Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Labour Standards in International Economic Law pp 341–354Cite as

Transnational Labour Litigation: The Ups and Downs Under the Alien Tort Statute

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

When we consider the protection of labour rights, international standard-setting is only one aspect that deserves attention. What is equally important is the enforcement of these rights. Unfortunately, however, enforcement mechanisms are insufficient or unavailable in many developing countries. Therefore, victims of labour rights violations have turned to those jurisdictions where transnational corporations are incorporated in order to seek damages.

The contribution by Anja Seibert-Fohr addresses the question of how labour standards can be enforced by individuals in such domestic courts. Taking the example of the US Alien Torts Act (ATS) she describes the experience gained under this over 200 years-old statute which gives district courts jurisdiction of civil action by aliens for torts committed in violation of international law. While ATS litigation initially focused on grave human rights violations, such as torture and genocide, a number of civil suits have been brought by foreigners seeking damages for the violation of international labour standards over the past decade. The contribution describes what obstacles are faced by the plaintiffs and asks to what extent private litigation can contribute to the protection of labour standards abroad.

This article is written in the author’s personal capacity. It does not express opinions on behalf of the UN Human Rights Committee. The author is grateful to Torsten Stirner for his very thorough editing assistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Schaffer et al. (2014), chapter 19; Stephens (2014), pp. 179–198; Parrish (2013), pp. 25–43; Clapham (2014), pp. 535–538; Collingsworth (2002), p. 203 and Bradley (2001), p. 458.

  2. 2.

    Wuerth (2013), p. 601; Young (2015), pp. 1023–1127. In a number of cases suits have also been based on common law or the Torture Victim Protection Act.

  3. 3.

    Seibert-Fohr (2003), pp. 195–204. The case was eventually settled out of court.

  4. 4.

    U.S. District Court N.D. Alabama, Estate of Lacarno Rodriquez v. Drummond, 256 F.Supp.2d 1250 (N.D. Ala. 2003).

  5. 5.

    U.S. District Court S.D. Florida, Licea v. Curaçao Drydock Co., Inc., 584 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (S.D. FLA. 2008).

  6. 6.

    28 U.S.C. § 1350. The following account is based on a comprehensive update of my contribution in the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Seibert-Fohr (2015) and see also Seibert-Fohr and Wolfrum (2005), pp. 153–186.

  7. 7.

    For the history of the ATS, see Dodge (1996), pp. 221–258 and Paust (2004), pp. 249–66.

  8. 8.

    U.S. Supreme Court, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692, 723, 724 (2004) and Steinhardt (2004), pp. 587 et seq.

  9. 9.

    For a detailed account see Steinhardt and D’Amato (1999).

  10. 10.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).

  11. 11.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995); U.S. Court of Appeals, In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 25 F.3d 1467, 1475 (9th Cir. 1994) and U.S. Court of Appeals, Doe I v. Unocal Corporation, 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2002).

  12. 12.

    See e.g. California Superior Court, Union of Needletrades Industrial and Textiles Employees v. The Gap, Case No. 300474 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1999) and U.S. District Court N.D. Alabama, Rodriguez v. Drummond Co., 256 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (N.D. Ala. 2003).

  13. 13.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003); U.S. District Court C.D. California, Sarei et al. v. Rio Tinto Plc et al., 221 F.Supp.2nd 1116, 1140 (C.D. Cal. 2002) and U.S. Court of Appeals, Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran Inc., 197 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 1999). See also Anderson (2002), pp. 399–425.

  14. 14.

    ExxonMobil, Coca Cola, DelMonte, Nike, Royal Dutch/Shell, Texaco/Chevron, DaimlerChrysler, DynCorp, Drummond Company, Unocal, Occidental Petroleum und Total have been amongst the defendants.

  15. 15.

    The dismissal of the case was recently confirmed by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because Ford and IBM had not been sufficiently engaged in wrongdoings in the United States to hold them responsible for killings, torture and other serious human rights violations in South Africa under the ATS. U.S. Court of Appeals, Balintulo v. Ford Motor Co. , No. 14-4104 (2d Cir. 2015).

  16. 16.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) and U.S. Court of Appeals, Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc, 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2014).

  17. 17.

    U.S. District Court E.D. New York, Almog v. Arab Bank, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).

  18. 18.

    U.S. District Court N.D. California, Wang Xiaoning v. Yahoo!, Inc., Case No. 4:2007cv02151, 36 Media Law Reporter 1589 (Cal. Northern District Court 2007) (The Case was settled out of court).

  19. 19.

    E.g. suits brought by German forced labour victims. U.S. Court of Appeals, Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1994). See for the 1995 compensation agreement http://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/1997/January97/029fcs.htm. Accessed 15 Nov 2015.

  20. 20.

    Childress (2012), p. 713.

  21. 21.

    U.S. Supreme Court, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 (2004), part IV, B.

  22. 22.

    Similarly, accepted as the offences which the drafters of the law had in mind, namely offences against ambassadors and piracy: prohibition of arbitrary arrest does not fall under this modest number of international law violations carrying personal liability.

  23. 23.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 242–243 (2d Cir. 1995).

  24. 24.

    Ibid. See also U.S. District Court N.D. Alabama, Estate of Lacarno Rodriquez v. Drummond, 256 F.Supp.2d 1250 (N.D. Ala. 2003), para 3. b I and U.S. District Court C.D. California, Sarei et al. v. Rio Tinto Plc et al., 221 F.Supp.2nd 1116, 1139–1142 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

  25. 25.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 799 (9th Cir. 1986) and U.S. District Court C.D. California, Sarei et al. v. Rio Tinto Plc et al., 221 F.Supp.2nd 1116, 1149–1151 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

  26. 26.

    U.S. District Court of New Jersey, Iwanova v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.N.J. 1999) and U.S. District Court C.D. California, National Coalition Gov’t of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 329, 349 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

  27. 27.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995) and U.S. District Court C.D. California, Sarei et al. v. Rio Tinto Plc et al., 221 F.Supp.2nd 1116, 1140 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

  28. 28.

    U.S. District Court S.D. New York, Wiwa et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al., 2002 WL 319887 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), para 6 and U.S. Court of Appeals, United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754, 764 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995).

  29. 29.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 243–244 (2d Cir. 1995) and U.S. Court of Appeals, Doe I v. Unocal Corporation, 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2002).

  30. 30.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Doe I v. Unocal Corporation, 395 F.3d 932, 946 (9th Cir. 2002).

  31. 31.

    U.S. District Court S.D. New York, Wiwa et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al., 2002 WL 319887 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), para 6.

  32. 32.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Flores et al. v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation, 414 F 3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003); U.S. Court of Appeals, Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran Inc., 197 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 1999) and U.S. District Court C.D. California, Sarei et al. v. Rio Tinto Plc et al., 221 F.Supp.2nd 1116, 1160 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

  33. 33.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Flores et al. v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation, 414 F 3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003).

  34. 34.

    For labour standards under the ATS, see Köbele (2009), pp. 123–149.

  35. 35.

    ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, International Labour Conference, adopted on 18 June 1998 and Annex revised 15 June 2010.

  36. 36.

    Köbele (2009), p. 134. But see Pagnattaro (2004), pp. 250–254.

  37. 37.

    U.S. Supreme Court, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 (2004), part IV, C.

  38. 38.

    ILO Convention No. 87 on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, adopted 9 July 1948 and entry into force 4 July 1950, 68 UNTS 17.

  39. 39.

    ILO Convention No. 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, adopted 1 July 1949 and entry into force 18 July 1951, 96 UNTS 257.

  40. 40.

    Köbele (2009), p. 142. See also U.S. District Court S.D. Florida, Villeda Aldana v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (S.D. Fla. 2003). But see U.S. District Court N.D. Alabama, Estate of Lacarno Rodriquez v. Drummond, 256 F.Supp.2d 1250 (N.D. Ala. 2003) and U.S. District Court S.D. Florida, Estate of Winston Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2001).

  41. 41.

    Pagnattaro (2004), pp. 230–254.

  42. 42.

    With respect to child forced labour see U.S. District Court S.D. Indiana, Roe v. Bridgestone, 492 F.2d 988, 1010–1015 (S.D. Ind. 2007). The case was later dismissed on other grounds. For an early recognition of forced labour as a possible cause of action see U.S. District Court of New Jersey, Iwanova v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.N.J. 1999) and U.S. District Court C.D. California, National Coalition Gov’t of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 329 (C.D. Cal. 1997). See also U.S. Court of Appeals, Doe I v. Unocal Corporation, 395 F.3d 932, 946 (9th Cir. 2002).

  43. 43.

    Köbele (2009), pp. 146, 148.

  44. 44.

    Wendle (2014), pp. 447–483. According to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co., 643 F.3d 1013, 1022 (7th Cir. 2011), the prohibition of child labour was too vague for customary international law.

  45. 45.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Doe v. Nestlé USA, 766 F.3d 1013, 1028 (9th Cir. 2014). For another child labour case see Bergman (2011), pp. 455–479.

  46. 46.

    ILO Convention No. 182 Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor, adopted 17 June 1999, entry into force 19 November 2000, 2133 UNTS 161.

  47. 47.

    Köbele (2009), p. 139. But see U.S. Court of Appeals, Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co., 643 F.3d 1013, 1022 (7th Cir. 2011).

  48. 48.

    Wendle (2014), p. 482. See also U.S. District Court C.D. California, Doe v. Nestle SA, 748 F.Supp. 2d 1057, 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2010) and U.S. Court of Appeals, Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co., 643 F.3d 1013, 1022, 1023 (7th Cir. 2011). For the difficulty to distinguish between child labour that violates customary international law from those rules which do not constitute such violations see U.S. District Court S.D. Indiana, Roe v. Bridgestone, 492 F.2d 988, 1020 (S.D. Ind. 2007).

  49. 49.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Sinaltrainal v Coca-Cola Co., 578 F 3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009). See also U.S. Court of Appeals, Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co., 643 F.3d 1013, 1021–1022 (7th Cir. 2011); U.S. Court of Appeals, Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC, 671 F.3d 736, 748 (9th Cir. 2011); U.S. Court of Appeals, Romero v. Drummond Co., 552 F.3d 1303, 1315 (11th Cir. 2008); U.S. Court of Appeals, Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11, 57 (D.C. Cir. 2011) and U.S. Court of Appeals, Doe v. Nestlé USA, 766 F.3d 1013, 1021–1023 (9th Cir. 2014).

  50. 50.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 621 F.3d 111, 145, 176 (2d Cir. 2010).

  51. 51.

    Paust (2002), pp. 801–826; Ratner (2001), pp. 443–545; Schmalenbach (2001), pp. 57–81; Frey (1997), pp. 153–188; Cassel (1996), pp. 1963–1984; Mock (2000), pp. 15–26 and Wood and Scharffs (2002), pp. 531–566.

  52. 52.

    U.S. Supreme Court, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1663 et seq. (2013).

  53. 53.

    For further details see Seibert-Fohr (2015).

  54. 54.

    U.S. Supreme Court, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692, 695 (2004).

  55. 55.

    U.S. Supreme Court, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1669 (2013).

  56. 56.

    Ibid. See also Giegerich (2014), pp. 335–367.

  57. 57.

    U.S. Supreme Court, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1669 (2013).

  58. 58.

    Ibid.

  59. 59.

    For cases in which the presumption of extraterritoriality could be overcome see Cleveland (2014), pp. 567 et seq.

  60. 60.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Balintulo et al. v. Daimler AG, 727 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2013). See also U.S. Court of Appeals, Mastafa v. Chevron Corp. , 770 F.3D 170 (2D CIR. 2014).

  61. 61.

    U.S. District Court D. Massachusetts, Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, 960 F.Supp.2d 304, 321 (D. Mass. 2013); U.S. District Court D. Maryland, Daobin v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 717, 728 (D. MD. 2014) and U.S. Court of Appeals, Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc, 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2014).

  62. 62.

    U.S. Supreme Court, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1669 (2013).

  63. 63.

    Ibid. See also U.S. Court of Appeals, Mastafa v. Chevron Corp. , 770 F.3D 170 (2D CIR. 2014), which is based on the ‘focus test’. But see U.S. Court of Appeals, Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc, 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2014) and U.S. Court of Appeals, Doe v. Nestlé USA, 766 F.3d 1013, 1028 (9th Cir. 2014). For the focus test see U.S. Supreme Court, Morrison v. Australian National Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010).

  64. 64.

    One example is the fundraising and hosting of meetings in support of a foreign terror organization. See U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, Krishanti v. Rajaratnam, No. 2:09-cv-05395, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 58314 (D.N.J. 2014), p. 10. For further examples see Coleman and Holland (2013) with reference to U.S. District Court District of Columbia, Mwani v. Bin Laden, 947 F.Supp.2d 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2013).

  65. 65.

    U.S. District Court D. Massachusetts, Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, 960 F.Supp.2d 304, 321 (D. Mass. 2013).

  66. 66.

    See http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/scott_lively.html. Accessed 13 Nov 2015.

  67. 67.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Al Shimari, v. CACI Premier Tech., 758 F.3d 516, 528, 530–531 (4th Cir. 2014). In this case the contract had substantial ties to the United States and managers in the United States had allegedly implicitly encouraged the abuses.

  68. 68.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Cardona v. Chiquita Brands Int’ l, Inc., 760 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2014). See also U.S. Court of Appeals, Baloco v. Drummond Co., 767 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2014).

  69. 69.

    U.S. Court of Appeals, Balintulo et al. v. Daimler AG, 727 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2013).

  70. 70.

    Coleman and Holland (2013).

  71. 71.

    Even if jurisdiction under the ATS can be established, suits for civil damages incurred abroad face additional procedural obstacles regarding justiciability, such as the political question doctrine, forum non-conveniens, the doctrine of international comity and the rules on sovereign immunity. See Seibert-Fohr (2015).

  72. 72.

    For this rationale see also Justice Breyer in U.S. Supreme Court, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1674 (2013).

  73. 73.

    Human Rights Council (2011); UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2005), para. 52 et seq. and UN Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2003), p. 52.

  74. 74.

    Human Rights Committee (2012), para 16.

  75. 75.

    Ibid. See also Human Rights Committee (2015) para. 6, where the Committee based its recommendation on the fact that Canadian enterprises had received support from the government. The recommendation reads: ‘While appreciating information provided, the Committee is concerned about allegations of human rights abuses by Canadian companies operating abroad, in particular mining corporations and about the inaccessibility to remedies by victims of such violations. The Committee regrets the absence of an effective independent mechanism with powers to investigate complaints alleging abuses by such corporations that adversely affect the enjoyment of the human rights of victims, and of a legal framework that would facilitate such complaints (art. 2). The State party should: a) enhance the effectiveness of existing mechanisms to ensure that all Canadian corporations, in particular mining corporations, under its jurisdiction respect human rights standards when operating abroad; b) consider establishing an independent mechanism with powers to investigate human rights abuses by such corporations abroad; c) and develop a legal framework that affords legal remedies to people who have been victims of activities of such corporations operating abroad.’

  76. 76.

    As demonstrated by a 2013 comparative study, the existing remedies are still flawed in many respects. Skinner et al. (2013), pp. 66–67.

References

  • Anderson M (2002) Transnational corporations and environmental damage: is tort law the answer? Washburn Law J 41:399–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergman J (2011) The Alien Tort Statute and Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Company: the key to change in global child labor practices? Indiana J Glob Leg Stud 18:455–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley CA (2001) The costs of international human rights litigation. Chicago J Int Law 2:457–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassel D (1996) Corporate initiatives: a second human rights revolution? Fordham Int Law J 19:1963–1984

    Google Scholar 

  • Childress DE (2012) The Alien Tort Statute, federalism, and the next wave of transnational litigation. Transnat Litig 100:709–757

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham A (2014) Non-state actors. In: Moeckli D, Shah S, Sivakumaran S (eds) International human rights law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 531–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland S (2014) After Kiobel. J Int Crim Just 12:551–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman TJ, Holland EB (2013) Touching and concerning ‘Kiobel’: continuing implications. N Y Law J 253

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingsworth T (2002) Boundaries in the field of human rights, the key human rights challenge: developing enforcement mechanisms. Harv Hum Rights J 15:183–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodge WS (1996) The historical origins of the Alien Tort Statute: a response to the ‘Originalists’. Hast Int Comp Law Rev 19:221–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey BA (1997) The legal and ethical responsibilities of transnational corporations in the protection of international human rights. Minn J Glob Trade 6:153–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Giegerich T (2014) Demise of a ‘Legal Lohengrin’? An international lawyer’s question mark over Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. In: Delbrück J (ed) Aus Kiel in die Welt: Kiel’s contribution to international law. Dunckler & Humblot, Berlin, pp 335–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Committee (2012) Concluding observations on the Sixth Periodic Report of Germany, adopted 15 Oct-2 Nov 2012, CCPR/C/DEU/CO/6

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Committee (2015) Concluding observations on the Sixth Periodic Report of Canada, adopted 20 July 2015, CCPR/C/CAN/CO/6

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Council (2011) Human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, Res. A/HRC/RES/17/4

    Google Scholar 

  • Köbele M (2009) Corporate responsibility under the Alien Tort Statute: enforcement of international law through US torts law. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 123–149

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mock W (2000) Corporate transparency and human rights. Tulsa J Comp Int Law 8:15–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagnattaro MA (2004) Enforcing international labor standards: the potential of the Alien Tort Claims Act. Vanderbilt J Transnat Law 37:203–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish AL (2013) State court international human rights litigation: a concerning trend? UC Levine Law Rev 3:25–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Paust JJ (2002) Human rights responsibilities of private corporations. Vanderbilt J Transnat Law 35:801–826

    Google Scholar 

  • Paust JJ (2004) The history, nature, and reach of the Alien Tort Claims Act. Fla J Int Law 16:249–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratner SR (2001) Corporations and human rights: a theory of legal responsibility. Yale Law J 111:443–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer R, Agusti F, Dhooge L, Earle B (2014) International business law and its environment, 9th edn. Cengage Learning, Stamford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalenbach K (2001) Multinationale Unternehmen und Menschenrechte. Archiv des Völkerrechts 39:57–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibert-Fohr A (2003) Die Deliktshaftung von Unternehmen für die Beteiligung an im Ausland begangenen Völkerrechtsverletzungen- Anmerkungen zum Urteil Doe I v. Unocal Corp. des U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit). Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 63:195–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibert-Fohr A (2015) United States Alien Tort Statute. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Available via DIALOG. http://opil.ouplaw.com/home/epil. Accessed 09 Aug 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibert-Fohr A, Wolfrum R (2005) Die einzelstaatliche Durchsetzung völkerrechtlicher Mindeststandards gegenüber transnationalen Unternehmen. Archiv des Völkerrechts 43(2):153–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner G, McCorquodale R, De Schutter O (2013) The third pillar: access to judicial remedies for human rights violations by transnational business. http://icar.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-Third-Pillar-Access-to-Judicial-Remedies-for-Human-Rights-Violation-by-Transnational-Business.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2015

  • Steinhardt RG (2004) The Alien Tort Claims Act: theoretical and historical foundations of the Alien Tort Claims Act and its discontents. St. Thomas Law Rev 16:585–605

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinhardt RG, D’Amato A (eds) (1999) The Alien Tort Claims Act: an analytical anthology. Transnational Publisher, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens B (2014) Human rights litigation in U.S. courts against individuals and cooperations. In: Blecher L, Stafford NK, Bellamy GC (eds) Corporate responsibility for human rights impacts: new expectations and paradigms. ABA Publishing, Chicago, pp 179–198

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2003) Responsibility of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights, Res. 2003/16, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/L.11

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2005) General Comment No. 18 - Right to Work, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/18

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendle K (2014) Establishing liability for the enslavement and forced labour of children under the Alien Tort Statute. Syracuse J Int Comp Law 41:447–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood SG, Scharffs BG (2002) Applicability of human rights standards to private corporations: an American perspective. Am J Comp Law Suppl 50:531–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuerth I (2013) Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.: The Supreme Court and the Alien Tort Statute. Am J Int Law 107:601–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young EA (2015) Universal jurisdiction, the Alien Tort Statute, and transnational public law litigation after Kiobel. Duke Law J 64:1023–1127

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ruprecht-Karls-University, Heidelberg, Germany

    Anja Seibert-Fohr

Authors
  1. Anja Seibert-Fohr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anja Seibert-Fohr .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of International and European Law, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Henner Gött

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Seibert-Fohr, A. (2018). Transnational Labour Litigation: The Ups and Downs Under the Alien Tort Statute. In: Gött, H. (eds) Labour Standards in International Economic Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69447-4_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69447-4_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69446-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69447-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation