# Hanoch Tel-Oren, in His Capacity as Father, on Behalf of the Deceased, Imry Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic Hanoch Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · February 3, 1984 · 726 F.2d 774

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9842981

## Case

- **Full name:** Hanoch TEL-OREN, in His Capacity as Father, on Behalf of the Deceased, Imry Tel-Oren, Et Al., Appellants, v. LIBYAN ARAB REPUBLIC, Et Al.; Hanoch TEL-OREN, Et Al., Appellants, v. LIBYAN ARAB REPUBLIC, Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** February 3, 1984
- **Citations:** 726 F.2d 774; 233 U.S. App. D.C. 384; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25809
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Edwards, Bork, Robb
- **Cited by:** 267 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9842981

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that Articles 1 and 2 of the U.N. Charter "contain general 'purposes and principles,' some of which state mere ,aspirations and none of which can sensibly be thought to have been intended to be judicially enforceable”
- noting an absence of codification or international consensus on whether torture perpetrated by other than a recognized state or its officials acting under color of state law violates the law of nations, while acknowledging some case law and commentary assuming or urging that p…
- noting that judicial acknowledgment of effect of PLO on the foreign relations of the United States does not grant the PLO any form of “official recognition” and is similar to the executive branch’s commenting on the sub *789 ject of the PLO while continuing to maintain that th…
- noting that Articles 1 and 2 of the U.N. Charter are not self-executing and, moreover, “contain general ‘purposes and principles,’ some of which state mere aspirations and none of which can sensibly be thought to have been intended to be judicially enforceable”
- noting that in some cases, as in the United Nations Genocide Convention, states have specifically committed to carry out their international obligations through explicitly prescribed means, such as declaring a form of conduct as defined to constitute a crime

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs in this action, mostly Israeli citizens, are survivors and representatives of persons murdered in an armed attack on a civilian bus in Israel in March 1978. They filed suit for compensatory and punitive damages in the District Court, naming as defendants the Libyan Arab Republic, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Palestine Information Office, the National Association of Arab Americans, and the Palestine Congress of North America. 1
In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that defendants were responsible for multiple tortious acts in violation of the law of nations, treaties of the United States, and criminal laws of the United States, as well as the common law. Jurisdiction was claimed under four separate statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (providing jurisdiction over actions by an alien alleging a tort committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States); and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330 , 1602-1611. For purposes of our jurisdictional analysis, we assume plaintiffs’ allegations to be true.
The District Court dismissed the action both for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Hanoch Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 517 F.Supp. 542 (D.D.C. 1981). Plaintiffs appeal the District Court’s rulings on two of their claimed jurisdictional bases, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 ,1350, and on the statute of limitations issue.
We affirm the dismissal of this action. Set out below are separate concurring statements of Judge Edwards, Judge Bork, and Senior Judge Robb, indicating different reasons for affirming the result reached by the District Court.
. Plaintiffs do not pursue their claim against the Palestine Congress of North America on appeal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9842981. Public record. Not legal advice.