Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...and rationale to amend the EU Enforcement Regulation The EU Enforcement Regulation allows the EU to adopt trade sanctions (eg. increased custom duties, quotas on imports or exports of goods, or other measures in the public procurement sector) on the losing party after the EU has secured ‘a win’ in a trade dispute at the WTO. Under Article 3 (Scope), the trade sanctions would be imposed when the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (‘DSB’) adopts the relevant WTO Panel or AB report (if appealed) and authorises the EU to suspend the...

Syria has agreed to comply with the demands of Security Council resolution 1636 and will cooperate with the Hariri investigation by allowing five Syrian government officials to be interviewed in UN offices in Vienna. This ends, for now, the Syrian stalemate with the Council, and avoids a follow on resolution that would likely have slapped sanctions against Syria. The progress of the Mehlis team investigating the Hariri murder and the Security Council’s robust response is significant, fairly rebutting Julian’s view that UN investigations tend to produce “muddy, often useless conclusions.”...

...Bennett v. Iran would lead one to believe that any tort committed anywhere in the world is subject to the state tort laws of the injured party. The obvious solution is to presume that state tort laws do not apply extraterritorially, which hopefully would prompt Congress to create a federal cause of action for terrorism. (Incidentially, the definitive law review article on the extraterritorial application of state tort laws to combat terrorism has yet to be written. If there are any takers, I would love to read a forthcoming article)....

...would assume U.S. treaties apply in U.S. territory, and only U.S. territory. Of course, one could still bind the United States to the ICCPR for extraterritorial acts if you could establish that it was intended to have such a reach. On that front, however, I believe the United States has been a pretty persistent objector. Marko Milanovic As Marty points out, there are two separate issues raised by the US before the Committee, and previously: (i) the ICCPR does not apply extraterritorially, and (ii) even if it did, IHL is...

[Matthew Sands is a Legal Advisor with the Geneva based NGO, Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) the full judgment on this case is available here.] In late January, the UK Supreme Court published its judgment in the case of Youssef. In 2005, Mr. Youssef had been suspected of involvement in terrorist-related activity, and Egypt had requested the UN sanctions committee mandated under UN Security Council resolution 1267 to impose targeted sanctions on Youssef including an assets freeze and a travel ban. The UK Secretary of State for Foreign...

extraterritorial attacks against non-state actors is one of the most difficult and controversial areas of international law, requiring a careful analysis of state practice and opinio juris. Unfortunately, such an analysis is absent from Deeks’ essay. Instead, Deeks relies on a mistaken understanding of neutrality law, provides little more than a few isolated examples of extraterritorial attacks that have ostensibly been justified under the “unwilling or unable” rubric, and ignores all of the contrary examples. That is a methodologically unsound approach, and it significantly weakens what is otherwise a very...

...to reverse the arguments against extraterritorial application of the ATS made by the Bush Administration in its brief to the Supreme Court in 2008 in the Apartheid case (which the Solicitor General may be reluctant to do). This may be one reason why the Administration asked the Supreme Court not to address the issue of extraterritoriality in its original amicus brief.   One might also add that the amicus brief drafted by Jack Goldsmith in support of defendant corporation Shell seems to have had an effect; Goldsmith and his amicus...

...Union (‘EU’) sanctions (.pdf) in force against Sudan includes travel bans on individuals who ‘commit violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law or other atrocities.’ Among the EU sanctions (.pdf) in force against the Democratic Republic of Congo (‘DRC’) are travel bans and freezing of funds and economic resources of ‘individuals and entities recruiting or using children in armed conflict’ or who are ‘involved in the targeting of children or women in situations of armed conflict.’ Further, in relation to Syria, the EU has adopted an array of...

...does not demand anything like the blanket rule in Hape. This is why prescriptive jurisdiction does not play a significant role in the U.S. and U.K. cases. The extraterritorial reach of constitutional rights is primarily an internal question, to be resolved by interpreting the relevant national instruments rather than by reference to international law. Of course, this is where the real problems begin. As Marko points out, there are many reasons why national courts are hesitant to extend rights extraterritorially. These reasons, however, are not external to the constitutional interpretation...

...Rights accepted that such extraterritorial control was established, both de jure and de facto, when the Italian authorities intercepted a boat on high seas, transferred the passengers to their own vessels, and returned them to Libya. The UN Human Rights Committee has further held that extraterritorial jurisdiction also exists when the vessel in distress is located within the SAR zone, for which a State has formally assumed responsibility to coordinate rescue operations (AS and others v. Malta). Extraterritorial jurisdiction can also arise when a State, without having formal competence, is...

In Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, Policy, Marko Milanovic has written an illuminating and comprehensive analysis of the increasingly contested question of the geographic scope of human rights treaties. Of course, this is a dynamic area of law—as Marko notes, many of the cases he examines are of quite recent vintage—so undoubtedly he will be at work on second addition in a few years. But for now, this book provides a closer reading and a more detailed, one might even say exhaustive, survey of the relevant issues...

...begging. A treaty can govern both territorial and extraterritorial matters. According to SCOTUS, federal statutes generally cannot govern extraterritorial matters because this would violate international law's comity presumption against the extraterritorial effect of national legislation. The only way federal statutes can have extraterritorial effect is if international law (e.g., a treaty) allows it. Therefore, the authority of a federal statute to have extraterritorial effect is based on international law (e.g., a treaty). Treaties, on the other hand, do not rely on the authority of federal statutory law to have territorial...