Alien Torts Claims Act/Related Articles: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
John Leach (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "{{r|Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.}}" to "") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
{{Bot-created_related_article_subpage}} | {{Bot-created_related_article_subpage}} | ||
<!-- Remove the section above after copying links to the other sections. --> | <!-- Remove the section above after copying links to the other sections. --> | ||
==Articles related by keyphrases (Bot populated)== | |||
{{r|Filartiga v. Pena-Irala}} | |||
{{r|Goldstone Report}} | |||
{{r|Forti v. Suarez Mason}} | |||
{{r|U.S. Courts of Appeals}} | |||
Latest revision as of 16:00, 8 July 2024
- See also changes related to Alien Torts Claims Act, or pages that link to Alien Torts Claims Act or to this page or whose text contains "Alien Torts Claims Act".
Parent topics
Subtopics
Bot-suggested topics
Auto-populated based on Special:WhatLinksHere/Alien Torts Claims Act. Needs checking by a human.
- Filartiga v. Pena-Irala [r]: A 1984 decision by a U.S. appellate court, which supported universal jurisdiction over torture, and command responsibility for the superiors of torturers [e]
- Filartiga v. Pena-Irala [r]: A 1984 decision by a U.S. appellate court, which supported universal jurisdiction over torture, and command responsibility for the superiors of torturers [e]
- Goldstone Report [r]: Add brief definition or description
- Forti v. Suarez Mason [r]: A 1987 U.S. case that determined that the principle of hostis humani generis applied to torturers, and thus placed them under universal jurisdiction, such that they could be appreheded by any country even though the torture had taken place in that country, and the parties were not citizens of that country [e]
- U.S. Courts of Appeals [r]: The 13 intermediate appellate courts (also called "circuit courts") in the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government [e]