Kadic v. Karadzic

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
70 F.3d 232 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Alien Tort Act provides federal subject-matter jurisdiction for torts committed by individuals in violation of the law of nations, regardless of whether the individual acted under the authority of a state. Certain international law violations of universal concern, such as genocide and war crimes, are actionable against private individuals who are not state actors.

Facts:

Radovan Karadzic was the President of the self-proclaimed Bosnian-Serb republic, known as 'Srpska,' and held ultimate command authority over its military forces during the Bosnian civil war.
Plaintiffs S. Kadic and others, who are Croat and Muslim citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, were victims or representatives of victims of atrocities committed by Bosnian-Serb military forces.
The alleged atrocities included a campaign of murder, rape, forced impregnation, torture, and summary execution.
These acts were allegedly part of a systematic campaign, personally planned and ordered by Karadzic, with the intent to destroy the religious and ethnic groups of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats.
In 1993, Karadzic entered the United States on three occasions as an invitee of the United Nations.

Procedural Posture:

Two groups of plaintiffs, including S. Kadic and Jane Doe, filed separate civil actions against Radovan Karadzic in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs asserted subject-matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Act, the Torture Victim Protection Act, and the general federal-question statute.
Karadzic was personally served with the summons and complaint during his visits to New York City.
Karadzic filed a motion to dismiss on several grounds, including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The District Court dismissed both actions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that acts by non-state actors do not violate the law of nations.
The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Alien Tort Act grant federal subject-matter jurisdiction over claims for violations of the law of nations, such as genocide and war crimes, when committed by a non-state actor?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Judge Newman

Yes. The Alien Tort Act confers federal subject-matter jurisdiction over claims for certain violations of international law committed by non-state actors. The court holds that the law of nations is not confined to state action; certain conduct, such as genocide and war crimes, violates international law whether undertaken by state officials or private individuals. The proscription of genocide, as codified in the Genocide Convention, explicitly applies to private individuals. Similarly, the law of war, particularly common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, binds all parties to a non-international armed conflict, including insurgent groups. For violations that do require state action, such as 'official' torture, plaintiffs are entitled to prove that Karadzic's regime satisfies the criteria for a de facto state (defined territory, population, government, capacity for foreign relations) or that he acted in concert with a recognized state like the former Yugoslavia. Therefore, the district court has jurisdiction over the claims.

Analysis:

This decision significantly expanded the practical application of the Alien Tort Act by clarifying that its reach extends beyond state-sponsored abuses. By holding that non-state actors can be held liable for universally condemned offenses like genocide and war crimes, the court opened U.S. federal courts to human rights claims against leaders of insurgent groups, paramilitary organizations, and other non-governmental entities. This ruling solidified the principle that certain international crimes are so heinous they create individual responsibility, regardless of official state authority. It also established a crucial framework for analyzing which international law violations require state action and which do not, a distinction that has guided subsequent human rights litigation in the U.S.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Kadic v. Karadzic (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"