World Trade Organization

• Pages: 46-48

46 Volume 18, April–June 2012 international law update

© 2012 Transnational Law Associates, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com

In 2005, Rahim’s relatives led an action against

the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian

Liberation Organization, asserting claims of torture

and extrajudicial killing under the Torture Victim

Protection Act (“TVPA”). e Defendants led a

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. e

district court granted the motion, concluding that

the Act allowed lawsuits against “an individual,”

which only extended to natural person. e circuit

court armed. e Plaintis appeal.

e Supreme Court of the United States arms

the lower courts’ ndings to resolve the split among

the Circuits regarding whether the TVPA authorizes

suits against defendants that are not natural persons.

e Court notes that the statute does not dene the

word “individual.” e Plaintis argue that because

the Act does not explicitly dene “individual,” the

word can include nonsovereign organizations.

e Court declined to interpret individual in

such a way. e Court then moves on to look at

the ordinary meaning of the word. “We say ‘the

individual went to the store,’ ‘the individual left the

room,’ and ‘the individual took the car,’ each time

referring unmistakably to a natural person. And no

one, we hazard to guess, refers in normal parlance

to an organization as an ‘individual.’ Evidencing

that common usage, this Court routinely uses

‘individual’ to denote a natural person, and in

particular to distinguish between a natural person

and a corporation.” [Slip op. 7]

e Court also notes that Congress does not

use the word dierently than courts. e Dictionary

Act of Congress demonstrates that individual is

quite distinct from the articial entities that are

considered “persons.”

Next, the Court looks to the intent of Congress

when enacting the TVPA. “is is not to say that the

word ‘individual’ invariably means ‘natural person’

when used in a statute. Congress remains free,

as always, to give the word a broader or dierent

meaning. But before we will assume it has done so,

there must be some indication Congress intended

such a result.” e Court nds that Congress did

not intend a dierent meaning for individual in

the TVPA. Since the word is used several times

throughout the statute in the same way, the Court

notes that an organization could not be tortured;

therefore, “individual” was meant to only refer to

natural persons. “It is also revealing that the Act

holds perpetrators liable for extrajudicial killing to

any person who may be a claimant in an action for

wrongful death. ‘Person,’ we have recognized, often

has a broader meaning in the law than ‘individual,’

and frequently includes nonnatural persons. We

generally seek to respect Congress’ decision to use

dierent terms to describe dierent categories of

people or things. Our construction of ‘individual’ to

encompass solely natural persons credits Congress’

use of the disparate terms; petitioners’ construction

does not.” [Slip op. 9]

e Plaintis argue that the TVPA should be

read similarly to acts like the Alien Tort Statute;

however, the Court disagrees. “We also decline

petitioners’ suggestion to construe the TVPA’s scope

of liability to conform with other federal statutes that

petitioners contend provide civil remedies to victims

of torture or extrajudicial killing. None of the

three statutes petitioners identify employs the term

‘individual’ to describe the covered defendant, and

so none assists in the interpretive task we face today.”

Lastly, the Court concludes, “e text of the

TVPA convinces us that Congress did not extend

liability to organizations, sovereign or not. ere

are no doubt valid arguments for such an extension.

But Congress has seen t to proceed in more modest

steps in the Act, and it is not the province of this

Branch to do otherwise. e judgment of the United

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit is armed.”

citation: Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., No. 11-88,

(U.S. Supreme Court, April 18, 2012).

WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION

WTO Appellate Body rejects European

Union’s claims that United States

provided $19 billion in subsidies to The

Boeing Company, finding that majority

of programs challenged by EU were not

subsidies

On March 12, 2012, the World Trade

Organization (“WTO”) Appellate Body issued a

report in the case of the “United States—Measures

Aecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second

Complaint).” is dispute began several years ago on