The Sosa Standard: What Does It Mean for Future ATS Litigation?

Abstract

This article argues that the Sosa standard is as follows. First, the Court's requirement that the claim be based on a "norm of international character accepted by the civilized world" means that the claim must rest on a violation of customary international law. Second, the Court's stipulation that the claim must be "defined with a specificity comparable to the features of the [recognized historical] paradigms" means that the violation of customary international law must mirror those qualities that made the historical offenses unique. This article suggests that the historical paradigms were singled out as violations of international law because they were specific torts, committed by individuals, which had ramifications for international security-and as such, nations universally and obligatorily recognized them. To that end, Part II of this article provides a brief history of ATS litigation in U.S. courts. Part III delves into the Sosa case itself. It summarizes the facts of the case and analyzes the standard set forth by the Supreme Court. Part IV speculates on the impact that Sosa will have on future ATS litigation. It identifies the issues the Sosa Court failed to address, and applies the Sosa standard to the facts of the Doe v. Unocal case to illustrate Sosa's implications for corporate defendants. Finally, Part V concludes Sosa did leave the "door ajar" for modem-day human rights violations to be actionable under the ATS, but notes that the decision did little to quell the controversy surrounding ATS litigation in the United States.