Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...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...

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...

...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...

...respect of its entire territory.” In fact, this provision and the presumption of the territorial application of treaties appeared to be so commonsensical that some states proposed deleting it from the ILC’s draft articles on the Law of Treaties. Therefore, in order for a treaty to generate extraterritorial obligations it must be shown that either the treaty includes explicit language to that effect or that the treaty’s object and purpose, context, and travaux préparatoires warrant interpreting the treaty as generating extraterritorial obligations. Moreover, since the conclusion of the Genocide Convention,...

...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...

...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...

...accordingly. The US, the UK, Germany, Japan, France, Australia and Switzerland have imposed sanctions or taken measures against Hamas or individuals associated with it following October 7th, and France has called for EU sanctions on people linked to Hamas and Hezbollah. However, the majority of states have yet to take similar steps. Such measures are also relevant with respect the states that facilitate Hamas and finance its operations, such as Qatar, which hosts Hamas’ leaders, allowing them to evade accountability, and Iran, which funds and arms Hamas. By continuing to...

...sanctions strategy toward proliferation has met with criticism both for doing too little and for going too far. Many would prefer harsher sanctions on Iran in particular. Others worry that freezing assets and blacklisting individuals and entities in this way denies those designated their rights to due process. These sanctions actually strike the correct balance. And attempting to make them multilateral also makes sense—the United States cannot go it alone when confronting the threat of proliferation. The U.S. taking a stand that it will not allow its financial system to...

...Israel – as requested by the governments of Spain and Ireland – with a view to possibly suspending it in whole or in part. The ICJ’s findings authoritatively prove that successive Israeli governments have seriously breached their human rights obligations, which constitute an “essential element” of the agreement. Third, EU governments should suspend arms transfers to Israel given the real risk that the weapons will be used to commit serious abuses, and in compliance with their common position on arms transfers.  Fourth, the EU should adopt targeted sanctions against Israeli officials...

On December 17 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2083, which further details the listing / delisting criteria for the 1287 Al Qaida Sanctions regime. This Resolution also extends the Ombudsperson’s mandate for another 30 months, guaranteeing some stability for those who seek delisting. Simultaneously, the Council adopted Resolution 2082, applying the same measures to the Taliban sanctions regime. Last week I blogged about the wider dynamics leading up to this resolution here, noting proposals by the Like Minded Group to strengthen the Ombudsperson’s powers and improve the listing...

...region.” Based on these and other pertinent data, it is predicted that North Korea may well present credible threats to the mainland United States soon, with land-based, nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), among others, under their belt.  Efforts of the U.S. Government for DPRK Denuclearization  Since the Singapore Summit, the United States was not merely talking the talk of denuclearization, but walking the walk of denuclearization in the form of commercial and economic sanctions in support of COVID efforts. These sanctions are in addition to a series of sanctions resolutions...

...acts unduly restricted their right to freedom of expression, even if they broke the law.  Regional human rights courts have often emphasized that criminal sanctions are likely to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and that criminal law should be used as a last resort, especially in cases where people exercise their rights peacefully. Domestic courts have reiterated these principles. For example, the French Court of Cassation has repeatedly ruled that lower courts must assess in each case whether imposing criminal sanctions on human rights defenders would disproportionately...