­flict in Min­danao, led by a seces­sion­ist inde­pen­dence move­ment of the Islam­ic minor­i­ty in a pre­dom­i­nant­ly Catholic coun­try,[1] has led to an enor­mous loss of life and suf­fer­ing, claim­ing an esti­mat­ed 120,000 lives and dis­plac­ing more than 2 mil­lion peo­ple.[2] The ongo­ing peace process between the Gov­ern­ment of the Repub­lic of the Philip­pines (GPH), under Pres­i­dent Benig­no Aquino III, and the Moro Islam­ic Lib­er­a­tion Front (MILF) reached a sig­nif­i­cant mile­stone with the sign­ing of the Frame­work Agree­ment on the Bangsamoro[3] (Frame­work) last Octo­ber 15, 2012. The Frame­work seeks to estab­lish a “fed­er­al” type of sub-state in the said region[4] that is cur­rent­ly under the juris­dic­tion of the Autonomous Region in Mus­lim Min­dano (ARMM).

Read More

Some Quick Thoughts on Transnational Human Rights Litigation in American Courts After Kiobel

By: Pro­fes­sor Burt Neuborne [*]

The hope that the ATS would per­mit entre­pre­neur­ial lawyers to chore­o­graph inter­na­tion­al human rights cas­es involv­ing: (1) alien plain­tiffs; (2) alien cor­po­rate defen­dants; and (3) acts whol­ly occur­ring abroad into an Amer­i­can court in an effort to take advan­tage of Amer­i­can dis­cov­ery rules, Rule 23 class actions, and an inde­pen­dent judi­cia­ry is now his­to­ry. All nine Jus­tices in Kio­bel slammed that door, which was prob­a­bly a pipe dream in the first place. Chief Jus­tice Roberts, writ­ing for five Jus­tices, includ­ing the mad­den­ing­ly vague Jus­tice Kennedy, ruled that the pre­sump­tion against extrater­ri­to­r­i­al leg­is­la­tion blocked use of the ATS as a source of fed­er­al juris­dic­tion when nei­ther the plain­tiffs, nor the defen­dants, nor the oper­a­tive facts had a sig­nif­i­cant link with the ter­ri­to­r­i­al Unit­ed States. Mere cor­po­rate pres­ence for the pur­pos­es of gen­er­al juris­dic­tion over the defen­dant could not, ruled the Chief Jus­tice, con­sti­tute the sig­nif­i­cant link to the ter­ri­to­r­i­al Unit­ed States need­ed to rebut the pre­sump­tion against extrater­ri­to­r­i­al leg­is­la­tion.

Read More

Earlier Supreme Court Jurisprudence Shows Hope Not Lost for Those Seeking Corporate Accountability in U.S. Courts

By: Carey Shenkman[*]

Wednes­day, the U.S. Supreme Court set a deeply alarm­ing prece­dent in its deci­sion in Kio­bel v. Roy­al Dutch Petro­le­um, hold­ing in sub­stance 5–4 that the pre­sump­tion against extrater­ri­to­ri­al­i­ty defends cor­po­ra­tions from being held account­able for human rights abus­es like tor­ture, rape, and mur­der com­mit­ted in oth­er coun­tries. For years, U.S. courts were the only recourse for vic­tims from coun­tries with pow­er­less, dys­func­tion­al, or cor­rupt judi­cial sys­tems. Their cas­es were a rare check on the con­duct of our com­pa­nies and their sub­sidiaries abroad.

Read More

R.I.P. A.T.S.? How much of the Alien Tort Statute survives the Supreme Court’s Kiobel Decision?

This morn­ing, the Supreme Court dis­missed the human rights claims of a group of Niger­ian nation­als against Roy­al Dutch Petro­le­um (Shell) under the Alien Tort Statute (A.T.S.) in a 9–0 deci­sion, though the jus­tices split 5–4 as to the rea­son­ing. For the orig­i­nal opin­ion, see: Kio­bel v. Roy­al Dutch Petro­le­um Co., 569 U.S. ___ (2013)

Jus­tice Roberts deliv­ered the opin­ion of the Court on behalf of 5 jus­tices. First, the Court held that the pre­sump­tion against extrater­ri­to­ri­al­i­ty, explained with force in Mor­ri­son v. Nation­al Aus­tralia Bank, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), applies to the statute and the fed­er­al com­mon law cause of action under the statute. Sec­ond, the court found noth­ing in the statute’s lan­guage or his­to­ry to rebut the pre­sump­tion. Third, there are no facts to rebut the pre­sump­tion in the instant case. Fourth and final­ly, the Court jus­ti­fies its solu­tion as pre­vent­ing the ‘diplo­mat­ic strife’ that may arise from judi­cial inter­fer­ence in for­eign pol­i­cy, an area that is tra­di­tion­al­ly reserved to the polit­i­cal branch­es. The Court implied that even if the pri­ma­ry norm that cre­at­ed the cause of action might not cause strife, the judi­cial search for sec­ondary rules (such as cor­po­rate lia­bil­i­ty) may still do so.

Read More

Fate of the Unilateral Option Clause Finally Decided in Russia

By: Yele­na E. Archiyan[*]

For years, arbi­tra­tion courts in Rus­sia have upheld over and over again the valid­i­ty of the so called uni­lat­er­al option clause (“UOC). But every­thing changed on June 19, 2012, when the Pre­sid­i­um[1] of the high­est arbi­tra­tion court of the Russ­ian Fed­er­a­tion[2] held in Russ­ian Tele­phone Com­pa­ny v. Sony Eric­s­son Mobile Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Rus that such claus­es are invalid and unen­force­able.[3] In 2009, Russ­ian Tele­phone Com­pa­ny (“RTC”) entered into an agree­ment with the Russ­ian sub­sidiary of Sony Eric­s­son, Sony Eric­s­son Mobile Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Rus (“Sony Eric­s­son”) for the dis­tri­b­u­tion of Sony Eric­s­son phones.

Read More

Opinio Juris Online Symposium for Vol. 45, No. 1

The NYU Jour­nal of Inter­na­tion­al Law and Pol­i­tics is proud to once again part­ner with Opinio Juris for an online sym­po­sium around Jenia Iontche­va Turner’s arti­cle, Polic­ing Inter­na­tion­al Pros­e­cu­tors. Over the next two days, a num­ber of schol­ars will be respond­ing to Pro­fes­sor Turner’s arti­cle that was pub­lished in our Vol­ume 45, No. 1 issue.

To fol­low that dia­logue, please vis­it to Opinio Juris.

Read More
Back To Top
Search