• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Journals
    • Yale Journal of International Law
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Journals
    • Yale Journal of International Law
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of openYLSCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Translating Filartiga: A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies For International Human Rights Violations

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    07_27YaleJIntlL1_Winter2002_.pdf
    Size:
    4.221Mb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Stephens, Beth
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/6437
    Abstract
    The search for means to hold accountable those responsible for egregious human rights abuses has assumed central importance for policymakers as well as activists, politicians as well as scholars. In the absence of effective international enforcement mechanisms, domestic courts have played an important role in the effort to enforce international human rights norms. While most nations focus on criminal prosecutions, the United States has developed an elaborate doctrine of civil liability for violations of international law, through private lawsuits against individuals, corporations and States, known as the Filartiga doctrine. These two approaches have developed in virtual isolation,a result of a failure to understand their fundamental similarities. Both civil and criminal actions represent the translation into domestic legal systems of the international law principle of accountability for human rights violations. Differences in local procedures, as well as markedly different cultural responses to the purposes served by civil litigation, lead to wide variations in the implementation of accountability principles within domestic legal systems. But all respond to the international mandates to hold responsible perpetrators of human rights abuses, provide remedies for victims of those violations, and deter future abuses. An understanding of the common international law foundation underlying civil remedies in the United States and criminal human rights prosecutions abroad enables us to recognize that the assertion of jurisdiction over such actions is authorized by the international law principle of universal jurisdiction. The history and underlying logic of the doctrine demonstrate that it permits accountability through civil remedies as well as criminal prosecutions. As international negotiators press forward to draft an international convention governing civil jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments, it is crucial to the future of accountability that any resulting agreement recognize this principle.
    Collections
    Yale Journal of International Law

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2025)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.