US Courts’ Role in Foreign Feuds Comes Under Fire

Courts in the United States are increasingly being used to adjudicate disputes occurring beyond US orders, explains the New York Times. Some cases involve human rights concerns and also financial compensation: A Scottish woman sued in New York to stop construction of a proposed holocaust memorial in Poland, relatives of Venezuelans killed in Caracas sues the Venezuelan president in a Miami court, and torture victims use US courts to sue alleged torturers in multiple countries. The Bush administration, however, is not happy that US courts are used this way. "The current litigation-based system of compensation is inequitable, unpredictable, occasionally costly to the U.S. taxpayer and damaging to foreign policy and national security goals of this country," says William H. Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser. Indeed, although enforceable financial settlements are fairly rare, $350 million in federal funds were used to pay compensation in one case involving terrorist activities and Iran. The Bush administration and US corporate interests push the courts to repeal one particular law, the Alien Tort Claims Act, out of fear that it could put US companies at risk of huge financial settlements and disrupt alliance-building for the war on terror. Yale legal scholar Harold Hongju Koh notes, "like it or not, foreign disputes are going to come into our courts. And if they raise issues of concern to us, our courts ought to be able to adjudicate those concerns." – YaleGlobal