Kadic v. Karadzic

Citation70 F.3d 232
Decision Date06 January 1996
Docket Number1544,D,Nos. 1541,s. 1541
PartiesS. KADIC, on her own behalf and on behalf of her infant sons Benjamin and Ognjen, Internationalna Iniciativa Zena Bosne I Hercegovine "Biser," and Zene Bosne I Hercegovine, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Radovan KARADZIC, Defendant-Appellee. Jane DOE I, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; and Jane Doe II, on behalf of herself and as administratrix of the estate of her deceased mother, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Radovan KARADZIC, Defendant-Appellee. ockets 94-9035, 94-9069.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Beth Stephens, New York City (Matthew J. Chachere, Jennifer Green, Peter Weiss, Michael Ratner, Jules Lobel, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City; Rhonda Copelon, Celina Romany, International Women's Human Rights Clinic, Flushing, NY; Judith Levin, International League of Human Rights, New York City; Harold Hongju Koh, Ronald C. Slye, Swati Agrawal, Bruce Brown, Charlotte Burrows, Carl Goldfarb, Linda Keller, Jon Levitsky, Daniyal Mueenuddin, Steve Parker, Maxwell S. Peltz, Amy Valley, Wendy Weiser, Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, New Haven, CT, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II.

Catharine A. MacKinnon, Ann Arbor, MI (Martha F. Davis, Deborah A. Ellis, Yolanda S. Wu, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants Kadic, Internationalna Iniciativa Zena Bosne I Hercegovine, and Zena Bosne I Hercegovine.

Ramsey Clark, New York City (Lawrence W. Schilling, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Drew S. Days, III, Solicitor General, and Conrad K. Harper, Legal Adviser, Department of State, Washington, DC, submitted a Statement of Interest of the U.S.; Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Douglas Letter, Appellate Litigation Counsel, on the brief.

Karen Honeycut, Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, New York, NY, submitted a brief for amici curiae Law Professors Frederick M. Abbott, et al.

Nancy Kelly, Women Refugee Project, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Program, Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services, Cambridge, Mass., submitted a brief for amici curiae Alliances--an African Women's Network, et al.

Juan E. Mendez, Joanne Mariner, Washington, DC; Professor Ralph G. Steinhardt, George Washington University School of Law, Washington, DC; Paul L. Hoffman, Santa Monica, CA; Professor Joan Fitzpatrick, University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, WA, submitted a brief for amicus curiae Human Rights Watch.

Stephen M. Schneebaum, Washington, DC, submitted a brief for amici curiae The International Human Rights Law Group, et al.

Before: NEWMAN, Chief Judge, FEINBERG and WALKER, Circuit Judges.

JON O. NEWMAN, Chief Judge:

Most Americans would probably be surprised to learn that victims of atrocities committed in Bosnia are suing the leader of the insurgent Bosnian-Serb forces in a United States District Court in Manhattan. Their claims seek to build upon the foundation of this Court's decision in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.1980), which recognized the important principle that the venerable Alien Tort Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 (1988), enacted in 1789 but rarely invoked since then, validly creates federal court jurisdiction for suits alleging torts committed anywhere in the world against aliens in violation of the law of nations. The pending appeals pose additional significant issues as to the scope of the Alien Tort Act: whether some violations of the law of nations may be remedied when committed by those not acting under the authority of a state; if so, whether genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are among the violations that do not require state action; and whether a person, otherwise liable for a violation of the law of nations, is immune from service of process because he is present in the United States as an invitee of the United Nations.

These issues arise on appeals by two groups of plaintiffs-appellants from the November 19, 1994, judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Peter K. Leisure, Judge), dismissing, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, their suits against defendant-appellee Radovan Karadzic, President of the self-proclaimed Bosnian-Serb republic of "Srpska." Doe v. Karadzic, 866 F.Supp. 734 (S.D.N.Y.1994) ("Doe"). For the reasons set forth below, we hold that subject-matter jurisdiction exists, that Karadzic may be found liable for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in his private capacity and for other violations in his capacity as a state actor, and that he is not immune from service of process. We therefore reverse and remand.

Background

The plaintiffs-appellants are Croat and Muslim citizens of the internationally recognized nation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, formerly a republic of Yugoslavia. Their complaints, which we accept as true for purposes of this appeal, allege that they are victims, and representatives of victims, of various atrocities, including brutal acts of rape forced prostitution, forced impregnation, torture, and summary execution, carried out by Bosnian-Serb military forces as part of a genocidal campaign conducted in the course of the Bosnian civil war. Karadzic, formerly a citizen of Yugoslavia and now a citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina, is the President of a three-man presidency of the self-proclaimed Bosnian-Serb republic within Bosnia-Herzegovina, sometimes referred to as "Srpska," which claims to exercise lawful authority, and does in fact exercise actual control, over large parts of the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In his capacity as President, Karadzic possesses ultimate command authority over the Bosnian-Serb military forces, and the injuries perpetrated upon plaintiffs were committed as part of a pattern of systematic human rights violations that was directed by Karadzic and carried out by the military forces under his command. The complaints allege that Karadzic acted in an official capacity either as the titular head of Srpska or in collaboration with the government of the recognized nation of the former Yugoslavia and its dominant constituent republic, Serbia.

The two groups of plaintiffs asserted causes of action for genocide, rape, forced prostitution and impregnation, torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, assault and battery, sex and ethnic inequality, summary execution, and wrongful death. They sought compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and, in one of the cases, injunctive relief. Plaintiffs grounded subject-matter jurisdiction in the Alien Tort Act, the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 ("Torture Victim Act"), Pub.L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992), codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 note (Supp. V 1993), the general federal-question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1988), and principles of supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367 (Supp. V 1993).

In early 1993, Karadzic was admitted to the United States on three separate occasions as an invitee of the United Nations. According to affidavits submitted by the plaintiffs, Karadzic was personally served with the summons and complaint in each action during two of these visits while he was physically present in Manhattan. Karadzic admits that he received the summons and complaint in the Kadic action, but disputes whether the attempt to serve him personally in the Doe action was effective.

In the District Court, Karadzic moved for dismissal of both actions on the grounds of insufficient service of process, lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and nonjusticiability of plaintiffs' claims. However, Karadzic submitted a memorandum of law and supporting papers only on the issues of service of process and personal jurisdiction, while reserving the issues of subject-matter jurisdiction and nonjusticiability for further briefing, if necessary. The plaintiffs submitted papers responding only to the issues raised by the defendant.

Without notice or a hearing, the District Court by-passed the issues briefed by the parties and dismissed both actions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In an Opinion and Order, reported at 866 F.Supp. 734, the District Judge preliminarily noted that the Court might be deprived of jurisdiction if the Executive Branch were to recognize Karadzic as the head of state of a friendly nation, see Lafontant v. Aristide, 844 F.Supp. 128 (E.D.N.Y.1994) (head-of-state immunity), and that this possibility could render the plaintiffs' pending claims requests for an advisory opinion. The District Judge recognized that this consideration was not dispositive but believed that it "militates against this Court exercising jurisdiction." Doe, 866 F.Supp. at 738.

Turning to the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Act, the Court concluded that "acts committed by non-state actors do not violate the law of nations," id. at 739. Finding that "[t]he current Bosnian-Serb warring military faction does not constitute a recognized state," id. at 741, and that "the members of Karadzic's faction do not act under the color of any recognized state law," id., the Court concluded that "the acts alleged in the instant action[s], while grossly repugnant, cannot be remedied through [the Alien Tort Act]," id. at 740-41. The Court did not consider the plaintiffs' alternative claim that Karadzic acted under color of law by acting in concert with the Serbian Republic of the former Yugoslavia, a recognized nation.

The District Judge also found that the apparent absence of state action barred plaintiffs' claims under the Torture Victim Act, which expressly requires that an individual defendant act "under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation," Torture...

To continue reading

Request your trial
309 cases
  • Ali v. Rumsfeld
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 21 Junio 2011
    ...in the judgment); Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1250-53 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 243-44 (2dPage 37Cir. 1995); Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 25 F.3d 1467, 1475 (9th Cir. 1994); Tel-Oren, 726 F.2d at 788 (Edwards, J., concurri......
  • Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC, 11-CV-3706
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 12 Septiembre 2012
    ...J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has noted, see Kadic v. Karadzić, 70 F.3d 232, 249 (2d Cir. 1995), a "nonjusticiable political question would ordinarily involve one or more of the following factors":Page 261. A textually......
  • Bieregu v. Ashroft, Civil Action No. 01-4948.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 1 Mayo 2003
    ...nevertheless subject to dismissal. The ATCA requires the commission of a tort in order to impose liability.8 See, e.g. Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 238 (2d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1005, 116 S.Ct. 2524, 135 L.Ed.2d 1048 (1996); Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F.Supp.2d 424, 439 (D......
  • Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 1:08-cv-827 (LMB/JFA)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • 22 Marzo 2019
    ...centuries, the principle that "federal common law incorporates international law" has become a "settled proposition." Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 246 (2d Cir. 1995). Over that time, "Supreme Court decisions, executive statements, and scholarly commentary have ... considered customary in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Multinational Companies Become Targets Under the Alien Tort Claims Act
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 27 Noviembre 2002
    ...v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1003 (1985) (victims of the PLO); Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 238 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1005 (1996) (torture victims of self-proclaimed Bosnian president); Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (......
  • Ninth Circuit Addresses Emerging Issues In ATS Litigation
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 10 Enero 2012
    ...Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 980 (9th Cir. 2007). 29 Rio Tinto, 2011 WL 5041927, at *15. 30 Id. (quoting Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 249 (2d Cir. 31 Id. 32 Id. at *16. 33 Id. at *16-17 (citations omitted). 34 Rio Tinto, 2011 WL 5041927, at *68 (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting). ......
22 books & journal articles
  • Global Warming: The Ultimate Public Nuisance
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 39-3, March 2009
    • 1 Marzo 2009
    ...create a nuisance in a state). 111. Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 942S43, 13 ELR 20663 (1983). 112. 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995). 113. Id. at 249 (quoting Klinghofer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro Ed Altri-Gestione, 937 F.2d 44, 49 (2d Cir. 1991)) (quoting Baker v. Carr......
  • Human Rights Boon or Time Bomb: The Alien Tort Statute and the Need for Congressional Action
    • United States
    • Military Law Review No. 217, September 2013
    • 1 Septiembre 2013
    ...Rio Tinto IV ), 671 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2011); Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC ( Rio Tinto II ), 487 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2007); Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995); Japan Whaling Ass’n , 478 U.S. at 221. All found the claims to be justiciable and not barred by the political question doctri......
  • Head of state immunity as sole executive lawmaking.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 44 No. 4, October 2011
    • 1 Octubre 2011
    ...Noriega because, by prosecuting Noriega, Executive Branch manifested its intention not to recognize any immunity). Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995) (reversing dismissal of private civil litigation against former Bosnian Serb insurgent leader Karadzic, where United States, as am......
  • The Charming Betsy Canon, American Legal Doctrine, and the Global Rule of Law.
    • United States
    • 1 Octubre 2020
    ...to) federal common law for purposes of creating federal subject matter jurisdiction and preempting state law."); see Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 246 (2d Cir. 1995) (describing "settled proposition that federal common law incorporates international law"); In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Mar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT