This analysis seeks to argue that ‘Company Y’ is responsible for its role in the use of inhumane and tortious interrogation techniques during the CIA’s Interrogation and Detention Program under the Alien Tort Statute. Furthermore, this analysis will seek to reconcile case law in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., et. al., and subsequent court decisions opining on the extraterritorial reach of the Alien Tort Statute. Significantly, this analysis will also answer questions left open in the Kiobel decision by arguing that corporate entities, such as Company Y, may be held liable in U.S. courts for violations of international law. Although the Kiobel decision strongly indicated that corporate liability may attach under the Alien Tort Statute (hereinafter ATS) if there is a sufficient nexus to the United States, the court ultimately left open two questions of law: (1) whether corporations could be liable for tortious conduct under the ATS, and, if so, (2) under what circumstances the ATS could apply to conduct occurring outside the geographic territory of the United States. Notably, circuit courts disagree as to whether corporate liability exists under international law, and, if it does, how to determine whether such liability results in a colorable ATS claim. Lastly, this analysis will determine the extent to which a plaintiff could hold Company Y liable for tortious conduct occurring in territories outside the United States under the ATS.
Recommended CitationDavid J. Satnarine, The Torturers: Evaluating the Senate Select Intelligence Committee’s Torture Report and Assessing the Legal Liability of “Company Y” Under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 161 (2016)
Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol28/iss1/4