Search: extraterritorial sanctions
26 Apr John Bolton’s Role in SC Resolution 1672
The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1672 yesterday, imposing sanctions yesterday on four Sudanese considered responsible for the the atrocities in Darfur. The Resolution passed 12-0, with China, Russia and Qatar abstaining on the ground that sanctions would disrupt the reconciliation process. The sanctioned individuals are Major General Gaffar Mohamed Elhassan, commander of the Western Military Region for the Sudanese Armed Forces; Sheik Musa Hilal, paramount chief of the Jalul Tribe in North Darfur; Adam Yacub Shant, a commander in the Sudanese Liberation Army , and Gabril Abdul Kareem Badri,...01 Oct The U.S. Embargo on Cuba May Be a Bad Idea, But It Doesn’t Violate the UN Charter
...breaches of erga omnes norms. The sanctions against Russia to which you refer, for instance, are quite evidently inspired by such a breach of an erga omnes norm (Article 2(4) UNCh)... There is moreover another relevant difference between the sanctions against Russia and the US 'embargo' against Cuba, in that the latter sanctions regime envisages so-called 'secondary sanctions' that sit uneasily with international law principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction. (ps: of course the annual UNGA resolutions are an expression of State practice/opinio juris) Jordan And Tom, see our Arab...09 Jun A Response to Paul Dean
of the President. Congress could also amend IEEPA to give itself more control over the exercise of presidential discretion in imposing sanctions. But no such bill has been proposed. Instead, Congress appears to be one of the biggest fans of the executive use of IEEPA to declare emergencies and impose sanctions and seems to wish it were used even more often. As discussed in the article, U.S. courts also provide no meaningful check on the use of IEEPA-authorized sanctions programs like E.O. 13,382. Under every possible legal theory for challenge,...03 Dec A Response to Milanovic: The Lure of Extraterritoriality
particularly strong form of legal imperialism. In some ways then, extraterritoriality in the human rights field seems at its least interesting when discussing the extraterritorial application of treaties. But the topic is a window to a much more touchy topic tied to attempts to promote a new legal orthodoxy that fundamentally refashions international law. My last observation relates to a claim that Marko makes about the reason that issues of extraterritoriality have come to the fore now – a topic that Kal raises in his post too. Marko implies that...
22 May Curb Your Enthusiasm (Not Your Emissions): Analysis of the ECtHR Rulings on State Responsibility for Climate Change
...Portugal and 32 other Council of Europe states. In respect of the latter, their claim was necessarily extraterritorial. While their standing was denied for the reasons outlined above, their bid to expand the Court’s extraterritorial jurisdiction was also rejected. Under the Convention, the term jurisdiction defines the area in which a State must protect, promote and respect human rights (art. 1). This is usually confined to national borders. The ECtHR has accepted extraterritorial application of the Convention if States hold “effective control over a foreign territory”, or State agents have...26 Feb U.S. v. Microsoft (Microsoft-Ireland): Implications for International Lawmaking
...fix the shortcomings of mutual legal assistance treaties. As Professor Tonya Putnam’s recent book and research show, in the past when courts have rejected government arguments for extending domestic statutes extraterritorially, those refusals have helped fuel U.S. multilateral or bilateral engagement. In contrast, rulings that permits unilateral extraterritorial action create environments where there’s little urgency for the U.S. to find coordinated solutions. The most common result is free-for-alls, where each nation relies on its own piece-meal approach. Not surprisingly then, the reciprocity problem—that other nations would unilaterally try to seize...21 Dec LJIL Symposium: A Comment on Samantha Besson’s Article on the Extraterritorial Application of the ECHR
...So there. Let me try to explain why. Professor Besson’s main claim is that prior scholarship on the ECHR’s extraterritorial application, most of it very critical of the European Court’s case law, has not given serious thought to normative considerations that underpin the issue, ‘except for vague and often misleading gestures to the universality of human rights that allegedly requires their extraterritorial application.’ Generally speaking, in Besson’s view that scholarship is under-theorized and the vague references to universality fail to account for the relational nature of rights and obligations under...17 Apr Kiobel Insta-Symposium: An Extraterritorial Cause of Action
jurisdiction over, and to reject a judicially imposed presumption against extraterritoriality to, piracy on foreign ships (which, again, were considered the territories of foreign nations). The ATS contains this same invocation of “the law of nations,” which comprises both substantive and jurisdictional components. That ought to be enough to dispose of the presumption given this precedent. It is also worth mentioning that the Kiobel Court’s assurances that Congress would have included a “clear indication of extraterritoriality” had it wanted the ATS to apply to causes of action arising abroad simply...18 Apr Kiobel Insta-Symposium: A Tale of Two Presumptions
...which are not subject to the ATS, providing only that where other claims “touch and concern the territory of the United States, they must do so with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application” (p.14). Despite initial appearances, the ATS has thus not definitively been interpreted to have no extraterritorial effect, but rather, it has only been interpreted as not extending extraterritorially in the circumstances of Kiobel – that is, to purely extraterritorial ‘foreign cubed’ cases. This is not a presumption against any extraterritoriality, but only a presumption...
19 Aug S.S. and Others v. Italy: The Danger of All or Nothing Framing
...and “struck those in the water with ropes” (S.S. para., 11). After seven years of deliberation, the Court found that the standard for extraterritorial jurisdiction was not satisfied and dismissed the case. Lead counsel Violeta Moreno-Lax asserts that to reach this decision the Court winnowed down its jurisdictional jurisprudence so much that the decision “dent[ed] legal certainty, [and] the rule of law grounding the Convention regime.” She concluded that the case rendered the “regime devoid of relevance in migrant rights cases.” Itamar Mann, counsel on the case, echoed this point...