Human Rights Class Actions

  • Elisabetta SilvestriEmail author
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 70)


One common imagining of class actions is associated with a few popular novels and films in which aggressive and unscrupulous lawyers sue giant corporations with a view to extorting financial settlements that will be highly profitable for the lawyers themselves but rarely for the members of the class action, the individual men and women who actually suffered injury. This is the dark side of class actions, one which is widely known by the public. But there is also a bright side, even though less glamorous and hardly appreciated, at least outside the United States: it is the experience of human rights class actions, namely the experience of class actions used as a form of civil redress available to the victims of mass violation of fundamental human rights. This contribution focuses on a number of particular aspects of human rights class actions, expounding on the controversial concept of universal civil jurisdiction.


  1. Apostolova E (2010) The relationship between the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act. Berkeley J Int’l Law 28:640–652Google Scholar
  2. Bassett DL (2011) The future of international class actions. Sw J Int’l Law 18:21–29Google Scholar
  3. Chayes A (1976) The role of the judge in public law litigation. Harvard Law Rev 89:1281–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collingsworth T (2006) Using the Alien Tort Claims Act to hold multinationals accountable for human rights violations in U.S. federal courts. Accessed 7 June 2018
  5. Curran VG (2012/2013) Mass torts and universal jurisdiction. U Pennsyl J Int’l Law 34:799–809Google Scholar
  6. Davidson NR (2017) Alien Tort Statute litigation and transitional justice: bringing the Marcos case back to the Philippines. Int’l J Transitional Justice 11:257–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Donovan DF, Roberts A (2006) The emerging recognition of universal civil jurisdiction. Am J Int’l Law 100:142–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drinan RF, Kuo TT (1993) Putting the world’s oppressors on trial: the Torture Victim Protection Act. Human Rts Q 15:605–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitzpatrick BT (2015) The end of class actions? Arizona Law Rev 57:161–199Google Scholar
  10. Harsági V, Van Rhee CH (eds) (2014) Multi-party redress mechanisms in Europe: squeaking mice?. Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerp-PortlandGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson KR (2004) International human rights class actions: new frontiers for group litigation. Michigan State Law Rev 3:643–670Google Scholar
  12. Kagan RA (2003) American adversarialism. Harvard U Press, Cambridge, Mass, The American way of lawGoogle Scholar
  13. Kamminga MT (2005) Universal civil jurisdiction: Is it legal? Is it desirable? Am Soc’y Int’l Law Proc 99:123–125Google Scholar
  14. Kane MK (2013) Civil procedure in a nutshell, 7th edn. West Publishing Co, St Paul, MinnGoogle Scholar
  15. Kenney CC (2015/2016) Measuring transnational human rights. Fordham Law Rev 84:1053–1115Google Scholar
  16. Kielsgard MD (2005) Unocal and the demise of corporate neutrality. Cal W Int’l Law J 36:185–215Google Scholar
  17. Koh HH (1990/1991) Transnational public law litigation. Yale Law J 100:2347–2402Google Scholar
  18. Lewis Humphrey JM (1980/1981) A legal Lohengrin: federal jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789. Immigr and Nat’lity Law Rev 4:327–354Google Scholar
  19. Marcus RL (2016) Bending in the breeze: American class actions in the twenty-first century. DePaul Law Rev 65:497–533Google Scholar
  20. Mullenix LS (2014/2015) Ending class actions as we know them: rethinking the American class action. Emory Law Rev 64:399–449Google Scholar
  21. Roper S (2016) Applying universal jurisdiction to civil cases: variations in state approaches to monetizing human rights violations. J Civil Legal Sci 5:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosencranz A, Louk D (2005) Doe v. Unocal: holding corporations liable for human rights abuses on their watch. Chapman Law Rev 8:130–147Google Scholar
  23. Schwartz RE (1994) And tomorrow? The Torture Victim Protection Act. Ariz J Int’l Comp Law 11:271–338Google Scholar
  24. Stephens B (2002) Translating Filártiga: a comparative and international law analysis of domestic remedies for international human rights violations. Yale J Int’l Law 27:1–57Google Scholar
  25. Swift RA (2012) A human rights class action distribution in the Philippines. Philadelphia Lawyer, Winter 2012:38–41. Accessed 7 June 2018
  26. Van Schaack B (2003) Unfilled promise: the human rights class action. U Chi Legal F:279–352Google Scholar
  27. Wallach D (2014/2015) The irrationality of universal civil jurisdiction. Geo J Int’l Law 46:803–835Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LawUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations