Abstract
This paper presents a philosophical critique of the 2013 Supreme Court decision
that limits the application of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). On April 17th 2013, the
U.S. Supreme Court decided in Kiobel vs. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. on an issue that
could impact the future of international human rights litigation: the nation’s
highest court concurred with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by
arguing that corporations cannot be held liable for torts violations under
international law. This decision limits the ability of ATS to prosecute alleged
human rights violations in foreign countries unless a commanding connection to
the U.S. can be established. This paper argues that due to certain circumscriptions
in the legal reasoning that underpinned the Supreme Court decision, the chances
for global distributive justice based on the protection of global human rights is
severely curtailed particularly in the absence of truly global judiciary systems of
tort law. The paper concludes with general theoretical reflections on the
intersection of ethics, rights, law and development and why that is significant for
our understanding of contemporary global justice.