(1) Filártiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980). For a discussion of the Filártiga case, see, e.g., Blum/Steinhard, Federal Jurisdiction Over International Human Rights Claims: the Alien Tort Claims Act After Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 22 HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 53 (1981); George, Defining Filartiga: Characterizing International Torture Claims in United States Courts, 3 DICKINSON JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1 (1984); Hassan, A Conflict of Philosophies: the Filartiga Jurisprudence, 32 INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUATERLY 150 (1983).Google Scholar

(2) For a recent survey of the existing case law, see, Rau, Domestic Adjudication of International Human Rights Abuses and the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens, 61 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES ÖFFENTLICHES RECHT UND VÖLKERRECHT, 176, 178 et seq. (2001). For a detailed analysis of human rights litigation in the U.S. federal courts, see, STEPHENS/RATNER, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION IN U.S. COURTS (1996).Google Scholar

(3) 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The ATCA reads: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” For a brief overview of the statute, see, Rau, Schadensersatzklagen wegen extraterritorial begangener Menschenrechtsverletzungen: der US-amerikanische Alien Tort Claims Act, 2000 PRAXIS DES INTERNATIONALEN PRIVAT- UND VERFAHRENSRECHTS 558 (2000).Google Scholar

(4) Tachiona v. Mugabe, 169 F.Supp.2d 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).Google Scholar

(5) See, e.g., Schaack, Van, In Defense of Civil Redress: The Domestic Enforcement of Human Rights Norms in the Context of the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention, 42 HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 141, 155 et seq. (2001); Murphy, Civil Liability for the Commission of International Crimes as an Alternative to Criminal Prosecution, 12 HARVARD HUMAN RIGHTS JOURNAL 1, 47 et seq. (1999).Google Scholar

(6) Stephens, Conceptualizing Violence Under International Law: Do Tort Remedies Fit the Crime?, 60 ALBANY LAW REVIEW 579, 581 (1997).Google Scholar

(7) In fact, there are only a few international human rights norms, such as the prohibitions of slavery and genocide, that also apply to private individuals. See, in this regard, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 240 et seq. (2nd Cir. 1995). For a discussion of the Karadzic decision, see, e.g., Aceves, Afirming the Law of Nations in U.S. Courts: The Karadzic Litigation and the Yugoslav Conflict, 14 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 137 (1996); Johnson, Kadic v. Karadzic and Doe I and II v. Karadzic: The Latest Stage in Alien Tort Act Jurisprudence, 39 GERMAN YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 434 (1996); Kunstle, Kadic v. Karadzic: Do Private Individuals Have Enforceable Rights and Obligations Under the Alien Tort Claims Act?, 6 DUKE JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 319 (1996); Lu, Jurisdicton over Non-State Activity under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 35 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW 531 (1997).Google Scholar

(8) Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 813 F.Supp. 22 (D.D.C. 1992), reversed, 26 F.3d 1166 (D.C.Cir. 1994). For a discussion of the Princz case, see, e.g., Bergen, Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany: Why the Courts Should Find that Violating Jus Cogens Norms Constitutes an Implied Waiver of Sovereign Immunity, 14 CONNECTICUT JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 169 (1999); Reimann, A Human Rights Exception to Sovereign Immunity: Some Thoughts on Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 16 MICHIGAN LAW JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 403 (1995).Google Scholar

(9) In the United States, foreign states are protected from suit by the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) (28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602-1611 [1988]), which does not contain a human rights exception to sovereign immunity (see, Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 [9th Cir. 1992]; Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany [note 8]). By contrast, it is not yet completely clear whether suits against state officials also trigger immunity. While current heads of state recognized by the United States enjoy absolute immunity from suit under the common law head-of-state immunity doctrine (see, Lafontant v. Aristide, 844 F.Supp. 128 [E.D.N.Y. 1994]), individuals acting within the scope of their official authority seem to be protected by the FSIA (see, Chuidian v. Philippine National Bank, 912 F.Supp 1095 [9th Cir. 1990]). Yet, in Hilao v.Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, 25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1994), the Ninth Circuit found that acts of torture, summary execution, and disappearance could not be qualified as acts taken within an official mandate and were therefore not immunized by the FSIA.Google Scholar

(10) See, e.g., Bianchi, , Denying State Immunity to Violators of Human Rights, 46 AUSTRIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 195 (1994); BRÖHMER, STATE IMMUNITY AND THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 196 (1997); Kokott, Mißbrauch und Verwirkung von Souveränitätsrechten bei gravierenden Völkerrechtsverstößen, in RECHT ZWISCHEN UMBRUCH UND BEWAHRUNG. VÖLKERRECHT – EUROPARECHT - STAATSRECHT. FESTSCHRIFT FÜR RUDOLF BERNHARDT 135, 148 et. seq. (Beyerlin, Bothe, Hofmann, Petersmann eds., 1995); LÜKE, DIE IMMUNITÄT STAATLICHER FUNKTIONSTRÄGER, 347 et seq (2000); Reimann (note 8).Google Scholar

(11) Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte, House of Lords, [1999] 2 W.L.R. 827.Google Scholar

(12) See, e.g., Bianchi, , Immunity versus Human Rights: The Pinochet Case, 10 EJIL 237, 264 (1999).Google Scholar

(13) ECHR, Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 November 2001, Application no. 35763/97, available at: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int>..>Google Scholar

(14) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, ETS no. 5 [hereinafter: the Convention].Google Scholar

(15) See, generally, Bröhmer (note 10), at 160 et seq.; HESS, STAATENIMMUNITÄT BEI DISTANZDELIKTEN 313 et seq (1992); Heß, Staatenimmunität bei Menschenrechtsverletzungen, in WEGE ZUR GLOBALISIERUNG DES RECHTS. FESTSCHRIFT FÜR ROLF A. SCHÜTZE ZUM 65. GEBURTSTAG 269, 282 et seq (Geimer ed., 1999).Google Scholar

(16) The text of the Act is reproduced in: 17 I.L.M. 1123 (1978).Google Scholar

(17) Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait and Others, Court of Appeal, Judgment of 21 January 1994, reprinted in: 100 I.L.R. 465 (1995).Google Scholar

(18) Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait and Others, Hight Court, Queen's Bench Division, Judgment of 15 March 1995, reprinted in: 103 I.L.R. 420 (1996).Google Scholar

(19) Supra, note 9.Google Scholar

(20) See, Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989); Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, supra, note 9; Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, supra, note 8.Google Scholar

(21) See, sections 2-11 of the 1978 State Immunity Act.Google Scholar

(22) Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait and Others, Court of Appeal, Judgment of 12 March 1996, reprinted in: 107 I.L.R. 537 (1997).Google Scholar

(23) See, Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, supra, note 9, at 718 et seq.: “Unfortunately, we do not write on a clean slate. We deal not only with customary international law, but with an affirmative Act of Congress, the FSIA. […]. Clearly, the FSIA does not specifically provide for an exception to sovereign immunity based on jus cogens. […]. [I]f violations of jus cogens committed outside the United States are to be exceptions to immunity, Congress must make them so. The fact that there has been a violation of jus cogens does not confer jurisdiction under the FSIA.”Google Scholar

(24) Article 1 of the Convention reads: “The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention”, article 13 provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”Google Scholar

(25) See, ECHR, A. v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; ECHR, Aksoy v. Turkey, Judgment of 18 December 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; ECHR, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, Judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII.Google Scholar

(26) ECHR, Soering v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161.Google Scholar

(27) ECHR, Golder v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18; ECHR, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, Judgment of 18 February 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I.Google Scholar

(28) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.Google Scholar

(29) The Court cited, inter alia, the Furundzjia judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY, Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Judgment of 10 December 1998, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T) in this context.Google Scholar

(30) Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-First Session, 3 May-23 July 1999, UN Doc. A/54/10 (Annex).Google Scholar

(31) Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War of 18 October 1907, Martens, NRG (3e série), Tome 3, 461.Google Scholar

(32) Court of First Instance of Leivadia, Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, Case No. 137/1997, Judgment of 30 October 1997, reprinted in: 50 REVUE HELLÉNIQUE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL 595 (1997). The decision was confirmed by the Greek Supreme Court on 4 May 2000. See, Areopag, Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, Case No. 11/2000, Judgment of 4 May 2000. For a discussion of the Distomo case, see, Dolzer, Der Areopag im Abseits, 54 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT 3525 (2001); Hobe, Durchbrechung der Staatenimmunität bei schweren Menschenrechtsverletzungen - NS-Delikte vor dem Areopag, 2001 IPRAX 368 (2001); Kempen, Der Fall Distomo: griechische Reparationsforderungen gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in TRADITION UND WELTOFFENHEIT DES RECHTS. FESTSCHRIFT FÜR HELMUT STEINBERGER 179 et seq (Cremer, Giegerich, Richter, Zimmermann eds., 2002).Google Scholar

(33) See, ATHENER ZEITUNG, 19 April 2002, at 1.Google Scholar

(34) See, supra, note 13, Dissenting Opinion of Judges Rozakis and Caflish joined by Judges Wildhaber, Costa, Cabral Barreto and Vajic; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ferrari Bravo; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Loucaides.Google Scholar

(35) ICJ, Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 11 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, 595, 658 (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Kreca), para. 101.Google Scholar

(36) Zimmermann, Sovereign Immunity and Violations of International Jus Cogens - Some Critical Remarks, 16 Michigan Journal of International Law 433, 438 (1995). For a comprehensive discussion of the legal consequences of international jus cogens, see, KADELBACH, ZWINGENDES VÖLKERRECHT, 324 et seq.Google Scholar

(37) See, Rensmann, , Internationale Verbrechen und Befreiung von staatlicher Gerichtsbarkeit, 1999 IPRAX 268, 272 et seq. (1999).Google Scholar

(38) Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte, supra, note 11, at 901 (per Lord Hutton); at 909 (per Lord Millet).Google Scholar

(39) United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, reprinted in: 23 I.L.M. 1027 (1984).Google Scholar

(40) Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte, supra, note 11, at 847 et seq. (per Lord Browne-Wilkinson); at 899 (per Lord Hutton); at 903 et seq. (per Lord Saville); at 913 et seq. (per Lord Millet).Google Scholar

(41) See, Judgment, supra, note 13, para. 61.Google Scholar

(42) It has sometimes been argued though that the provision of a civil remedy in the courts of a country other than the one in which the torture occurred was consistent with article 14 of the Torture Convention. See, INGELSE, THE UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE 362 et seq (2001); Rosen, The Alien Tort Claims Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: a Policy Solution, 6 CARDOZO JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW 461, 484 (1998); Schwartz, “And Tomorrow?” The Torture Victim Protection Act, 11 ARIZONA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW 271, 287 (1994). This was also contended by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp 162, 183 (note 25) (D.Mass. 1995). Yet, article 14 of the Torture Convention is, arguably, directed toward redress of torture occurring within the party's own territory and is thus referring only to the principle of territoriality. See, Lüke, supra, note 10, at 60 et seq.; Rau, supra, note 2, at 195.Google Scholar

(43) Bradley/Goldsmith, Pinochet and International Human Rights Litigation, 97 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 2129, 2158 (1999). See, also, Tomuschat, Individual Reparation Claims in Instances of Grave Human Rights Violations: The Position under General International Law, in STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE INDIVIDUAL. REPARATION IN INSTANCES OF GRAVE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1, 17 et seq (Randelzhofer and Tomuschat eds., 1999). According to Rensmann, supra, note 37, at 273, in particular in respect of large-scale human rights violations, national civil courts might be daunted by the task of reconciling the legitimate claims of all victims while at the same time avoiding the imposition of overwhelming financial burdens on the perpetrating state; cf. also Bröhmer, supra, note 10, at 205 et seq., who therefore wants to make the distinction between immunity protected and non-immune conduct according to the quantitative effects of the human rights abuses in question; similarly Lüke, supra, note 10, at 347 et seq.Google Scholar

(44) Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte, supra, note 11, at 914 (per Lord Millet).Google Scholar

(45) See, supra, note 9.Google Scholar

(46) See, Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte, supra, note 11, at 859 (per Lord Goff); at 881 (per Lord Hope); at 902 (per Lord Saville); at 906 et seq. (per Lord Millet); at 924 (per Lord Phillips).Google Scholar

(47) See, Bedermann, Dead Man's Hand: Reshuffling Foreign Sovereign Immunities in U.S. Human Rights Litigation, 25 GEORGIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW 255, 258 et seq. (1995/96).Google Scholar

(48) For a discussion of the current state of international immunity law in respect of civil suits against government officials who are alleged to have committed serious human rights violations, see, Lüke, supra, note 10, at 277 et seq.Google Scholar

(49) ICJ, Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium), Judgment of 14 February 2002, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/iCOBE/icobejudgment/icobe_ijudgment_20020214.PDF.Google Scholar

(50) Tomuschat, supra, note 43, at18 (note 46).Google Scholar