Annually, the United States military spends millions of dollars to privatize its drone warfare program through the use of private contractors. While the private contractors have consequently become the backbone of American drone warfare, the military has continued to defend its elusive decision-making authority in the chain of command. Since the global war on the Middle East, this dysfunctional hierarchy has resulted in a costly gap in liability for thousands of foreign civilian victims of drone strikes. This Note explores how the privatized dynamic behind the deadly operations of U.S. drone warfare can be grounds for a claim under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Though the ATS is seldom used as the sole basis for recovery, the recent Supreme Court decision in Nestlé has highlighted the liability domestic corporations, like the private contractors, may face under the statute for their tortious conduct abroad. Accordingly, this Note crafts a hypothetical ATS claim not only to illustrate how the United States sanctions mass violations of international human rights, but also to advance a legal remedy for victims of highly technologized warfare, which has caused complex collateral consequences on civilian lives. Ultimately, this Note urges judicial and legislative codification of the ATS’s extraterritorial reach to better facilitate the statute’s purpose in a modern era. Support for a transnational quality is rooted in legislation, economic benefits, and, importantly, normative benefits for civilian victims.
