US Supreme Court Limits Corporate Responsibility for Human Rights Abuses Abroad
美國最高法院限制企業對海外侵犯人權行為的責任
Introduction
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Cisco Systems, making it more difficult for people to use US courts to sue companies for human rights violations committed in other countries.
美國最高法院裁定思科系統（Cisco Systems）勝訴，使得人們更難透過美國法院起訴在其他國家犯下人權侵害罪的公司。
Main Body
The case began when members of Falun Gong claimed that Cisco Systems helped the Chinese government persecute their group. The plaintiffs argued that the company created the 'Golden Shield,' a surveillance system used by the Chinese Communist Party to track and torture political opponents. Although a lower court had previously allowed the case to continue in 2023, the Supreme Court has now reversed that decision.
本案始於法輪功成員指控思科系統協助中國政府迫害其團體。原告主張該公司創建了名為「金盾」的監控系統，中國共產黨利用該系統追蹤並折磨政治對手。儘管下級法院曾在 2023 年允許此案繼續審理，但最高法院現在推翻了該決定。
The Court focused on the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) of 1789. For a long time, this law was not used, but starting in the 1980s, it became a way to hold companies responsible for helping with overseas abuses. However, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that only Congress, not the courts, has the power to create new legal reasons for lawsuits. This decision follows a trend since 2013, where the Court has required a strong connection between the alleged crime and the United States.
法院將重點放在 1789 年的《外國人侵權法》（ATS）。長期以來，這部法律並未被使用，但從 1980 年代開始，它成為了追究公司協助海外虐待行為責任的一種方式。然而，大法官艾米·康尼·巴雷特寫道，只有國會而非法院，才有權創造新的訴訟法律理由。這一決定延續了自 2013 年以來的趨勢，即法院要求指控的罪行與美國之間必須有強而有力的聯繫。
Furthermore, the Court discussed the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). It decided that this law does not allow lawsuits against companies for helping with torture unless Congress explicitly says so. Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with this view. She emphasized that the ruling is a step backward for victims of foreign abuses and argued that the Court ignored previous legal precedents.
此外，法院討論了《酷刑受害者保護法》（TVPA）。法院決定，除非國會明確規定，否則該法不允許針對協助酷刑的公司提起訴訟。大法官索尼婭·索托馬約爾不同意這一觀點。她強調該裁決對於外國虐待受害者而言是一種退步，並認為法院無視了之前的法律先例。
Conclusion
This ruling ends the lawsuit against Cisco Systems and significantly reduces the legal options for foreign victims seeking justice in U.S. courts.
這項裁決終結了對思科系統的訴訟，並顯著減少了外國受害者在美國法院尋求正義的法律選擇。
Vocabulary Learning
⚡ The 'B2 Power-Up': Moving from Simple Actions to Complex Influence
An A2 student usually says: "Cisco helped the government" or "The court changed the decision."
To reach B2, you need to describe how an action affects a situation using more precise verbs and structures. Let's look at the "Impact Language" used in this text.
🛠️ The Shift: From 'Simple' to 'Sophisticated'
| A2 Level (Simple) | B2 Level (Impactful) | Why it's better? |
|---|---|---|
| help with | hold responsible for | It describes a legal duty, not just a friendly favor. |
| change | reverse a decision | It's the specific term for when a higher power cancels a previous rule. |
| say/write | emphasize | It shows that the speaker feels the point is very important. |
| make small | significantly reduce | It describes the scale of the change precisely. |
🔍 Linguistic Focus: The "Strong Connection" Logic
Notice this phrase: "the Court has required a strong connection between the alleged crime and the United States."
The B2 Secret: Instead of saying "The crime must happen in the US," the author uses "connection between X and Y."
When you want to sound more professional, stop using simple "and" or "but" sentences. Start using these bridge phrases:
- There is a strong connection between...
- This is a step backward for...
- This follows a trend of...
💡 Quick Application Tip
Next time you describe a problem, don't just say it is "bad." Say it is a "step backward" for your progress. Don't just say something "changed"; say the result was "significantly reduced."