NEG - ATCA Reform CON

8/9/2019 NEG - ATCA Reform CON

1/25

Joshua Ridenour SHINE, SC Page 1 of 25

ATCA Reform - Neg

ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT REFORM - NEG

TOPICALITY RESOLVED .................................................................................................................3DEFINITION ............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .......... ....3

INTERPRETATION .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..... ..... .....3

VIOLATION ............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. ....... ..... ..3STANDARDS .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ........ ....3

IMPACTS ............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............. ..... ..3

TOPICALITY ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY .................................................................................. 5STANDARDS .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ........ ....5

COUNTER DEFINITIONS .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ....... ..... ..... ..... ......5

REASONS TO PREFER THE COUNTER-DEFINITIONS .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. ...... ...... ...... ..5

VIOLATIONS ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ......... ..5

IMPACTS ............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............. ..... ..6

INHERENCY ...........................................................................................................................................71. Amlon Metals, Inc. v. FMC Corp..................................................................................................................................7

2. Aguinda v. Texaco ..........................................................................................................................................................7

3. Beanal v. Freeport McMoRan, Inc................................................................................................................................ 8

4. Bano v. Union Carbide Corp .........................................................................................................................................95. Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation ........................................................................................................... ....96. Sarei v. Rio Tinto plc .............................................................................................................................................. .....10

7. Six most prominent environmental claims under the ATCA .................................................................................. ......11

SOLVENCY ............................................................................................................................................12ATCA CASES UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS ............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............. ..... ...... ...12

1. Amlon Metals, Inc. v. FMC Corp. Dismissed, No universal norm ...........................................................................12

2. Aguinda v. Texaco Dismissed, Procedural reasons ............................................................................................. .....12

3. Beanal v. Freeport McMoRan, Inc. Dismissed, No universal international norm ...................................................14

4. Bano v. Union Carbide Corp. Dismissed, Already litigated .................................................................. ..................15

5. Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation Dismissed, Rights arent universal ....................................... ...... .....15

6. Sarei v. Rio Tinto plc Political sabotage, Establishes customary international law for claims ................... ...... .....16

7. Six most prominent environmental claims under the ATCA ........................................................................................18

8. Customary international law is the only basis for ATCA claims ..................................................................... ...... .....189. Right to life and health are too abstract to base a court claim on ..............................................................................18

ATTITUDINAL BARRIER .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .......... .....19

................................................................................................................................................................. 19

DA#1 - CORPORATIONS HURT ........................................................................................................20Link: Aff expands claims against Multinational Corporations (MNCs) .........................................................................20

Brink: Multinational Corporations wrongfully targeted by plaintiffs .............................................................................20

Impact: Innocent defendants pay a high price ................................................................................................................20

DA #2 COUNTRIES HURT ...............................................................................................................22 Link: Jeopardized foreign investments ............................................................................................................................22

Brink: No investment=industry shuts down, foreign companies leave ...........................................................................22 Impact: Stagnate 3rd world economies/more disease ................................................................................................ .....22

DA #3 SOFT POWER ........................................................................................................................ 23Internal Link: ATCA lawsuits hinder foreign policy interest ............................................................................... ...... .....23

Impact: Loss of soft power ............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ........... ...... ...... ...... ...23

1. Without soft power the US loses leverage in international affairs ..............................................................................232. Soft Power is key to a lot of issues..............................................................................................................................24

DA #4 RULE OF LAW ....................................................................................................................... 25Link: Aff. extends right of action for environmental damages under ATCA ..................................................................25Internal Link: Current interpretations twist the original nature/intent of the law ..........................................................25

Impact: Rule of Law is key to stable society ...................................................................................................................25


2/25


3/25


4/25


ATCA Reform - NegAffirmative case should not matter to you, judges.


5/25


ATCA Reform - Neg

TOPICALITY ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

STANDARDS

Precision Words have technical and exact meanings. Each word serves a purpose and definitions

should be precise and accurate in order to determine what the resolution truly means.

Field Contextualism Experts in the field have a greater knowledge of technical definitions and

meanings, and therefore should be preferred.

Bright Line Definitions should create a bright line for evaluating exactly what is and is not a

legitimate interpretation of the resolution. Ambiguous definitions allow the Affirmative team to shift

ground in the middle of the round. If the debaters do not clearly know the boundaries, argumentation isnecessarily restricted by time wasted in ambiguity.

COUNTER DEFINITIONS

Environmental Policy

Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya [editor] (PhD from the Russian Academy of Sciences in Economics andVisiting Professor of Environmental Policy at Duke University), and Dr. William L Ascher [editor]

(PhD in Political Science from Yale and Professor of Government and Economics at Claremont

McKenna College) 2001, The Guide to Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development, Duke

University Press, p. 186 [Google Books]

Environmental policy includes regulations to prohibit or limit pollution and resource depletion;

incentives policies (including tax measures) to encourage environmental improvements to discourage

pollution and depletion, and direct environmental efforts to clean up, protect, or restore ecosystems.

Policy: A definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of givenconditions to guide and determine present and future decisions. (Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary

2009 http://m-w.com/policy)

REASONS TO PREFER THE COUNTER-DEFINITIONS

1.The environmental policy definition is the only one in the round. Aff presented a definition of

environmental law, not environmental policy. As we can see from our definition of policy a

policy is not always a law.

2.Our definition of environmental policy upholds the standards of field contextualism,

precision, and it outlines exactly what an environmental policy would look like.

VIOLATIONS

1.Affirmative fails to create a regulation to prohibit or limit pollution and resource depletion or

encourage environmental improvements to discourage pollution and depletion or advocate

direct environmental efforts to clean up, protect, or restore ecosystems.
http://m-w.com/policyhttp://m-w.com/policy


6/25


ATCA Reform - NegSecondly, the Affirmative plan does not fall under environmental policy because they are reforming a

part of the Judiciary Act. The US Second Circuit Court of Appeal said the following in a Judgment

delivered in September 2000 about application of the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victimsprotection Act:

The Alien Tort Claims Act (ACTA) was adopted in 1789 as part of the original Judiciary Act. In its

original form, it made no assertion about legal rights; it simply asserted that [t]he district courts shallhave original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the

law of nations or a treaty of the United States For almost two centuries, the statute lay relatively

dormant, supporting jurisdiction in only a handful of cases.As the result of increasing internationalconcern with human rights issues, however, litigants have recently begun to seek redress more

frequently under the ATCA

http://www.sangam.org/JANAKA/ATCA.htm

This Alien Tort Claims Act is a judicial and human rights policy, not an environmental one. Reforming

an act to address the environment does not make it environmental policy.

IMPACTS

i. Jurisdiction

The judge has the option to vote for or against the resolution. If the case does not fall within the

boundaries of the resolution, the judge does not have the jurisdiction to vote for it.

ii. A priori

Topicality is an a priori issue in the game of debate, you look to topicality first. If an affirmative team

is operating outside the jurisdiction of the resolution, the only reasonable decision is a negative ballot.

iii. Prima facie burden

The Affirmative teams obligation is to present a case on its face that defends the truth of the resolution.

Regardless of whether their plan is a good or bad idea, they have failed to uphold their prima facieburden if it does not mirror the terms of resolution.
http://www.sangam.org/JANAKA/ATCA.htmhttp://www.sangam.org/JANAKA/ATCA.htm


7/25


ATCA Reform - Neg

INHERENCY

[Note: Solvency and Inherency can be doubled into Significance, depending on the Aff case, and

the Neg team using this brief]

The Inherency part of this brief deals with the fact that cases can be brought into court on

environmental claims, as long as they violate an international or universal standard.

1. Amlon Metals, Inc. v. FMC Corp.

Dr. Natalie L. Bridgeman(JD, Program in Public Interest Law and Policy, UCLA School of Law;

Member, Human Rights Advocates; Member, National Lawyers Guild; Member, State Bar ofCalifornia; Trade, Environment, and Development Intern, Nautilus Institute; Law Clerk, NAFTA

Arbitrator; Editor-in-Chief, UCLA School of Law Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs;

Independent Consulting Attorney, International Human Rights Council; Executive Director,Accountability Counsel) Human Rights Litigation Under the ATCA as a Proxy for Environmental

Claims 2003 YALE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT LAW JOURNAL (Accessed via General

OneFile Research Database)

The first case to attempt to use the ATCA for environmental torts was Amlon Metals, Inc. v. FMC Corp.(95) The case involved a shipment of copper residue from the United States to England. When the

materials arrived in England, the plaintiff realized that the substances were not merely copper residue,

but hazardous waste, and refused to receive the shipment. The court looked to the U.S. environmentalstatute, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), (96) Principle 21 of the Stockholm

Declaration (97) and the Third Restatement on Foreign Relations (98) as possible bases for finding a

violation of customary international environmental law. (99) After dismissing RCRA as anunacceptable independent basis for a cause of action, (100) the court examined whether Principle 21

and the Third Restatement reflected customary international law for the ATCA claim.

Principle 21 asserts that states have a responsibility "to ensure that activities within their

jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond thelimits of national jurisdiction." (101) The Restatement echoes this assertion and further states that if the

activities have "caused significant injury" or risk of injury extraterritorially "the state of origin is

obligated to accord to the person injured or exposed to such risk access to the same judicial oradministrative remedies as are available in similar circumstances to persons within the state." (102)

Although Principle 21 and the Restatement were directly on point in Amlon, the court found that both

sources failed to reflect binding sources of international law. The court found that Principle 21 was onlymeant as a guiding principle, and that the Restatement was too specific to the U.S., and therefore not a

reflection of a universal norm. Because the plaintiff's case was based only on RCRA and Principle 21,

neither of which were cognizable under the ATCA, it was dismissed. (103)

Although Amlon demonstrated what is insufficient to allege environmental torts that violate the law of

nations, it did not state what is sufficient to state such a claim. Amlon suggests that while internationalenvironmental treaties might be used as a basis for finding customary international law, it must be a

treaty that delineates specific obligations on member nations--thus creating a universal, definable andobligatory norm.

2. Aguinda v. Texaco

Dr. Natalie L. Bridgeman(JD, Program in Public Interest Law and Policy, UCLA School of Law;Member, Human Rights Advocates; Member, National Lawyers Guild; Member, State Bar of

California; Trade, Environment, and Development Intern, Nautilus Institute; Law Clerk, NAFTA


8/25


ATCA Reform - NegArbitrator; Editor-in-Chief, UCLA School of Law Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs;




In Aguinda v. Texaco (Aguinda I), (104) Ecuadorian plaintiffs sued Texaco for severe long-termcontamination and destruction of Ecuadorian tropical rain forests. (105) In addition, the complaint

alleged harm to forest-dwelling indigenous peoples and destruction of their property and the stability of

Amazon basin habitats. (106) As in Amlon, the largest hurdle in Aguinda I was alleging an internationalenvironmental law violation that is "definable, obligatory (rather than hortatory), and universally

condemned." (107) When Aguinda I was brought in 1994, the most recent equivalent to Principle 21 of

the Stockholm Declaration was Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration. (108) Aguinda I relied on Principle2, under which states have "the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control

do not cause damage to the environment of other States or areas beyond the limits of national

jurisdiction." (109) Judge Vincent L. Broderick also found persuasive the fact that U.S. domesticenvironmental law would have prohibited Texaco's conduct had it been in the United States. He stated

that the U.S. laws are... relevant as confirming United States adherence to international

commitments to control such wastes. This tends to support theappropriateness of permitting suit under 28 U.S.C. [section] 1350 if

there were established misuse of hazardous waste of sufficient

magnitude to amount to a violation of international law. (110)

3. Beanal v. Freeport McMoRan, Inc.


Member, Human Rights Advocates; Member, National Lawyers Guild; Member, State Bar of


Arbitrator; Editor-in-Chief, UCLA School of Law Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs;Independent Consulting Attorney, International Human Rights Council; Executive Director,

Accountability Counsel) Human Rights Litigation Under the ATCA as a Proxy for EnvironmentalClaims 2003 YALE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT LAW JOURNAL (Accessed via General


As discussed above, in 1997, Beanal v. Freeport McMoRan, Inc. (125) was filed in the Fifth Circuit and

concerned human rights violations and environmental torts conducted against the Amungme tribe ofIndonesia as a result of Freeport's mining operations there. (126) Like Aguinda, Beanal was dismissed,

but not before substantial discussion of whether international environmental law has risen to the level

of customary international law for ATCA purposes. From the outset, it would seem that Beanal was

better positioned to survive a motion to dismiss than Aguinda because it involved environmental andhuman rights claims. Particularly because the human rights claims were related to the environmental

harm, it would have seemed likely that even if the environmental claims were dismissed, some of thehuman rights claims--if successful-would remedy some of the same grievances as alleged in the

environmental claims.

In Beanal, the court considered whether "Freeport's alleged environmental practices [violated]the law of nations." (127) The environmental harms specifically alleged included:

... that defendant corporations have failed to engage in a zero

waste policy, unacceptable enclosed waste management system,


9/25


ATCA Reform - Neghave failed to maximize environmental rehabilitation, have failed

to engage in an appropriate acid leachate control policy, have

failed to adequately monitor the destruction of the naturalresources of Irian Jaya and have disregarded and breached its

international duty to protect one of the last great natural rain

forests and alpine areas in the world. (128)

Once again, the court found that these facts did not allege a violation of a "universal, definable, andobligatory" international norm. (129) The court did, however, cite dicta in Aguinda I for the proposition

that Section "1350 may be applicable to international environmental torts." (130) The challenge in

Beanal was that once the court reached the environmental claims, it had already concluded thatFreeport was not a state actor. Therefore, any environmental torts that had the potential to lead to

Freeport's liability would have to have been recognized as one of the "handful of crimes" that are

actionable for private as well as state actors.The Beanal plaintiffs relied on principles of international environmental law to support their

environmental claims-namely, the Polluter Pays Principle; the Precautionary Principle; the Proximity

Principle; the good-neighborliness principle and Principle 21 / Principle 2 from the Stockholm and RioDeclarations. (131) The court then ironically offered Philippe Sands' critique of these principles in

support of why the plaintiffs failed to state a claim:

4. Bano v. Union Carbide Corp




Accountability Counsel) Human Rights Litigation Under the ATCA as a Proxy for Environmental



In Bano, plaintiffs who suffered from the devastating 1984 chemical disaster in Bhopal, India sued

Union Carbide Corporation for the tremendous loss of life and environmental harms associated with the

accident. (136) Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., decided in November, 2001, dismissed the plaintiffs'environmental claims under the ATCA based on the theory that the claims "were fully litigated and

settled in India," and therefore, did not reach the issue of whether the "complaint failed to allege a

violation of well-established norms of international law as required under the ATCA." (137) This case

was a lost opportunity for evaluating environmental principles as part of the law of nations because thefacts were a dramatic example of the link between human rights and the environment. Because the

environmental pollution in Bano wiped out large segments of the local population, claims for human

rights violations might have been successful and the damages may have worked to remedy the

environmental harm.

5. Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation






10/25


ATCA Reform - NegClaims 2003 YALE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT LAW JOURNAL (Accessed via General


Flores is another case of plaintiffs alleging a mining corporation's violations of international

environmental law. In Flores, eight Peruvian citizens claimed that the Southern Peru Copper

Corporation's ("SPCC") mining operations in and around Ilo, Peru caused environmental pollution

resulting in their asthma and lung disease, which "violated their rights to life, health, and sustainabledevelopment." (138)

6. Sarei v. Rio Tinto plc







Sarei v. Rio Tinto plc (141) addressed whether environmental torts may violate the law of nations under

the ATCA, but in the end, the case has little precedential value because the entire case was dismissed

based on the political question doctrine. (142) Despite its dismissal, Sarei contains important analysisof environmental claims under the ATCA. As discussed above, Sarei involves claims for redress of

human rights and environmental torts by residents of the Papua New Guinea island of Bougainville

against the British mining company Rio Tinto plc and the Australian corporation Rio Tinto Limited.

The environmental harms alleged in Sarei are divided into two categories: (a) rights to life andhealth and (b) sustainable development and the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In

the rights to life and health section of the decision, the plaintiffs rely on statements by an international

law expert, (143) who in turn cites international and regional human rights conventions. (144) This isthe first ATCA case that has attempted to use such treaties to make an explicit appeal to 'environmental

human rights.' It is a logical point at which to meld already accepted human rights norms with

emerging environmental norms to create human rights and environmental protection under the ATCA.The plaintiffs argue, quoting an Inter-American Commission report "Conditions of severe

environmental pollution, which may cause serious physical illness, impairment and suffering on the

part of the local populace, are inconsistent with the right to be respected as a human being." (145) As

further evidence of a human right to environmental protection, the plaintiffs invoke the famousGabcikovo Darn Case, where the International Court of Justice held that environmental protection is "a

vital part of contemporary human rights doctrine, for it is a sine qua non for numerous human rights

such as the right to health and the right to life itself." (146)

Judge Morrow rejected plaintiffs' rights to life and health claims on the grounds that none ofthem were universal, definable and obligatory. (147) As she concluded in granting the motion to

dismiss for the rights to health and life claims, "Courts addressing the issue have consistentlydetermined that allegations of environmental harm do not state a claim under the law of nations." (148)

For reasons that parallel the analysis in the rights to life and health section, the Court granted

the defendants' motion to dismiss the sustainable development claims. (149) The final environmentalclaim, but for the political question doctrine, would have survived the motion to dismiss. Judge

Morrow found that "plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim for violation of the customary

international law reflected in UNCLOS." (150)


11/25


ATCA Reform - Neg

7. Six most prominent environmental claims under the ATCA






As seen above, the ATCA provides plaintiffs with the best chances of success in suits against

corporations for violations of the law of nations. However, compared to suits that allege human rights

violations, success has not yet been borne out in claims alleging environmental torts in violation of thelaw of nations. Of the six main cases that have directly alleged environmental torts under the ATCA--

Amlon, Aguinda, Beanal, Bano, Flores and Sarei--all had the environmental claims dismissed--either

substantively or because of a procedural dismissal of all claims. In Amlon, the environmental claims

alleged under Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration and the Third Restatement of Foreign

Relations Law of the United States were dismissed for failure to establish a violation of the law ofnations. In Aguinda, Judge Broderick asserted that there may well have been a violation of the law of

nations for the environmental torts alleged, but in the end, the appellate court dismissed the claims onthe grounds of forum non conveniens. In Beanal, after some discussion of whether the conduct alleged

violated the environmental principles discussed by the plaintiffs, the court dismissed the action for

failure to allege violation of a universal, definable and obligatory international norm. Bano neverreached the issue due to the court's determination that the claims had been settled in India. In Flores, as

in Beanal, the court found that the environmental allegations were not violations of the law of nations.


12/25


ATCA Reform - Neg

SOLVENCY

[Note: Solvency and Inherency can be doubled into Significance, depending on the Aff case, and

the Neg team using this brief]

ATCA CASES UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS

1. Amlon Metals, Inc. v. FMC Corp. Dismissed, No universal norm



California; Trade, Environment, and Development Intern, Nautilus Institute; Law Clerk, NAFTAArbitrator; Editor-in-Chief, UCLA School of Law Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs;

Independent Consulting Attorney, International Human Rights Council; Executive Director,



The first case to attempt to use the ATCA for environmental torts was Amlon Metals, Inc. v. FMC Corp.

(95) The case involved a shipment of copper residue from the United States to England. When thematerials arrived in England, the plaintiff realized that the substances were not merely copper residue,

but hazardous waste, and refused to receive the shipment. The court looked to the U.S. environmental

statute, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), (96) Principle 21 of the StockholmDeclaration (97) and the Third Restatement on Foreign Relations (98) as possible bases for finding a

violation of customary international environmental law. (99) After dismissing RCRA as an

unacceptable independent basis for a cause of action, (100) the court examined whether Principle 21and the Third Restatement reflected customary international law for the ATCA claim.

Principle 21 asserts that states have a responsibility "to ensure that activities within their

jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the

limits of national jurisdiction." (101) The Restatement echoes this assertion and further states that if theactivities have "caused significant injury" or risk of injury extraterritorially "the state of origin is

obligated to accord to the person injured or exposed to such risk access to the same judicial or

administrative remedies as are available in similar circumstances to persons within the state." (102)Although Principle 21 and the Restatement were directly on point in Amlon, the court found that both

sources failed to reflect binding sources of international law. The court found that Principle 21 was only

meant as a guiding principle, and that the Restatement was too specific to the U.S., and therefore not areflection of a universal norm. Because the plaintiff's case was based only on RCRA and Principle 21,

neither of which were cognizable under the ATCA, it was dismissed. (103)

Although Amlon demonstrated what is insufficient to allege environmental torts that violate the law of

nations, it did not state what is sufficient to state such a claim. Amlon suggests that while international

environmental treaties might be used as a basis for finding customary international law, it must be atreaty that delineates specific obligations on member nations--thus creating a universal, definable and

obligatory norm.

2. Aguinda v. Texaco Dismissed, Procedural reasons





13/25


ATCA Reform - NegIndependent Consulting Attorney, International Human Rights Council; Executive Director,



In Aguinda v. Texaco (Aguinda I), (104) Ecuadorian plaintiffs sued Texaco for severe long-term

contamination and destruction of Ecuadorian tropical rain forests. (105) In addition, the complaintalleged harm to forest-dwelling indigenous peoples and destruction of their property and the stability of

Amazon basin habitats. (106) As in Amlon, the largest hurdle in Aguinda I was alleging an

international environmental law violation that is "definable, obligatory (rather than hortatory), anduniversally condemned." (107) When Aguinda I was brought in 1994, the most recent equivalent to

Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration was Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration. (108) Aguinda I

relied on Principle 2, under which states have "the responsibility to ensure that activities within theirjurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or areas beyond the

limits of national jurisdiction." (109) Judge Vincent L. Broderick also found persuasive the fact that

U.S. domestic environmental law would have prohibited Texaco's conduct had it been in the UnitedStates. He stated that the U.S. laws are

... relevant as confirming United States adherence to internationalcommitments to control such wastes. This tends to support the

appropriateness of permitting suit under 28 U.S.C. [section] 1350 ifthere were established misuse of hazardous waste of sufficient

magnitude to amount to a violation of international law. (110)

This statement was the closest any court had come to recognizing a violation of the law of nationsrooted in practice inconsistent with domestic environmental law that has an international "soft law"

corollary. (111) Judge Broderick suggested that, if the hazardous waste "misuse" were large enough,

plaintiffs could establish a violation of the law of nations sufficient to state a claim under the ATCA. Helimited the statement, however, by carving out "detailed statutes and regulations" for fear that if they

became part of customary international law, they would supersede legislative intent of contrarily

detailed statutes and regulations. (112) Further, he stated that steps "initiated or assisted in the UnitedStates" would be the most probative and would limit discovery along these lines. (113)

Following Aguinda I, the case was dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens (FNC),

comity and failure to join an indispensable party. (114) On appeal, the Republic of Ecuador and the

state-owned oil company Petoecuador's untimely motions to intervene in the case were denied. (115)Shortly thereafter, Jota v. Texaco (116) was filed and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the

lower court's dismissal on FNC and comity grounds and partially reversed the lower court on the

joinder issue. The Second Circuit remanded the case back to the hands of Judge Rakoff who orderedfurther briefing on the FNC and comity issues. (117) Following denial of a motion to disqualify Judge

Rakoff for conflict of interest (118) and affirmation of the denial on appeal to the Second Circuit, (119)

Judge Rakoff dismissed the case once again on the same grounds upon which the Second Circuit had

earlier reversed Judge Rakoff-forum non conveniens. (120) Most recently, the appeal from JudgeRakoff's Aguinda VIII decision reached the Second Circuit who affirmed dismissal of the case on

forum non conveniens grounds with a modification permitting the plaintiffs more time to re-file their

actions in Ecuador. (121)In its eight-year history of litigation, the only decision that addressed whether a violation of

international environmental law provides a cause of action under the ATCA was in dicta in the initial

case, Aguinda I. (122) Even though the issue was never debated in further Aguinda appeals forprocedural reasons, it is unlikely that the case could have been affirmed on international environmental

law grounds. As noted by Armin Rosencranz and Richard Campbell, "[l]ack of international consensus


14/25


ATCA Reform - Negon environmental norms is one reason why courts have been reluctant to recognize environmental

abuses, absent accompanying human rights violations, as causes of action under the ATCA." (123)

Nonetheless, Judge Broderick's dicta--which seemed to approve of Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration asat least a partial basis for the claim (124)--may serve, and has served, as a starting point for analysis of

environmental claims in subsequent ATCA cases.

3. Beanal v. Freeport McMoRan, Inc. Dismissed, No universal international normDr. Natalie L. Bridgeman(JD, Program in Public Interest Law and Policy, UCLA School of Law;Member, Human Rights Advocates; Member, National Lawyers Guild; Member, State Bar of




Claims 2003 YALE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT LAW JOURNAL (Accessed via GeneralOneFile Research Database)

As discussed above, in 1997, Beanal v. Freeport McMoRan, Inc. (125) was filed in the Fifth Circuit and

concerned human rights violations and environmental torts conducted against the Amungme tribe ofIndonesia as a result of Freeport's mining operations there. (126) Like Aguinda, Beanal was dismissed,but not before substantial discussion of whether international environmental law has risen to the level

of customary international law for ATCA purposes. From the outset, it would seem that Beanal was

better positioned to survive a motion to dismiss than Aguinda because it involved environmental andhuman rights claims. Particularly because the human rights claims were related to the environmental

harm, it would have seemed likely that even if the environmental claims were dismissed, some of the

human rights claims--if successful-would remedy some of the same grievances as alleged in the

environmental claims.In Beanal, the court considered whether "Freeport's alleged environmental practices [violated]

the law of nations." (127) The environmental harms specifically alleged included:

... that defendant corporations have failed to engage in a zerowaste policy, unacceptable enclosed waste management system,

have failed to maximize environmental rehabilitation, have failed

to engage in an appropriate acid leachate control policy, havefailed to adequately monitor the destruction of the natural

resources of Irian Jaya and have disregarded and breached its

international duty to protect one of the last great natural rain

forests and alpine areas in the world. (128)Once again, the court found that these facts did not allege a violation of a "universal, definable, and

obligatory" international norm. (129) The court did, however, cite dicta in Aguinda I for the proposition

that Section "1350 may be applicable to international environmental torts." (130) The challenge in

Beanal was that once the court reached the environmental claims, it had already concluded thatFreeport was not a state actor. Therefore, any environmental torts that had the potential to lead to

Freeport's liability would have to have been recognized as one of the "handful of crimes" that areactionable for private as well as state actors.

The Beanal plaintiffs relied on principles of international environmental law to support their

environmental claims-namely, the Polluter Pays Principle; the Precautionary Principle; the ProximityPrinciple; the good-neighborliness principle and Principle 21 / Principle 2 from the Stockholm and Rio

Declarations. (131) The court then ironically offered Philippe Sands' critique of these principles in

support of why the plaintiffs failed to state a claim:


15/25


ATCA Reform - NegOf these general principles and rules only Principle 21 / Principle

2 and the good neighborliness / international cooperation principle

are sufficiently substantive at this time to be capable ofestablishing the basis of an international cause of action ... The

status and effect of the others remains inconclusive, although they

may bind as treaty obligations or, in limited circumstances, as

customary obligations. (132)The court rejected Sands' notion that any of the alliterative principles formed the basis for an

environmental cause of action under the ATCA. Instead, the court held that, "standing alone, [the

principles] do not constitute international torts for which there is universal consensus in theinternational community as to their binding status and their content." (133) Finally, the court pointed

out that the principles apply to states, not "nonstate corporations." (134) Because the principles only

bind states, only state actors could violate them. Since the Freeport Corporation was not found to be astate actor, even principles binding on states would have failed to provide a cause of action for the

plaintiffs in Beanal.

As was the case in Amlon and Aguinda I, the Beanal court did not preclude environmental tortsfrom eventually becoming customary international law and thus actionable under the ATCA. (135) All

three courts agreed, however, that at this stage in the development of international environmental law,the declarations, restatements and principles were not universal, definable and obligatory.

4. Bano v. Union Carbide Corp. Dismissed, Already litigated








In Bano, plaintiffs who suffered from the devastating 1984 chemical disaster in Bhopal, India sued

Union Carbide Corporation for the tremendous loss of life and environmental harms associated with theaccident. (136) Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., decided in November, 2001, dismissed the plaintiffs'

environmental claims under the ATCA based on the theory that the claims "were fully litigated and

settled in India," and therefore, did not reach the issue of whether the "complaint failed to allege a

violation of well-established norms of international law as required under the ATCA." (137) This casewas a lost opportunity for evaluating environmental principles as part of the law of nations because the

facts were a dramatic example of the link between human rights and the environment. Because the

environmental pollution in Bano wiped out large segments of the local population, claims for human

rights violations might have been successful and the damages may have worked to remedy theenvironmental harm.

5. Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation Dismissed, Rights arent universal





16/25


ATCA Reform - NegAccountability Counsel) Human Rights Litigation Under the ATCA as a Proxy for Environmental

Claims 2003 YALE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT LAW JOURNAL (Accessed via GeneralOneFile Research Database)

Flores is another case of plaintiffs alleging a mining corporation's violations of international

environmental law. In Flores, eight Peruvian citizens claimed that the Southern Peru Copper

Corporation's ("SPCC") mining operations in and around Ilo, Peru caused environmental pollutionresulting in their asthma and lung disease, which "violated their rights to life, health, and sustainable

development." (138)

According to Judge Haight, the plaintiffs in Flores "attempt to distinguish the present case fromthose discussed above [Aguinda, Amlon and Beanal] by characterizing their claims as based on human

rights law, rather than environmental law, and by pointing to the specific rights they invoke, i.e. the

right to life, right to health, and right to sustainable development. But the labels plaintiffs affix to theirclaims cannot be determinative." (139) The plaintiffs in Flores fail to use human rights as a proxy for

environmental claims (if they are indeed making this attempt as the court alleges) because they base

their action on human rights claims that are not actionable under the ATCA.The Court concludes, "plaintiffs have not demonstrated that high levels of environmental

pollution, causing harm to human life, health, and sustainable development within a nation's borders,violate any well-established rules of customary international law." (140) Flores thus holds that plaintiffs

in the Southern District of New York must demonstrate that the environmental harm they allege istrans-boundary in nature. More significantly, Flores suggests that claims under international

environmental law will not be successful when guised as human rights claims unless the human rights

claims themselves are well-established as part of the "law of nations."In Flores, as in many of the cases above, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss

because, according to Judge Haight, the rights to life, health, and sustainable development have not yet

become non-derogable.

6. Sarei v. Rio Tinto plc Political sabotage, Establishes customary international law for claims






Sarei v. Rio Tinto plc (141) addressed whether environmental torts may violate the law of nations under

the ATCA, but in the end, the case has little precedential value because the entire case was dismissed

based on the political question doctrine. (142) Despite its dismissal, Sarei contains important analysisof environmental claims under the ATCA. As discussed above, Sarei involves claims for redress of

human rights and environmental torts by residents of the Papua New Guinea island of Bougainvilleagainst the British mining company Rio Tinto plc and the Australian corporation Rio Tinto Limited.

The environmental harms alleged in Sarei are divided into two categories: (a) rights to life and

health and (b) sustainable development and the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Inthe rights to life and health section of the decision, the plaintiffs rely on statements by an international

law expert, (143) who in turn cites international and regional human rights conventions. (144) This is

the first ATCA case that has attempted to use such treaties to make an explicit appeal to 'environmental


17/25


18/25


ATCA Reform - Neg

7. Six most prominent environmental claims under the ATCA






As seen above, the ATCA provides plaintiffs with the best chances of success in suits against

corporations for violations of the law of nations. However, compared to suits that allege human rights

violations, success has not yet been borne out in claims alleging environmental torts in violation of thelaw of nations. Of the six main cases that have directly alleged environmental torts under the ATCA--

Amlon, Aguinda, Beanal, Bano, Flores and Sarei--all had the environmental claims dismissed--either

substantively or because of a procedural dismissal of all claims. In Amlon, the environmental claims

alleged under Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration and the Third Restatement of Foreign

Relations Law of the United States were dismissed for failure to establish a violation of the law ofnations. In Aguinda, Judge Broderick asserted that there may well have been a violation of the law of

nations for the environmental torts alleged, but in the end, the appellate court dismissed the claims onthe grounds of forum non conveniens. In Beanal, after some discussion of whether the conduct alleged

violated the environmental principles discussed by the plaintiffs, the court dismissed the action for

failure to allege violation of a universal, definable and obligatory international norm. Bano neverreached the issue due to the court's determination that the claims had been settled in India. In Flores, as

in Beanal, the court found that the environmental allegations were not violations of the law of nations.

In Sarei, Judge Morrow dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for a violation of the rights to life and health,

and would have sustained the plaintiffs' claim based on UNCLOS if the entire case had not beendismissed based on the political question doctrine. If Sarei had reached a hearing on the merits, the

UNCLOS claim would have been the first instance of an environmental claim yielding liability underthe ATCA. (205)

8. Customary international law is the only basis for ATCA claims

Mark Hamblett(Reporter) Alien Tort Claims Act Boundaries Clarified Published in the Miami Daily

Business Review 2003 (Accessed via General OneFile Research Database)

The body of customary international law that can provide a basis for suit under the AlienTortClaimsAct, Cabranes said, consists only of "those clear and unambiguous rules by which States universally

abide, or to which they accede, out of a sense of legal obligation and mutual concern."

But if the practice or custom is not "universally" followed by states out of that obligation, he

said, "the practice cannot give rise to a rule of customary international law."

9. Right to life and health are too abstract to base a court claim on

Mark Hamblett(Reporter) Alien Tort Claims Act Boundaries Clarified Published in the Miami Daily

Business Review 2003 (Accessed via General OneFile Research Database)

The plaintiffs in Flores asked the 2nd Circuit to expand the scope of the law to include "shockingly

egregious" acts that are distinct from those torts that concern mere violations of domestic law.

Judge Cabranes and Judges Amalya Kearse and Dennis Jacobs declined to do so.


19/25


ATCA Reform - NegAllowing Alien Tort claims based on the "boundless and indeterminate" principles of "right to

life" or "right to health" would be a mistake, the court said.

"They express virtuous goals understandably expressed at a level of abstraction needed tosecure the adherence of states that disagree on many of the particulars regarding how actually to

achieve them," Cabranes said.

ATTITUDINAL BARRIER

Countries opposed to the Act the twisted interpretation entails political backlash

National Center for Public Policy Research, November 2003. John Meredith.http://www.nationalcenter.org/LB34.html

The personal injury lawyers are suing the American companies under the Alien Tort Claims Act,

a law enacted in 1789 to prevent pirates from disposing of booty in U.S. seaports. The law, which

allows foreign plaintiffs to litigate in U.S. courts, lay dormant for some 200 years, before the lawyersmanaged to convince a judge that it might be used to sue American companies with investments in

South Africa. The South African government vigorously opposes that twisted interpretation. In effect,

asking the lawyers to cease and desist. Mandela is particularly upset by the lawyers' suggestion thatoutsiders - U.S. courts thousands of miles away - can do a better job at remedying the wrongs of apartheidthan South Africa's own Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which considers claims and grants reparations to apartheid

victims. "South Africans are competent to deal with issues of reconciliation, reparation and transformation amongst

themselves without outside interference, instigation or instruction," Mandela said recently. "We have dealt with our political

transition in that manner and we are capable of dealing with other aspects of our transformation in similar ways." Penuell

Maduna, South Africa's Minister of Justice, warns that the U.S. lawsuits threaten foreign investment in

his country, and notes that "we talking to the very same companies named in the lawsuits aboutinvesting in post-apartheid South Africa."
http://www.nationalcenter.org/LB34.htmlhttp://www.nationalcenter.org/LB34.html


20/25


21/25


ATCA Reform - Negdefendant under ATCA, simply being named a defendant in such a suit has substantial negative effects

on a company's public image. For instance, in the case of Yahoo!, the company faced significant public

relations difficulties in defending itself against claims that it had assisted the Chinese government'sefforts in obtaining evidence sufficient to jail two dissidents. Therefore, even though a company might

not be legally liable, it might still suffer from what some consider moral liability. Finally, there are

potentially significant financial implications as well. In the case involving Chevron, although it was

eventually cleared of any wrongdoing, the company had to endure the cost of litigating a case thatstretched on for ten years. Even for those companies that choose to settle the claims, the price of

settlement can be substantial. While these settlements are generally undisclosed, some reports put

settlement figures of ATCA claims in the millions of dollars.


22/25


ATCA Reform - Neg

DA #2 COUNTRIES HURT

Link: Jeopardized foreign investments


The fact that the litigation jeopardizes badly needed foreign investment in South Africa hasn't deterredthe already wealthy American lawyers who stand to walk away with millions of dollars if they are

successful. That would be a disaster for South Africa, a nation of 43 million with a 37 percent

unemployment rate and 50 percent of the population living under the poverty line. The situation is

made much worse by the country's incredible AIDS pandemic: 20.1 percent of the adult populationhave the debilitating disease and 360,000 men, women and children die from it annually

Brink: No investment=industry shuts down, foreign companies leave

National Center for Public Policy Research, November 2003. John Meredith.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/LB34.html

The American personal injury lawyers - virtually all of them multi-millionaires - have a strategy that is

downright self-serving, to say the least. Their first tactic is to make outrageous charges against thecorporations, using the resulting negative publicity to bully them into signing a lucrative one-sided

settlements. Those businesses with backbone enough to seek "justice" encounter the lawyers' fallback

strategy, which is to proceed with trials before friendly, hand-picked judges who foster multi-million

dollar jury verdicts. In either case, poor black South Africans will get what amounts to peanuts - very small

compensation for participating in a lawsuit that leaves their stagnant economy with even fewer jobs as

foreign companies delay new investment and expansion plans, and, in some cases, shutter their factory

doors and leave.

Impact: Stagnate 3rd world economies/more disease

Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute, 2003.He holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Wisconsin atMadison and a diploma in economics and a master's degree in the Politics of the World Economy from the London School of Economics. Daniel Griswold

is director of theCenter for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Abuse of 18th Century Law Threatens U.S. Economic andSecurity Interests. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2965

The unjust wielding of the ATCA threatens to damage the U.S. economy and the often-underdeveloped

economies of the host countries. If those cases move forward and ultimately result in damages, it couldput a chill on profitable foreign investment, jeopardizing jobs and investment capital in the United

States while retarding development in poor countries. Hundreds of millions of poor people around the

world will find it more difficult to escape poverty. (H/H)
http://www.nationalcenter.org/LB34.htmlhttp://www.nationalcenter.org/LB34.htmlhttp://www.freetrade.org/http://www.freetrade.org/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2965http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2965http://www.nationalcenter.org/LB34.htmlhttp://www.nationalcenter.org/LB34.htmlhttp://www.freetrade.org/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2965


23/25


ATCA Reform - Neg

DA #3 SOFT POWER

Internal Link: ATCA lawsuits hinder foreign policy interest


The Bush Administration agrees and has filed a brief seeking to limit ATCA lawsuits in U.S. courts on thegrounds they pose a direct threat to national security and foreign policy interests and could hinderAmerica's war against terrorism. To do less is to embrace a paternalistic theory that smacks more than

faintly of colonialism and racism. It's time to end the lawyers' quest for jackpot justice at the expense of U.S. foreign

policy interests and South Africa's desperate need to revive a decaying economy.

Link: Foreign policy initiatives hindered, imperiled counter-terrorism efforts

Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute, 2003. He holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Wisconsin atMadison and a diploma in economics and a master's degree in the Politics of the World Economy from the London School of Economics. Daniel Griswoldis director of theCenter for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Abuse of 18th Century Law Threatens U.S. Economic and

Security Interests. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2965

Abuse of the ATCA is complicating U.S. foreign policy at a time when the United States needs to winfriends and influence nations in the war against terrorism. Suits filed under the ATCA breed resentment

abroad that the U.S. legal system is attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. In one

case involving Indonesia and Exxon Mobil Corporation, the U.S. State Department warned in a July

2002 friend-of-the-court letter that, "U.S. counter-terrorism initiatives could be imperiled in numerousways if Indonesia and its officials curtailed cooperation in response to perceived disrespect for its

sovereign interests." American interest would be further jeopardized if the lawsuits lead to worsening

economic conditions and instability in countries the United States is trying to cultivate as allies. As theState Department noted in the Indonesia case, "increasing opportunities for U.S. business abroad is an

important aspect of U.S. foreign policy." (H/H)

Impact : Loss of soft power

1. Without soft power the US loses leverage in international affairs

Joseph S. Nye (Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University. The 2008 TRIP survey of 1700international relations scholars ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar of the past twenty years, and the most

influential on American foreign policy. Received his bachelor's degree summa cum laude from Princeton in 1958, did

postgraduate work at Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship and earned his Ph.D. He is the University Distinguished Service

Professor of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He was Deputy to the Under Secretary ofState for Security Assistance, Science and Technology and chaired the National Security Council Group on

Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Nye also served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs

in the Clinton Administration. In recognition of his service, he received the highest Department of State commendation, the

Distinguished Honor Award. In 1993 and 1994, he was chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which coordinates

intelligence estimates for the President. He was awarded the Intelligence Communitys Distinguished Service Medal. In1994 and 1995, he served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, where he also won the

Distinguished Service Medal with an Oak Leaf Cluster.), May 2004 "The Decline of America's Soft Power," published inForeign Affairs Magazine, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-

america-s-soft-power.html(JES)

"Soft power, therefore, is not just a matter of ephemeral popularity; it is a means of obtaining outcomesthe United States wants. When Washington discounts the importance of its attractiveness abroad, it

pays a steep price. When the United States becomes so unpopular that being pro-American is a kiss of

death in other countries' domestic politics, foreign political leaders are unlikely to make helpful
http://www.nationalcenter.org/LB34.htmlhttp://www.freetrade.org/http://www.freetrade.org/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2965http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2965http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-america-s-soft-power.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-america-s-soft-power.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-america-s-soft-power.htmlhttp://www.nationalcenter.org/LB34.htmlhttp://www.freetrade.org/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2965http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-america-s-soft-power.htmlhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-america-s-soft-power.html


24/25


ATCA Reform - Negconcessions (witness the defiance of Chile, Mexico, and Turkey in March 2003). And when U.S. policies lose their legitimacy

in the eyes of others, distrust grows, reducing U.S. leverage in international affairs."

2. Soft Power is key to a lot of issues.

Joshua Kurlantzick(Visiting scholar in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a fellow at the USCSchool of Public Diplomacy and the Pacific Council on International Policy; previously foreign editor at The New

Republic), December 2005 "The Decline of American Soft Power", Published in Current History, [Vol. 104, Issue 686;pg. 419] (JES)

"A broad decline in soft power has many practical implications. These include the drain in foreign

talent coming to the United States, the potential backlash against American companies, the growing

attractiveness of China and Europe, and the possibility that anti-US sentiment will make it easier forterrorist groups to recruit. In addition, with a decline in soft power, Washington is simply less able to

persuade others. In the run-up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration could not convince Turkey, a longtime US ally, to play a major staging role,in part because America's image in Turkey was so poor. During the war itself, the United States has failed to obtain significant participation from all but a

handful of major nations, again in part because of America's negative image in countries ranging from India to Germany. In attempts topersuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons, Washington has had to allow China to play a

central role, partly because few Asian states view the United States as a neutral, legitimate broker in the

talks. Instead, Washington must increasingly resort to the other option Nye discusses-force, or the threat of force. With foreign governments and publicssuspicious of American policy, the White House has been unable to lead a multinational effort to halt Iran's nuclear program, and instead has had to resort

to threatening sanctions at the United Nations or even the possibility of strikes against Iran. With America's image declining in nations

like Thailand and Pakistan, it is harder for leaders in these countries to openly embrace

counterterrorism cooperation with the United States, so Washington resorts to quiet arm-twisting and blandishments to obtain

counterterror concessions. Force is not a long-term solution. Newer, nontraditional security threats such as disease, human

trafficking, and drug trafficking can only be managed through forms of multilateral cooperation that

depend on America's ability to persuade other nations. Terrorism itself cannot be defeated by force alone, a fact that even theWhite House recognizes. The 2002 National security Strategy emphasizes that winning the war on terror requires the United States to lead a battle of ideasagainst the ideological roots of terrorism, in addition to rooting out and destroying individual militant cells."


25/25


ATCA Reform - Neg

DA #4 RULE OF LAW

Link: Aff. extends right of action for environmental damages under ATCA

Internal Link: Current interpretations twist the original nature/intent of the law

Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute, 2003. He holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Wisconsin atMadison and a diploma in economics and a master's degree in the Politics of the World Economy from the London School of Economics. Daniel Griswold

is director of theCenter for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Abuse of 18th Century Law Threatens U.S. Economic and

Security Interests. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2965

The loophole is the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), passed by the first Congress in 1789. The act gives federaldistrict courts sole jurisdiction over civil actions brought by non-U.S. residents for torts, or wrongful

acts, "committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." The law was

originally intended merely to clarify jurisdiction in cases involving such matters as piracy and theactions of diplomats. It was never intended to be used against Americans engaged in commerce abroad.

But in the last two decades, critics of global capitalism have turned the law against U.S. corporations

doing business in countries whose governments have been accused of human rights and environmentalabuses. (H/H)

Impact: Rule of Law is key to stable society

Public Affairs Journal, 2008. (Lauren Zeitler is currently a junior at William Smith College. She is a double major in Political Science andLatin American Studies, in addition to completing an honors project regarding the latinization of the U.S. labor force.)http://www.publicaffairsjournal.com/?q=node/33

This framework, called the Rule of Law, requires that liberty and freedom be equally applied to secure thefreedom of mobility .The Rule of Law protects the relationship between economic and political

freedoms. Under the Rule, private property, competition and personal freedoms are equally enforced so

that every individual is subject to equal market forces. (H/H)
http://www.freetrade.org/http://www.freetrade.org/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2965http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2965http://www.publicaffairsjournal.com/?q=node/33http://www.freetrade.org/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2965http://www.publicaffairsjournal.com/?q=node/33

Documents

NEG - ATCA Reform CON