It
is unlikely that civil litigation in U.S. courts will, in the long
run, represent an effective means of deterring or punishing massive
human rights abuses. Nor is the phenomenon free of danger. For U.S.
courts adjudicating disputes about violations abroad, there is the
danger of politicization. For U.S. diplomats, lawsuits may hamper
and complicate the negotiations and diplomatic initiatives that arguably
hold out the best hope for long-term change. Finally, a growing
international role for U.S. courts may generate a backlash abroad–even
among U.S. allies–that would not be helpful to the cause of human
rights. Through skeptical eyes, it appears that the U.S. is eager
to haul foreign defendants into its own courts, while at the same
time opposing any initiative, like an International Criminal Court,
that poses even a minimal danger to American citizens.
From another perspective, however, the Alien Tort suits serve important
goals. They provide a forum for victims who have often endured long
years of silent suffering to tell the world of the wrongs done to
them. And they serve notice on foreign human rights violators that
they cannot visit the United States with impunity.
Beyond their significance for individual litigants, these suits are
also part of an important trend in international law. Increasingly,
national courts are becoming involved in global issues. At the same
time, states are creating new international tribunals and granting
new powers to established international courts. The result is an increasingly
complex transnational justice system, in which international, national
and regional courts interact and overlap. Management of this complex
system to defend fundamental values will be one of the great challenges
ahead. |
