Abstract
In order to litigate a claim in federal court, plaintiffs must show both federal subject matter jurisdiction and a basis for the private right to sue or cause of action. Sosa clarified the central choice of law issues in Alien Tort Statute (ATS) cases by holding: (1) the substantive violation is governed by international law; and (2) federal common law provides the cause of action and, therefore, governs non-substantive issues. Several courts have applied the federal common law choice of law reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (the Restatement). The Supreme Court in Sosa recognized that federal common law provides the cause of action in ATS claims, thus ratifying the Filartiga approach. Choice of law questions arise in several contexts in ATS cases, including the statute of limitations, standing to sue, damages, and abatement. Keywords: Alien Tort Statute (ATS) cases; federal common law; Filartiga approach; Sosa ; Supreme Court
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
