Enforcing Internationally Recognized Human Rights Violations under the Alien Tort Claims Act: an Analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s Decision in Doe v. Unocal

This article analyzes Doe II under a multi-tiered rubric. The first tier involves analyzing whether the Ninth Circuit was correct in its jurisdictional interpretation. The second tier studies the extent to which the Ninth Circuit\u27s use of international law expanded previously accepted usage by United States courts. For example, after reading Doe II, a question arises as to whether the Ninth Circuit created a complete universal jurisdiction for torts under the ATCA. The final tier, involves analyzing foreseen legal consequences. That is, does Doe II expand causes of action for foreign human rights violations because the decision reduces possible defenses to tort claims under the ATCA? Within this multi-dimensional rubric, Doe II must be understood from its beginnings. Section II discusses the history of Doe II, primarily through two prior district court decisions. However, in order to analyze Doe II, a meaningful background to the ATCA must be determined. Section III of this paper provides this background. Particular attention is paid to the Filartiga decision and its progeny because Doe II relied, in large-part, on principles established in Filartiga. Section IV provides context for the suit, namely, the nature of human rights violations occurring in Myanmar where the plaintiffs allege the violations occurred. Section V analyzes the Ninth Circuit\u27s unique application of International Law. Section VI analyzes foreseeable consequences to defenses against ATCA suits. In particular, defenses under the act of state doctrine, dismissal under the indispensable parties rule, andforum non conveniens are addressed. This article concludes with the final assessment that while Doe II is rooted in fundamentally correct interpretations of the law, it both expands the parameters of corporate liability and it fundamentally alters the ability to defend against ATCA suits