Can U.S. courts sit in judgment of foreigners who commit genocide or torture against foreigners abroad? From 1980 until now, the answer was yes, provided the human-rights violator set foot on U.S. soil or had substantial American contacts. But the Supreme Court, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, has all but closed the doors to international human-rights litigation in our courts. And in a perverse twist, it relied on principles of international law to do so.
Serge Brammertz, the United Nation’s war crimes prosecutor for the former Yugoslavia, said Serbia must explain how some high-profile suspects could evade justice for years before being caught in the Balkan country.
Hard as it may be to believe, the new U.S. Supreme Court term is already upon us. In the balance first is the future of human rights litigation in U.S. courts -- and whether torture committed by foreigners abroad is any of our business.
War crimes suspect Ratko Mladic , who led Bosnian Serb troops during the violent breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, made his first appearance before a United Nations tribunal, calling genocide and war crimes charges “obnoxious.”
Should corporations be held liable for acts of torture committed under their auspices? If that had been the only issue considered by the Supreme Court last week in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the logical answer would surely have to be yes.
The story of the capture outside Belgrade yesterday of General Ratko Mladic , the Serbian military commander responsible for the 1995 mass murder of 8,000 men and boys near the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, holds lessons for the world as it grapples with how to bring peace and justice to Libya.
The Serbian Democratic Party may lose May 6 general elections, while its leader, President Boris Tadic, will be forced into a runoff as voters reject moves to bring the former Yugoslav republic to the European Union.