International Law

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC — Study Notes

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (U.S. 2018)

Study notes for Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

Foreign corporations cannot be defendants in lawsuits brought under the Alien Tort Statute.
Professor Notes

In 'Jesner v. Arab Bank', the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a critical question regarding the scope of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The Court ultimately ruled that foreign corporations cannot be held liable under the ATS for alleged violations of international law. Emphasis will be placed on the implications of this ruling for the accountability of multinational corporations and the enforcement of human rights claims. Additionally, the case highlights the limitations and jurisdictional complexities of the ATS, as it pertains to actions occurring outside U.S. territory.

The implications of the Court's decision extend beyond the specific facts of the case, potentially impacting future claims against foreign entities and suggesting a judicial reluctance to extend ATS remedies to foreign corporate actors. This ruling invites discussion on the balance between accountability for human rights violations and the business interests of foreign corporations in international law contexts.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1What are the main facts of the case and the claims made by the plaintiffs?
  2. 2Explain the legal significance of the Alien Tort Statute as it relates to foreign entities.
  3. 3What arguments did the plaintiffs present to support their claims?
  4. 4Discuss the majority opinion's rationale for prohibiting suits against foreign corporations.
  5. 5Identify any dissenting opinions and their key arguments.
  6. 6How does this ruling affect the ability to seek justice for victims of international law violations?
  7. 7Reflect on whether this decision aligns with or diverges from established international law principles.
Mnemonic Device

JAB(C) - 'Jesner Against Abroad Corporations'.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.Kiobel similarly involved the applicability of the ATS but focused on corporate actions outside the U.S. rather than specifically excluding foreign corporations.
Sosa v. Alvarez-MachainSosa dealt with the extraterritorial application of the ATS and established standards for actionable international law violations, distinct from corporate liability issues.
ABSC v. Export-Import Bank of the U.S.ABSC addressed the issue of state liability under the ATS, whereas Jesner focused solely on the potential for corporate liability.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Limiting liability for foreign corporations under the ATS encourages foreign investment and avoids overreach of U.S. courts into international matters.

Against the Rule

Excluding foreign corporations from liability undermines accountability and the ability of victims to seek redress for human rights violations.

Class Discussion Points
  • The impact of the ruling on the effectiveness of the ATS as a tool for human rights litigation.
  • Consideration of alternative avenues for holding foreign corporations accountable for international law violations.
  • How the ruling reflects the broader trends in international law regarding corporate responsibility.
Exam Angle

In exams, expect questions focusing on the implications of the ATS, corporate liability under international law, and critical analysis of the majority and dissenting opinions in Jesner.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.