Comment by P.J. Kee
This Comment proceeds as follows. Part II provides an analysis of the historical evolution of the ATS, from its initial enactment in 1789 to the Supreme Court's most recent interpretation of the statute in Sosa. The main focus of this Part is an explication of both the narrowed threshold that Sosa now requires for an ATS claim based on a violation of customary international law and also the relevance of this narrowing on the otherwise applicable dismissal devices of the Act of State Doctrine and forum non conveniens. Parts III and IV respectively examine the Act of State Doctrine and forum non conveniens in detail. Both of these Parts provide exegeses of the devices, illustrate the polarized approaches that lower federal courts have employed in their applications, and conclude with arguments for why lower federal courts should both zealously guard actionable ATS suits and also pointedly direct the plaintiff's and the defendant's attention on the threshold question of the court's jurisdiction.
About the Author
P.J. Kee. J.D. candidate 2009, Tulane University School of Law; B.A. 2004, Louisiana State University.
Citation
83 Tul. L. Rev. 495 (2008)