抄録
The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) provides that "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." 28 U.S.C. 1350 (2000). There was a considerable debate over whether the ATS merely provided subject matter jurisdiction or created a private cause of action for violations of customary international law. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain that although the ATS is a jurisdictional statute and thus does not create a new cause of action, federal courts may create a common law cause of action for a violation of an international norm that is specific, universal, and obligatory. This paper seeks to address several questions left unresolved by the Sosa court decision. First, the Court failed to set a definite standard for determining what constitutes an actionable international law claim under the ATS. Second, the Court recognized customary international law as federal common law and authorized federal courts to craft a remedy under the federal common law. But, such a practice by federal courts may be repugnant to the principle of federalism pronounced in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938). Finally, treating customary international law as federal common law or a part of "the laws of the United States" within the meaning of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution may adversely affect traditional state prerogatives. In the end, this paper argues that the Sosa Court should have resolved these issues before creating an exception to this otherwise purely jurisdictional statute.
