Abstract
This paper examines whether aiding and abetting liability for corporate involvement in human rights abuses is a cognizable claim under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Though the ATS has potential to serve as a powerful mechanism of civil redress for violations of international law, the Supreme Court has increasingly narrowed its scope in recent decades. As a result, critical questions remain unresolved regarding the cognizability of certain claims under the statute. This paper focuses primarily on Doe I et al. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al.,, a case emerging from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In January 2026, following a petition by Cisco Systems, Inc., the Supreme Court granted certiorari, agreeing to review the issue of whether corporations may be held liable for aiding and abetting in violations of international law under the ATS. This paper identifies and analyzes the two competing analytical frameworks the Court may employ in addressing this question. The First Route argues the law of nations, as applied to the ATS, is a developing body of law. Under this approach, aiding and abetting is a well-defined and universally accepted norm of international law and therefore a cognizable claim under the ATS. The Second Route argues that the ATS was enacted with congressional intent to limit its application to a narrow set of historically recognized offenses against the law of nations. Under this approach, recognition of additional causes of action, notably aiding and abetting, raises significant foreign policy and separation-of-powers concerns. In applying these frameworks to the case of Cisco, this paper clarifies the stakes of the court’s impending decision and evaluates its broader implications for corporate accountability.
Recommended Citation
Amelia Cochran,
The Analytical Routes of Aiding and Abetting Under the Alien Tort Statute,
46
Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus.
91
(2026).
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/vol46/iss1/3
