Minnesota Law Review

Note, Tortured Language: “Individuals,” Corporate Liability, and the Torture Victim Protection Act

The Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) allows persons who have been subjected to torture or extrajudicial killing to pursue a tort action against “individual[s]” who have committed such actions “under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation.” In the past decade, activists and human rights organizations have lodged dozens of accusations of human rights violations against well-known corporations on several continents. In light of these circumstances, the survivors of such violations have increasingly turned to the TVPA as an avenue for redress against corporations who have allegedly hired paramilitary or security forces to violently disrupt labor demonstrations or other forms of protest.

Although the first circuit court to consider such actions allowed them to proceed, a small but growing number of circuit courts are rejecting the suggestion that corporations may be liable under the Act, noting that the statute uses the word “individual” instead of “person” when describing the liable actor. Because several appellate courts continue to reject other statutory bases for such actions against human rights abusers, corporations are confronted with virtually no economic incentive to refrain from engaging in such practices. As such, Congress’s purposes for adopting the TVPA are thwarted by the limitations that some appellate courts find in the language of the Act. With the Supreme Court poised to consider the question of corporate liability under the TVPA during the current term, the fate of the sole tort remedy available for many victims of torture hangs in the balance.

The Note argues that while the language of the TVPA is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations, strong policy interests weigh in favor of allowing torture survivors to pursue a civil action against corporations for human rights abuses under the statute. After considering these policy interests, the history and language of the Act, and the accompanying legislative history, the Note calls on the Supreme Court to recognize that corporations should be held liable for torture under the TVPA.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited in Al Jazeera Opinion Piece

    A recent Al Jazeera opinion piece that criticizes the Supreme Court’s Daimler decision cites to Volume 97′s lead piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the Al Jazeera piece here.

  • Masthead for Volume 99 Board

    The masthead for the Board of Volume 99 of the Minnesota Law Review is now available. You can view the masthead here.

  • Above the Law Post Highlights MLR‘s Jump in Journal Rankings

    A recent post on Above the Law highlights the fact that the Minnesota Law Review was ranked 11th in the most recent 2013 edition of the Washington & Lee Law Review Rankings. You can read the post here.

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited on Slate

    A recent Slate article on the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the “Moldy Washing Machine” cases, or overturn class certification of those cases in some circuits, cites to the Volume 97 Lead Piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the article here.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days