NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Donald Verrilli, Jr.

(Solicitor General) BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: In partial affirmance to the arguments of Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: A court may in appropriate circumstances fashion a federal common-law cause of action based on the Alien Tort Statute for certain extra-territorial violations of the law of nations, but a private right of actions is not available under the circumstances of the case. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 712, 724 (2004) QUOTE/S: In the circumstances of this case, the Court should not fashion a federal common-law cause of action. Here, Nigerian plaintiffs are suing Dutch and British corporations for allegedly aiding and abetting the Nigerian military and police forces in committing torture, extrajudicial killing, crimes against humanity, and arbitrary arrest and detention in Nigeria. Especially in these circumstances where the alleged primary tortfeasor is a foreign sovereign and the defendant is a foreign corporation of a third country the United States cannot be thought responsible in the eyes of the international community for affording a remedy for the companys actions, while the nations directly con cerned could. A decision not to create a private right of action under U.S. law in these circumstances would give effect to the Courts admonition in Sosa to exercise particular caution in deciding whether, if at all, to consider suits under rules that would claim a limit on the power of foreign governments over their own citizens, and to hold that a foreign government or its agent has transgressed those limits. 542 U.S. at 727 -728. *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: European Commission BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: In support of neither parties STAND/DOCTRINE: The Court should interpret the ATS with reference to the jurisdictional framework and limitations of international law. Accordingly, the United States may exercise prescriptive jurisdiction to reach claims based on extraterritorial conduct where the defendant is a United States national or the conduct implicates United States security interests of fundamental importance. In addition, the United States can assume universal jurisdiction over a narrow category of the most grave international law violations involving conduct of universal concern so long as the ATS claimant demonstrates that those States with a nexus to the case are unwilling or unable to provide a forum and no international remedies are available. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Former UN Special Representative for Business and Human Rights John Ruggie

BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Neutral STAND/DOCTRINE: SRSG concluded that corporations may have direct responsibilities under international law for committing international crimes, including crimes against humanity, torture, genocide, and slavery. BASIS: 2007 Report to the UN by the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General QUOTE/S: In Section II, the SRSG explicitly recognized that corporations may be held directly liable for human rights violations that constitute international crimes. After reviewing the law and state practice, the SRSG found that there was observable evidence of emerging corporate responsibility for international crimes. The SRSG examined developments in the area of corporate responsibility for international crimes and found that the interaction between the extension of responsibility for international crimes to corporations under domestic law and the expansion and refinement of individual responsibility by the international ad hoc criminal tribunals and the ICC Statute has createdan expanding web of potential corporate liability for international crimes. He refuted the argument that the lack of a current international body for adjudicating corporate responsibility for international crimes points to the fact that such responsibility does not exist, stating that just as the absence of an international accountability mechanism did not preclude individual responsibility for international crimes in the past, it does not preclude the emergence of corporate responsibility today. The SRSG noted that corporations might face either criminal or civil liability depending on whether international standards are incorporated into a States criminal code or as a civil cause of action (as under the [Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350 (ATS )]) *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Institute of Human Rights and Business, Errol P. Mendes BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Neutral STAND/DOCTRINE: ATS lawsuits do not unfairly cause reputational damage to corporations. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S: Separate and apart from potential legal liabilities and concerns, the vast majority of companies in the U.S. business community has already reached the consensus that publicity surrounding human rights abuses can harm their reputations, brand images and in turn their bottom lines. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Memorandum: Corporation Social Responsibility for Human Rights: Comments on the UN Special

Representatives Report Entitled, Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, May 22, 2008. (emphasis added.) In other words, it is the underlying conduct that causes the
reputational harm, not the lawsuit.

ATS suits often allege egregious human rights violations, but that does not mean that corporations business activities are above the scrutiny of the media, the judiciary, and the public.

*** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Law of Nations Scholars BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Neutral STAND/DOCTRINE: The ATS expressly invokes the law of nations, and that law authorizes and sometimes requires jurisdiction over causes of action arising anywhere in the world. It would compromise the statutes text as well as ignore longstanding canons of construction to limit the ATS to claims arising in the United States. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: The American Civil Liberties Union BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: This Court should hold that the jurisdiction conferred on the federal courts by the ATS to hear cases involving torts in violation of the law of nations is not limited to torts occurring within the sovereign territory of the United States. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S: The ATS does not provide a cause of action or prescribe a course of conduct. It is a jurisdictional statute. The presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply to jurisdictional statutes but only to claims that the substantive prescriptions of U.S. law apply to activity occurring outside the U.S. It is, therefore, irrelevant in this case. *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Martin S. Flaherty and John V. Orth BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: The federal courts have jurisdiction over claims filed pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350, THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1789-1800 QUOTE/S: The federal courts have jurisdiction over claims filed pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C.

 1350. ATS claims are based on federal common law, and the federal courts have Article III federal question jurisdiction over federal common law claims. The constitutionality of such jurisdiction when the statute was enacted in 1789 is irrelevant to an assessment of its constitutionality today. However, the text of the ATS, the history of the statute, and contemporaneous statements all indicate that an ATS claim arises under federal law without regard to the citizenship of the parties. Such claims fell within the The federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over ATS claims for torts in violation of international law. As this Court held in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the ATS, a jurisdictional statute, is based on the assumption that federal courts would use their common law power to recognize causes of action for a limited number of violations of international law. This was the assumption at the time the statute was drafted, and, as Sosa held, it remains the correct interpretation of the statute today. As federal common law causes of action, ATS claims clearly fall within constitutionally authorized Article III federal question jurisdiction. *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: South African Jurists Anton Katz and Mat Du Plessis BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: South African Law will recognize violations of the law covered by the ATS as actionable under the law of delict because such conduct constitutes a causa jurisdictionis. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S: Under South African law, as under English law, the equivalent of the US doctrine of transitory torts is embraced, as a matter of common law. The conduct covered by the ATS violations of the law of nationswould be considered wrongful, and therefore actionable, as a delict under South African law: (i) through the direct application of the relevant customary international law in terms of the South African Constitution, and (ii) through the classification more generally of such criminal conduct as consequently wrongful under our law of delict. *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Eleven Former Jewish Residents of Iran Whose Family Had Disappeared BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: The extraterritorial application of the alien tort statute should be presumed and is necessary if the statute is to achieve its objectives. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350, Morrison v. Natl Austl. Bank, Ltd, 130 S.Ct. 2869, 2881 (2010)

QUOTE/S: Without conceding the point, Amici will presume for the purposes of this brief that the First Congress left us with no indication as to its intentions regarding extraterritoriality.3 In such situations, this Court has ruled that there is a presumption against extraterritoriality(Morrison v. Natl Austl. Bank, Ltd.). However, Morrison does not apply to jurisdictional statutes. Statutes that merely provide to a court the power to hear a case and do not decide the question of whether the a llegations the plaintiff makes entitle him to relief create no presumption against extraterritorial application. Morrison, 130 S.Ct. at 2877 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The Alien Tort Statute is a jurisdictional statute and thus sits outside of Morrison. *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Abukar Hassan Ahmed and the Center for Justice and Accountability BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: Although this case involves claims against a foreign corporation, in many Alien Tort Statute suits, the defendant is an individual U.S. resident subject to the general jurisdiction of American courts. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S: In light of this well developed law of general jurisdiction, it would be perverse to permit a plaintiff alleging a single act of violence abroad to proceed against a U.S. resident in U.S. courts while denying plaintiffs harmed by a systematic campaign of terror and violence from bringing their cases here. Just as a U.S. court had jurisdiction over a rape victims suit against her attacker for an assault that occurred in Brazil, see 827 N.Y.S.2d at 115, so too a U.S. court had jurisdiction when a woman encountered her assailant in the Atlanta hotel where they both worked and subsequently brought suit against him. *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: American Bar Association BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: The ATS confers jurisdiction over suits arising from conduct that takes place in other countries, BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S: The ATS has provided victims with access to justice that is often unavailable in their own lands, making it a valuable enforcement mechanism in upholding the law of nations. The plain language of the statute

supports the applicability of the ATS to such claims and counsels against a categorical denial of jurisdiction based on the fact that the conduct took place in a foreign jurisdiction. Although jurisdiction should be exercised with care, the legal rules, including prudential limitations, that are regularly applied by federal courts in ATS casessuch as the requirement of personal jurisdiction, the doctrines of forum non conveniens and exhaustion, and the defined limitations of the scope of ATS jurisdiction to universally recognized wrongssufficiently ameliorate the concerns presented when federal courts are asked to entertain cases arising from events in other countries. *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Professors of Civil Procedure and Federal Courts BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: The courts can effectively respond to the concerns raised by ATS claims arising in the territory of foreign sovereigns. It is not necessary to preclude litigation of all such claims in order to avoid interfering with the powers of the Executive Branch or infringing on the U.S. domestic law imposes exhaustion of remedies requirements that respond to the same concerns as the international doctrine. Exhaustion of administrative or local remedies promotes efficiency by encouraging a local fact-finding body to resolve the controversy. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Theresa Traber and Allan Ides BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: The courts can effectively respond to the concerns raised by ATS claims arising in the territory of foreign sovereigns. It is not necessary to preclude litigation of all such claims in order to avoid interfering with the powers of the Executive Branch or infringing on the sovereignty of foreign states, or to ensure that claims are dismissed in favor of litigation in a more convenient forum. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S: [F]or an individual, the paradigmatic forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individuals domicile; for a corporation it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home. Goodyear, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853-54 In a case involving a U.S. corporation, with the key witnesses and evidence in the United States, the Second Circuit denied a forum non conveniens motion. Bigio v. Coca Cola Co., 448 F.3d at 179-80. In that case, in addition to the location of witnesses and evidence, the plaintiffs informed the court that they had been unsuccessful in a prior attempt to litigate in Egypt. Id. In looking to the public interest, the court concluded that the U.S had a significant interest in whether a U.S. company should be held liable

for the confiscation of plaintiffs property. Moreover, Egypt raised no objection to the U.S. court deciding this case. *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Ambassador David Sheffer BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: The Court should reverse the Second Circuits ruling in this case and hold that the ATS provides for corporate liability, including extraterritorial application when circumstances warrant. The Rome Statute offers no basis for holding otherwise. If the Court decides to comment on the mens rea standard for aiding and abetting liability, it should confirm that which is found in both federal common law and customary international law the knowledge standard. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S: The Rome Statute was conceived to govern the jurisdiction of an international criminal court over natural persons and not one committed to civil claims underpinning corporate liability. While there was a very limited discussion in the final stage of the negotiations about civil liability of corporations, it never matured into any meaningful deliberation because time was running out and the core rationale Some nations have ratified the Rome Statute with national implementing legislation that establishes corporate liability under certain conditions for atrocity crimes also falling within the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute (Rome Statute crimes), reaffirm-ing that the policy decision to abandon corporate liability for the purpose of the treaty text offers no guidance today for the status of customary inter-national law. The extension of such liability under national law through extraterritorial application also has occurred. Indeed, the United States has enacted several laws recently that employ extraterritorial juris-diction for the commission of certain atrocity crimes and egregious human rights abuses by aliens, provided they set foot on U.S. territory. A pragmatic nexus re-quirement of such similar character long has been applied in federal ATS corporate cases, thus ensuring a safety valve of reasonable U.S. contact for the enforcement of the ATS in relation to corporate conduct.

*** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Genocide Victims of Krajina BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: The ATS applies to conduct outside United States. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350

QUOTE/S: It is beyond dispute, then, that allowing an alien to bring suit in U.S. courts, under the ATS, against a U.S. national for a tort committed in violation of international law, whether domestically or abroad, does not violate international law or international comity. Moreover, to hold United States law inapplicable to the conduct of United States nationals outside the United States would violate the doctrine of nationality jurisdiction.

*** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: The Anti-Defamation League and The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: The ATS allows federal courts to recognize causes of action for a limited number of international law violations even when such actions occur in the territory of a foreign sovereign. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S: A contrary interpretation conflicts with the text of the ATS and the historical record. It would disregard the careful balance crafted by the bill from consideration. *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Australian International Law Scholars BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: There is no positive prohibition in international law restricts the extraterritorial application of the ATS. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S: The essence of the Australian position isbased on its claimed opposition to overly broad assertions of any extraterritorial civil jurisdiction. While strictly outside of the scope of the question briefedhere, Australia has maintained that ATS jurisdiction overforeign nationals and foreign factual circumstances is improper. This is clearly not the case. See Michael Akehurst, Jurisdiction in International Law, 64 Brit. Y.B. Intl L. 145, 177 (1972-73) (in civil cases the assumption of jurisdiction bya State does not seem to be subject to any requirement that the defendant or the facts of the case need have any connection with that State); Gerald Fitzmaurice, The General Principles of International Law, 92 Rec. des Cours 1, 73-81 (1957). Moreover, as seen in section II.C, infra, Australia projects jurisdiction over foreign nationals and foreign factual circumstances in a way akin to the ATS.

*** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: International treaty law certainly permits, and in some cases may require, extraterritorial civil jurisdiction for fundamental violations of the law of nations. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S: International law does not prohibit states from exercising extraterritorial civil jurisdiction, as evident from the fact that many treaties specifically provide for civil jurisdiction of domestic courts with-out setting territorial limits on that jurisdiction. Indeed, the Convention Against Torture has been understood by the Committee Against Torture and others to require state parties to establish extraterritorial civil jurisdiction. This is particularly note-worthy given that petitioners complaint alleges respondents complicity in torture among other violations of the law of nations.

*** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Volker Beck and Christoph Strasser BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: The Alien Tort Statute is one of the most important avenues of redress for victims of corporate human rights abuses and has been pivotal in obtaining justice for victims of the worst atrocities in German history. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S: Given Germanys history, it is particularly troubling that the Federal Government has chosen to intervene in support of cutting off an important avenue of accountability for human rights abuses involving corporate activity. In particular, the prospect of Alien Tort Statute (ATS) litigation was crucial in creating the conditions for a comprehensive framework for compensating victims of forced labor during the Nazi era. Despite the governments claim that civil remedies exist in German law, the victims decades -long struggle for justice illustrates that even where remedies for corporate abuses formally exist, the barriers to accessing those remedies are often prohibitive. Germanys support of the U.N. Guiding Principles, which recognize the need for effective remedies, contradicts its opposition to the application of the ATS, which may in some cases be the only truly effective remedy available for victims of human rights violations arising abroad. The Federal Governments argument that extraterritorial application of the ATS may violate Germanys sovereignty is gr oundless. The government identifies no concrete potential infringements; multinational companies are commonly subject to concurrent jurisdiction for lawsuits in

transnational matters. Moreover, the principle of universal jurisdiction allows any state to adjudicate human rights violations that amount to international crimes; this principle extends to civil liability as well. *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Victims of the Hungarian Holocaust BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: The presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply to the Alien Tort Statute. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S:

Sosa, involving the conduct of foreign citizens on foreign soil, held the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, applicable under very limited circum-stances. In doing so, Sosa itself holds the answer to
the question posed herein. Application of the ATS to conduct outside the United States is restricted to those circumstances involving universally condemned violations of inter-national law: a handful of heinous actions each of which violates definable, universal and obligatory norms. ( Sosa, 542 U.S. at 732). These include geno-cide, torture and crimes against humanity. For pur-poses of civil liability, perpetrators, like the pirate and slave trader of the 18th Century, have become hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind. Therefore customary international law not only al-lows, but requires that jurisdiction be asserted wher-ever such perpetrators are found. No presumption against extraterritoriality applies under these circumstances. The purpose of the presumption is to limit conflicts between U.S. and foreign law by limiting the application of U.S. substantive law on foreign soil. However, the ATS does not seek to apply U.S. substantive law. As this Court in Sosa noted, the ATS applies only a narrow band of international law that is universally recognized. As such, the ATS is not subject to the presumption

*** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: Stare Decisis requires that all aspects of Sosa be followed because Sosa ss well reasoned. BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S:

Sosa is well reasoned because there was a clear majority, and it has not created any confusion,

because lower courts have consistently applied its endorsement of federal court jurisdiction over extra-territorial human rights abuses, because its endorsement of federal court jurisdiction over extraterritorial human rights abuses has not been criticized by the academic community and because it accurately interpreted the Alien Tort Statutes legislative history. *** NAME of AMICUS CURIE BRIEF WRITER/INSTITUTION: The Association for the Bar of the City of New York BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/NEUTRAL: Petitioner Esther Koibel STAND/DOCTRINE: BASIS: Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. 1350 QUOTE/S: The Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350 (ATS), grants federal court jurisdiction over a violation of the law of nations or a U.S. treaty, where the former is consistent with the standards this Court set forth in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004). The plain language, legislative history, and context of the ATS clearly indicate that the ATS was intended to apply to acts committed abroad, overriding any presumption against extraterritoriality. As this Court held in Sosa, ATS jurisdiction is proper when the alleged act violates a customary international law norm that is specific, obligatory, and universal and thus is actionable under that statute regardless of where the conduct in question occurs. As in other federal cases, federal courts may only adjudicate a claim when they properly exercise both subject matter jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction over a defendant based on that defendants presence in or contacts with the U.S. state in which the district court is located. Federal courts may properly decline to exercise their jurisdiction when, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, another forum offers a more appropriate venue for the plaintiffs claims, including courts of another nation. Similarly, feder al courts may also decline to exercise jurisdiction when the U.S. Department of State certifies that entertaining the plaintiffs ATS claim could harm U.S. relations with a foreign nation or impede the Executive Branchs ability to carry out foreign affairs. Even with these caveats, the ATS serves an important function in providing redress to victims and civil accountability for serious human rights abuses, and its application should not now be truncated by the Court when Congress has declined to do so during the more than 30 years since the Filartiga decision. As this Court recognized in Sosa, the ATS denies refuge from civil liability in the U.S. to those who commit egregious violations of the law of nations, especially when victims have no other civil remedy for those violations. Federal court jurisdiction of ATS claims for gross misconduct abroad also furthers the development of fair and consistent standards for liability for conduct that violates the law of nations. Such standards better serve the interests of the United States and its nationals than a patchwork of varying foreign court decisions, many of which would be entitled to recognition and enforcement in the U.S. Such an outcome would not reflect the intention of the First Congress, the rigor of t his Courts Sosa standards, or the independence of U.S. courts in interpreting and applying the law of nations.