jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). The Supreme Court has ruled that the UDHR does not impose any obligations on the United States as a matter of international law. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004) (“[T]he Declaration does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law.”). Nor does UDHR Article 5 encompass the sorts of claims that plaintiff has alleged: sexual harassment and other related torts. See Hatley v. Dep’t of the Navy, 164 F.3d 602, 604-05 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (“[The court concludes] that this resolution of the United Nations, which is directed to torture, summary execution, genocide, slavery, and other acts uniformly condemned (<HOLDING>). The Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) grants
holding that the court of claims did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs first amendment claim of improper removal holding that the uscfc did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim because plaintiffs claim of negligence sounds in tort holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim holding that the court of claims did have jurisdiction over plaintiffs statutory claim for back pay including arguments based on the first amendment holding that a subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim