Week 6, Learning Team a Reflection Irac Analysis

Week 6, Learning Team A Reflection IRAC Analysis
International Business Activity
LAW/531 – Business Law
University of Phoenix
August 25, 2014

Week 6, Learning Team A Reflection IRAC Analysis
In 2013 twenty-two (22) residents of Argentina brought a suit against Daimler Chrysler AG (preceded by Daimler Chrysler Aktiengesellschaft, who the initial complaint was filed against,) ("Daimler"), the German parent company of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ("MBUSA"). The plaintiffs alleged that Mercedes-Benz Argentina ("MB Argentina"), the Argentinian subsidiary of Daimler, participated with Argentinian state security forces, during the "Dirty War" (1976-1983) to kidnap, capture, torture, and murder certain MB Argentina workers, including the plaintiffs or those closely related to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cited two United States (2) federal laws - the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 – by which they were filing their claim. They also filed suit under California State law and Argentinian law. The plaintiffs asserted that a personal jurisdiction could be held over Daimler because of the contacts of MBUSA in California.
Did Daimler violate the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991?
The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) also known as "Alien Tort Claims Act "(refers to 28 U.S.C. § 1350) which "grants the federal district courts jurisdiction to hear lawsuits filed by non-U.S. citizens for torts committed in violation of international law" (CJA). The international legal norms must be "specific, universal, and obligatory." ATS applies to certain cases involving torture, state-sponsored sexual violence, extrajudicial killing, and crimes against humanity, war crimes and arbitrary detention. (Sosa 732)
The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA) "provides the same rights to U.S. citizens and non- US citizens to bring claims for torture and extrajudicial killing committed in foreign countries."...