Search: extraterritorial sanctions

Marko Milanovic Roger, I also it might be useful to compare the extraterritorial applicability of the Constitution with jurisprudence on the extraterritorial applicability of human rights treaties, which poses very similar questions. Generally speaking, human rights treaties apply to territories under a contracting state's 'jurisdiction', defined in a leading European Court of Human Rights case, Loizidou, as any area under the state's effective overall control. You will certainly have noted that Justice Kennedy uses the word 'jurisdiction' in this functional sense as an exercise of power throughout his opinion. (see...

Alexander Panayotov The discussion is illuminating. I can hardly imagine a better panel to discuss Prof. Besson’s article given panelists’ recent contributions on different aspects of extraterritoriality. It’s hard to establish a consensus on extraterritoriality. I don’t think that such a consensus is even possible. Still, the introduction of normative theorizing raises a couple of open-ended questions. I will pose them because I think that normative theorizing about extraterritoriality is exceedingly difficult; thus, it entails a great deal of groundwork. I imagine that the article did not engage in this...

...domestic one with a weirdly constructed trigger, invoking a “law of nations” that we don’t mean the way other people mean it, argues strongly for a traditional approach to jurisdiction – it’s not universal jurisdiction anymore, because we’re not pretending that our reference point is actually universal, but instead merely a claim of extraterritoriality. So it doesn’t seem quite so strange that the Chief Justice would invoke the presumption against extraterritoriality, because the thing, the statute, that plaintiffs propose to apply extraterritorially isn’t truly a claim of universality, either. Nor...

...of Cuba’s argument that the U.S. embargo violates international law. I still think Cuba’s description of the U.S. embargo as a “blockade” is ludicrous. But I am more sympathetic to legal criticisms of the extraterritorial effects of the U.S. embargo. First, as the photo suggests, Cuba calls the U.S. embargo a “blockade”. Indeed, the billboard (which faces visitors as soon as they drive in from the airport), refers to the “bloqueo” as the “longest genocide in history.” This might be put down simply to rhetorical excess, but the Cuban government...

...1795 Opinion of the AG obviously affirmed expectations that the ATS is extraterritorial, applying to conduct of U.S. citizens on the coast of Africa. Moxon and Bolchos also affirm extraterritoriality when one recognizes the fact that foreign flag vessels are the equivalent of foreign territory under international law and tha conduct on such vessels is conduct in the territory of the flag, among other early cases. Adra was extraterritorial and the landmark Filartiga case was extraterritorial as have been so many cases post-Filartiga (especially Kadic, Presbyterian Church of the Sudan,...

...the UN Security Council resolution, but the legal and diplomatic costs would be much higher than withdrawing from a mere political commitment. Congress could also, unquestionably, override any domestic legal effects of a UN Security Council Resolution by passing a statute refusing to lift sanctions on Iran, or stopping the President from doing so. Diggs v. Shultz makes clear that a statute passed by Congress later in time than a Security Council resolution will have the force of law by operation of the last in time rule. But the legal...

...secondary boycotts. Yet some of the same scholars who embrace restraints on those categories of exertions by individual states or coalitions of the willing” appear to see national courts’ exercises of extraordinary extraterritorial jurisdiction, nullifications of the immunity of foreign officials, and creative circumventions of nullum crimen sine lege as not only exempt from the pitfalls of such unilateral executive measures, but actually as a peace-building and law-developing alternative to such executive measures. This is a fundamental mistake. Extraterritorial prosecution of foreign-state actors and forcible impositions upon foreign political communities...

...of human rights of home states, Buser suggests that the incorporation of extraterritorial obligations of human rights can guide the reform of international economic law to the direction of achieving better global justice. This extraterritorial human rights-based approach is helpful to persuade great powers, including emerging powers to balance the pursuit of their own state interests and the promotion of welfare of individuals around the world. I wonder, however, that it can serve as a major approach towards delivering more global justice. First, as Buser notes, the work of the...

pirates on the high seas, and therefore should apply to modern day analogues to pirates (“Hitler, Inc.”); 2) The ATS was applied extraterritorially in Filartiga or similar cases, and therefore should continue to be read to do so. The second argument doesn’t get you all that far, since the extraterritoriality issues weren’t raised in those cases, or in Sosa. Only the first argument offers a theory of the ATS’ purpose, but that theory fails to draw on actual historical evidence about the ATS. The best evidence is not any case...

also overcome the presumption in particular ATS cases: “claims that touch and concern the territory of the United States . . . with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality.” The Court’s new presumption—which is, in effect, a “presumption against recognition of extraterritorial causes of action under the ATS”—thus appears to be different from the standard Morrison-style presumption against extraterritoriality in at least three ways: (1) the presumption’s coverage (the new presumption applies narrowly to recognition of extraterritorial causes of action by federal courts under the ATS, whereas the...

...or the law governing the resort to force, hinders the development and implementation of the law going forward, and risks complicating or even weakening enforcement of the law. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first essay by an American scholar that carefully distinguishes between the two potential violations of international law involved in an extraterritorial targeted killing: (1) a violation of the attacked state’s sovereignty; and (2) a violation of the attacked individual’s right to life. As Blank shows, “self-defense” is relevant only to the first violation;...

Jordan Response... And what would be the Exec. attempted justification for the extraterritorial reach of a so-called "U.S. common law" that quite obviously could not be binding under customary laws of war or treaty-based laws of war or other customary or treaty-based law on the foeign accused? No jurisdiciton still. John C. Dehn Jens and Jordan, I have never finished the companion article to my JICJ article explaining the U.S. "common law" approach to punishing war crimes. However, Jordan is on track regarding the focus of the article -- which...