About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

Case Citations [1] (July 2019 - April 2020)

handle is hein.ali/rethdfr0042 and id is 1 raw text is: 


                            UNITED STATES 3D



§ 102. Sources of International Law

U.S.C.M.C.R.2019.  Quot. in disc.; Rptrs' Note (1) quot. in ftn. Criminal defendants sought dismissal of
charges for attacking civilian objects and for destruction of property in violation of the law of war. The
military commission granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding that the
government's charges were barred by the five-year statute of limitations under military law. On remand
from the court of appeals, this court reversed and remanded the military commission's decision, holding
that the statute of limitations did not apply to war crimes tried before a military commission, because
war crimes arose from the violation of customary international law. The court cited Restatement Third
of Foreign Relations Law § 102 in illustrating the imprescriptible nature of customary international law,
and explained that international law generally did not prescribe statutes of limitations to war crimes.
United States v. Mohammad, 398 F.Supp.3d 1233, 1242.

D.D.C.2019. Subsec. (2) and com. (c) quot. in sup. Indonesian citizens sued United States entities that
operated a large natural-gas extraction and processing facility in Indonesia, alleging that defendants'
security forces violated the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and committed various common-law torts by
detaining, torturing, sexually assaulting, killing, or otherwise abusing plaintiffs or their decedents. This
court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' ATS claims, holding that defendants could not be
liable under the ATS. The court cited Restatement Third of Foreign Relations Law § 102 in reasoning,
in part, that customary international law did not impose liability on corporations; the court pointed out
that states had consistently excluded corporations from the jurisdictional reach of the charters of
international criminal tribunals. Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 391 F.Supp.3d 76, 89, 90.

E.D.Va.2019. Subsec. (2) quot. in case quot. in disc. Iraqi prisoners brought a lawsuit against military
contractor and the United States, alleging, among other things, that defendants inflicted torture and
cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment on plaintiffs during their imprisonment. This court granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss, holding, inter alia, that the United States did not
have sovereign immunity for claims arising from the violation of jus cogens norms through torture
and inhuman treatment, because it implicitly waived such immunity by becoming a signatory to the
Convention Against Torture. The court relied on Restatement Third of Foreign Relations Law § 102(2)
to define jus cogens norms as norms accepted and recognized by the international community of states
that drew on international customary law. Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc., 368 F.Supp.3d
935, 955.

                            COPYRIGHT 02020 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE
                                          All rights reserved
                                    Printed in the United States of America
          For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most