{"id":700,"date":"2009-02-19T10:49:14","date_gmt":"2009-02-19T14:49:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/digest\/?p=700"},"modified":"2011-03-09T18:29:33","modified_gmt":"2011-03-09T22:29:33","slug":"second-circuit-rules-on-customary-international-law-and-ats","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/2009\/02\/second-circuit-rules-on-customary-international-law-and-ats\/","title":{"rendered":"Second Circuit Rules on Customary International Law and ATS"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In January 2009, the Second Circuit issued\u00a0a landmark human rights decision, holding\u00a0that customary international law (CIL) provides a cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute for a case alleging involuntary medical testing on humans.<\/p>\n<p>The court in <em>Abdullahi v. Pfizer<\/em>,\u00a0following the Supreme Court&#8217;s lead in<em> Sosa v. Alvaraez-Machain<\/em>,\u00a0compared the disputed norm with the limited set of 18th century customary international norms over which the ATS was intended to provide jurisdiction. The court held that in order to sustain a \u00a0CIL causes of action, the norm must be (1) universal and obligatory in nature, (2) of definite content, and (3) of mutual concern. The majority\u00a0rejected the District Court&#8217;s approach, which examined the norm to see if it were self-executing in the United States.<\/p>\n<p>The Second Circuit found evidence of the specificity and obligatory nature of the norm involved in this case by examining the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Nuremberg Code, the World Medical Association\u2019s Declaration of Helsinki, and the International\u00a0Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.<\/p>\n<p>For more information, please click <a href=\"http:\/\/opiniojuris.org\/2009\/02\/04\/does-involuntary-medical-testing-by-a-corporation-violate-international-law\/\" target=\"_blank\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>To read the opinion, click <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080\/isysnative\/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ4NjMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==\/05-4863-cv_opn.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In January 2009, the Second Circuit issued\u00a0a landmark human rights decision, holding\u00a0that customary international law (CIL) provides a cause of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_FSMCFIC_featured_image_caption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_nocaption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_hide":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[125],"tags":[42,140],"class_list":["post-700","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-digest","tag-human-rights","tag-domestic-courts"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZu3S-bi","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/700","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=700"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/700\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=700"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=700"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=700"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}