Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...pressuring governments and corporations to cease military collaborations. Advocate for Trade Sanctions: Advocate for trade sanctions against Israel and all businesses that support Israel’s occupation. Pressure governments to implement these sanctions and target companies complicit in violating Palestinian rights. Suspend Israel from International Events: Campaign for the suspension of Israel from international sports and cultural events. Encourage cultural institutions and workers to boycott collaborations with Israeli entities to undermine the normalisation of apartheid. Boycott Israeli Academic Institutions: Advocate for a comprehensive boycott of Israeli academic institutions. Support Palestinian educators and students...

...pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”)) and their implementing regulations enforced by OFAC. A number of Executive Orders are part of the broader U.S. sanctions framework, and extend beyond counterterrorism; quite a few of them, nonetheless, impact humanitarian organizations, as was seen in January when the M23 (an armed group active in and around parts of the DRC in which humanitarian organizations operate) was listed under both the NDAA and Executive Order 13413. Though the sanctions framework, when compared to the material support statute, has different jurisdictional...

...not relieve him from responsibility under international law.” Should these recognitions of nonimmunity for international crimes still prevail today? With respect to civil sanctions as well as criminal sanctions? Are they in jeopardy? What should be done to correct deviant practices globally and/or in the United States? 2. The majority opinion in the ICJ’s Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) concluded that a sitting Minister of Foreign Affairs “when abroad enjoys full immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability” in another...

...reasonable doubt.” It is hard to see what is left of Butler after Labaye. As for MacKinnon, she has never repudiated the Butler approach. She has merely advocated that civil rather than criminal sanctions be employed to suppress pornography. Of course, civil sanctions can be just as repressive as criminal sanctions. The ultimate incoherence of MacKinnon’s approach is that it seeks to rely on the machinery of the patriarchal state to suppress patriarchal speech. That the actual consequence of her approach was the suppression of gay, lesbian and feminist material...

The Brits are looking to strip Asma al-Assad of her UK citizenship, this in the wake of the imposition of various sanctions on her and family members of other Assad associates. Familial sanctions are an increasingly common practice, on the theory that you really get at the bad guys when you deprive their spouses of shopping trips to world capitals. (In Mrs. Assad’s case, the theory seems pretty plausible, in light of the recent email cache revealing her attention to trivial luxury purchases while Homs burned.) But so long as...

...State responsibility norms to cover an extensive range of accountability mechanisms at the international and domestic level. International Criminal Justice may potentially benefit from the conceptualisation of a duty to end impunity lying with the States and associated with appropriate consequences for the failure to fulfil this duty. It is important to note that this obligation may not only fall upon the States. The Security Council may also have an impact on ending impunity through targeted sanctions and other accountability measures. Due to the limited length of this post, this...

...Oil for Food scandal for the institution’s long-term survival. Petty corruption is one thing, but petty corruption that directly undermines the U.N.’s administration of sanctions against Iraq is quite another. If the U.N. cannot effectively administer sanctions against Iraq without succumbing to rather easy and blatant corruption by an unsavory figure like Saddam Hussein, it is hard to see why the “international community” should “trust” the U.N. to deal effectively with other serious threats to international peace and security. It is also hard to see why, for instance, the U.N.’s...

...be a UN-mandated force under OSCE guidance, or a force with a delegated UN mandate supervised by the Group of Supporting States. Should any side resume the conflict, an arrangement for the automatic snap-back of sanctions could be constructed. While this might be difficult to accept for the Russian Federation, Ukraine and its allies could insist that the UN Security Council Resolution that would endorse the settlement under Chapter VII provides for sanctions that would be brought into force automatically, and universally, should a further armed attack occur. As confirmed...

...vague), then I’m not sure I have any categorical objections (though the devil will be in the details). In all events, the CCR view that somehow this kind of detention is not already authorized by law, and is in some way historically novel – that view is, I believe, wrong. And if litigated, I believe it will lose. The other examples are more complicated. What about the guy who “received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps”? Receiving training at a terrorist camp is now a crime (with extraterritorial...

[William S. Dodge is a Professor of Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. One of his articles on extraterritoriality was cited in Justice Stevens’s concurring opinion.] There is no doubt that Morrison v. National Australia Bank is a landmark opinion, not just because the Supreme Court addresses here, for the first time, the extraterritorial reach of U.S. securities law, but also for what the opinion tells us more generally about the presumption against extraterritoriality. As Margaret Sachs has already recounted, the Courts of Appeals, under...

...extraterritorial jurisdiction over many of these individuals or many of their activities." If these individuals did in fact violate the law of war, which is the predicate for a legitimate exercise of jurisdiction by a military commission of the type established by the President, then doesn't the War Crimes Act establish the requisite "extraterritorial" jurisdiction for trial in Federal Court? I recognize that there may be other pragmatic arguments in favor of trial by military commission, but the jurisdictional predicate for use of the War Crimes Act or trial by...

...in his seminal War, Aggression and Self-Defence, at least in the context of international armed conflict. So here are my questions: [1] Does anyone know where the US might have defended/explained its position at more length, whether in a legal brief or elsewhere? [2] Does anyone know of scholars other than Dinstein who take the position that once a state acts in self-defence, none of its (extraterritorial) acts in the resulting armed conflict are subject to the jus ad bellum? Any suggestions or citations from readers would be most appreciated....