Browse the archives

Browse the articles in this issue.

• ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT
  In dispute over pollution from mine in Papua New Guinea that sparked decade of violent uprisings, Ninth Circuit, in matter of first impression, concludes, inter alia, that Alien Tort Claims Act does not contain an exhaustion requirement
• ARBITRATION
  First Circuit affirms lower court’s decision that Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) prevents presentation of new arguments in motions for reconsideration even when issues concerned relate to international arbitration
• ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
  As matter of first impression, District of Columbia Circuit determines in context of Montreal Protocol that “decisions” of parties made within framework of international agreements do not constitute “laws” which are enforceable in U.S. courts
• ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
  Ninth Circuit holds that applying CERCLA to Canadian company where slag dumped in Canada became deposited along banks of Columbia River within U.S. and was releasing toxic metals into its waters did not involve extraterritoriality
• HAGUE SERVICE CONVENTION
  English Court of Appeal (Civil Division) applies, inter alia, provisions of Hague Service Convention in ruling that Swiss rather than English court first became seised of conflicting civil actions so as to give Swiss court exclusive right to litigate dispute pursuant to requirements of EU law
• HUMAN RIGHTS
  European Court of Human Rights finds that action filed by Saddam Hussein against twenty-one members of Council of Europe who may have contributed forces to the U.S. run coalition in Iraq, inadmissible for failure to specify whether and how named Respondents took part in his capture and trial on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity
• RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
  Second Circuit rules, as matter of first impression, that Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended, does not apply to alleged acts of racial discrimination by U.S. company that took place outside U.S. territory
• TAXATION
  Canadian Federal Court of Appeal rules that investigation into taxpayer’s payment history to decide whether to audit taxpayer, with no reference to criminal charges such as U.S. had filed against taxpayer, did not trigger Canadian Charter protections applicable to criminal investigations