Abstract:The legal status of international human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) has been the subject of much debate, culminating in the Supreme Court’s decision in Sosa v. Alvarez- Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004). The debate has been almost exclusively doctrinal and has focused on the Judiciary Act of 1789, the historical treatment of the law of nations as general or federal common law, the evolution of the Supreme Court’s international law jurisprudence, and the integration of customary international law (CIL) into the domestic legal system. This Article argues that the focus on doctrine masks underlying international relations theory assumptions that are the true motivations of the federal incorporation of CIL and international human rights litigation under the ATS. One cannot evaluate the desirability of the federal incorporation of CIL and international human rights litigation in U.S. courts without having a theory of the operation of the international system, the motivation for state behavior in international politics, and the efficacy of international law as a coercive instrument. Proponents of the federal incorporation of CIL and international human rights litigation implicitly rely on social constructivism, democratic peace theory, and institutionalism — international relations theories that motivate a universalist theory of international law. The universalist theory holds that international law has an independent, exogenous affect on state behavior. Since States obey international law out of legal obligation, universalists tend to encourage the greater integration of CIL into domestic legal regimes and the use of CIL to improve human rights practices around the world. Therefore, the desirability and efficacy of the federal incorporation of CIL and international human rights litigation under the ATS depends on the explanatory power of specific international relations theories and the strength of the universalist theory as the appropriate conception of international law. This Article directly engages the universalist theory of international law and the underlying international relations assumptions upon which proponents of federal incorporation and international human rights litigation under the ATS rely. The Article examines a competing international relations theory and alternative conception of international law that views compliance as a function of state interests rather than of legal obligation. Working from this perspective, the Article provides a framework to evaluate the desirability of the federal incorporation of CIL and international human rights litigation in U.S. courts. The Article concludes that international human rights litigation under the current legal regime would likely complicate the achievement of the United States’ normative and strategic foreign policy goals. Given the executive’s institutional competencies, constitutional prerogatives and resource advantages, it is the branch best-placed to determine whether international human rights litigation will assist or hinder the United States’ foreign policy objectives. Therefore, the Article suggests that a modest shift along the continuum of existing judicial deference to the executive branch — perhaps in the form of judicial review of executive determinations on specific litigation under an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion or reasonableness standard — is warranted for international human rights litigation under the ATS.

Not Just Doctrine: The True Motivation for Federal Incorporation and International Human Rights Litigation

"It's doom alone that counts": can international human rights law be an effective source of rights in correctional conditions litigation?

Litigation Dilemmas: Lessons from the Marcos Human Rights Class Action

The United States reluctance to join the international criminal law statute: an analysis

Human Rights in an Era of Neoliberal Globalization: The Alien Tort Claims Act and Grassroots Mobilization in Doe v. Unocal

Symbolism Over Substance: The Role of Adversarial Cross-Examination in Campus Sexual Assault Adjudications and the Legality of the Proposed Rulemaking on Title IX

The Nature of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (and its Amended Jurisdictional Scheme)

The Abiding Relevance of Federalism to U.S. Foreign Relations

The Act of State Doctrine--From Abstention to Activism

The Coalescence of United States Immigration Law and International Criminal Law: An Exploration of Elias Zacarias in the Context of Female Genital Mutilation

The Act of State Doctrine: Questions of Validity and Abstention from 'Underhill to Habib'

The American Act of State Doctrine

Major Questions Doctrine Jujitsu: Using The Doctrine To Rein In District Court Judges

The ‘Collective Guarantee’ of International Human Rights: Creating, Reinforcing, and Undoing Legitimacies and Mandates Between Law and Politics

The Nature of the Rome Statute and the Place of International Law before the International Criminal Court

Situational Situs: The Influence of Domestic Politics onJudicial Application of the Act of State Doctrine - The RussianCase

The International Criminal Court and the Issue of Intersectionality—A Conceptual and Legal Framework for Analysis

Engaging Armed Groups Through the Development of Human Rights Obligations: Incorporating Practice, Motivation and Ideology to Promote Compliance with International Law

Women Refugees and the Development of US Asylum Law: 1980-present

Dobbs and the Civil Dimension of Extraterritorial Abortion Regulation

Review of 'Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics' by Beth A. Simmons