Editando Alien Tort Statute (sección)

== Historia ==
La ATS forma parte de la [[Ley judicial de 1789]].<ref>Ch. 20, § 9, 1 Stat. 73 (1789).</ref> Hay muy poco [[historia legislativa]] referente a esta acta, y su significado original y propósito son desconocidos.<ref>Carolyn A. D'Amore, Note, ''[[Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain]] and the Alien Tort Statute: How Wide Has the Door to Human Rights Litigation Been Left Open?'', 39 Akron L. Rev. 593, 596 (2006); William R. Casto, ''The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations'', 18 Conn. L. Rev. 467, 468-69 (1985-1986).</ref><ref>{{Cita web |url=http://www.hlrecord.org/news/debate-did-founders-want-u-s-courts-to-look-abroad-for-monsters-to-destroy-1.937204 |título=Copia archivada |fechaacceso=22 de mayo de 2011 |urlarchivo=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929214220/http://www.hlrecord.org/news/debate-did-founders-want-u-s-courts-to-look-abroad-for-monsters-to-destroy-1.937204 |fechaarchivo=29 de septiembre de 2011 }}</ref> Sin embargo, los estudiosos han conjeturado que actuaría para asegurar a gobiernos extranjeros que los Estados Unidos actuarían para prevenir y remediar violaciones del derecho internacional consuetudinario, especialmente aquellas concernientes a diplomáticos y comerciantes.<ref>Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, Awakening Monster: The Alien Tort Statute of 1789 3 (2003), ISBN 978-0-88132-366-5.</ref> 
<!--
The ATS may have been enacted in response to a number of international incidents caused by the unavailability of remedies for foreign citizens in the United States.<ref>John Haberstroh, ''The Alien Tort Claims Act & Doe v. Unocal: A Paquete Habana Approach to the Rescue'', 32 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 231, 239-41 (2004).</ref> For example, the peace treaty ending the [[American Revolution]] provided for the satisfaction of debts to British creditors. The refusal of some states to enforce the payment of such debts prompted Great Britain to threaten to retaliate. In 1784, French diplomat [[François Barbé-Marbois]] was assaulted, but no remedy was available to him. The incident was notorious internationally and prompted Congress to draft a resolution asking the states to allow suits in tort for the violation of the law of nations. However, few states enacted such a provision, and Congress subsequently included the ATS in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

From 1789 until 1980, only two courts had based jurisdiction on the ATS.<ref>Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, ''International Implications of the Alien Tort Statute'', 16 St. Thomas L. Rev. 607, 609 (2004).</ref> In 1980, however, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] decided ''[[Filartiga v. Pena-Irala]]'', which "paved the way for a new conceptualization of the ATS."<ref>''Id.''</ref>  First, the Second Circuit held in ''Filartiga'' that the ATS, which allowed jurisdiction in the federal courts over a suit between two aliens, was constitutional, because "the law of nations...has always been part of the federal common law," and thus the statute fell within [[federal-question jurisdiction]].<ref>''Filartiga v. Pena-Irala'', 630 F.2d 876, 885 (2d Cir. 1980)</ref> ''Filartiga'' then held that violations of contemporary international norms, including violations of modern international [[human rights]], are actionable under the ATS. 

Since ''Filartiga'', jurisdiction under the ATS has been upheld in dozens of cases.<ref>Beth Stephens, ''Judicial Deference and the Unreasonable Views of the Bush Administration'', 33 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 773, 813 (2008).</ref> The only [[United States Supreme Court]] case directly addressing the ATS is the 2004 case ''[[Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain]]''.  The ''Sosa'' Court clarified that the ATS did not create a cause of action, but instead merely "furnish[ed] jurisdiction for a relatively modest set of actions alleging violations of the law of nations."<ref>''Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain'', 542 U.S. 692, 720 (2004)</ref> Noting that it must take "great caution in adapting the law of nations to private rights,"<ref>''Id.'' at 728.</ref> the Court nonetheless upheld the applicability of the ATS to actions committed abroad that violate contemporary customary international law, but held that the recognition of new causes of action should be subject to "vigilant doorkeeping."<ref>''Id.'' at 729.</ref>

In 2009, there were several important U.S. courts cases under the ATS, upholding dismissal of cases filed against corporations under the ATS.<ref>Lee G. Dunst, “Human Rights Overseas, “ The New York Law Journal (Oct. 26, 2009) (http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202434733552&GC_New_York_Guide_Global_Business).</ref> The exercise of federal jurisdiction in the United States over human rights cases arising out of actions in Nigeria and South Africa spurred debate and controversy over the ATS.  Some have called for the US Congress to eliminate the statute<ref>{{cite news|title= Rights Case Gone Wrong | date = 19 de abril de 2009| publisher= The Washington Post | url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041702859.html | first1=Curtis A. | last1=Bradley | first2=Jack L. | last2=Goldsmith | accessdate=23 de abril de 2010}}</ref> while others have argued for a multilateral solution through the OECD or UN.<ref>{{cita noticia|título= Trying an Old Law | fecha = 1 de junio de 2009| editorial= The New York Times | url=  
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/opinion/02iht-edmedish.html?ref=global | first1=Mark C. | last1=Medish | first2=Daniel R. | last2=Lucich | fechaacceso=23 de abril de 2010}}</ref>
-->