Alien Tort Statute
After ATS Litigation: A FCPA for Human Rights?
Pierre-Hugues Verdier, Paul Stephan Mon, May 7, 2018, 7:00 AM
A proposal for an FCPA-inspired means to hold corporations liable for human rights violations.
Paul Stephan is the John C. Jeffries, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is an expert on international business, international dispute resolution and comparative law, with an emphasis on Soviet and post-Soviet legal systems. In addition to writing prolifically in these fields, Stephan has advised governments and international organizations, taken part in cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, the federal courts, and various foreign judicial and arbitral proceedings, and lectured to professionals and scholarly groups around the world on issues raised by the globalization of the world economy. During 2006-07, he served as counselor on international law in the U.S. Department of State. He currently is a coordinating reporter for the American Law Institute’s Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. Other interests for Stephan, who joined the University of Virginia’s law faculty in 1979, include taxation and constitutional law.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Testimony in Opposition to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
Paul Stephan Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 8:25 AM
JASTA invites shrinkage of sovereign immunity abroad that will harm the United States and impede our antiterrorism activities, result in default judgments and refusals to pay rather than any justice to victims, and bizarrely privatizes antiterrorism by leaving it to litigants and judges to determine what states sponsor terrorism.
Executive Power
More Mischief than Guidance: What Zivotofsky Says About the Supreme Court
Paul Stephan Tue, Jun 9, 2015, 7:52 AM
The Zivotofsky case is about the Supreme Court as much as it about foreign relations law. There is more mischief than guidance in what the court says when it wrestles with hard constitutional questions. The opinion offers considerable comfort to defenders of the President in matters of foreign relations. One voice and bad congressional purpose can be trotted out almost anytime. Yet the Court can pivot easily in almost any case, finding a legitimate enactment where today it sees only perversity.