Shifting the lens on Alien Tort Statute litigation: Narrating us hegemony in Filártiga and marcos

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


This article revisits the two seminal Alien Tort Statute (ATS) cases Filártiga v. Peña-Irala and In re: Marcos Human Rights Litigation. Setting aside the dominant framework of accountability, the article explores the historical narratives produced in those cases. It exposes how Filártiga and Marcos recast as entirely foreign violence in which the US executive was deeply involved, due to a combination of legal and political constraints in the exercise of a controversial form of jurisdiction. Moreover, these constraints have persisted in subsequent ATS litigation, creating a trade-off between individual accountability and narratives about US hegemony. By offering an alternative account of ATS litigation and exposing hitherto ignored costs of familiar legal developments, this article challenges the assumption that broad assertions of jurisdiction are necessarily beneficial in human rights struggles, and urges international lawyers to pay more attention to the interplay among doctrine, political circumstances and historical narrative when considering and comparing human rights mechanisms.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)147-172
Number of pages26
JournalEuropean Journal of International Law
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1 Feb 2017
Externally publishedYes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Political Science and International Relations
  • Law


Dive into the research topics of 'Shifting the lens on Alien Tort Statute litigation: Narrating us hegemony in Filártiga and marcos'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this