In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: extraterritorial sanctions

25 Oct

...use of force to the facilitation of the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and then expanded it to the enforcement of economic sanctions and of a no-fly zone. Later it included the use of force in defence of 'certain safe areas', which led to significant air strikes in 1995. In 1994, another large-scale use of force was authorized in order to ensure the return of the elected president to Haiti after economic sanctions and a maritime blockade had proved unsuccessful…towards the end of the 1990s, the SC again came to authorize...
25.10.11 | |

08 Apr

...the government puts its imprimatur upon a killing, it becomes lawful, and cannot be murder and cannot be prosecuted under 1119. Kevin Jon Heller Greg, "Unlawful" refers to a killing that is neither justified nor excused, so the analysis is exactly the same. The torture analogy actually supports my argument, because the definition of torture in 18 USC 2340(1) specifically provides that "pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions" cannot qualify. If "lawful sanctions" meant nothing more than the government approved the pain or suffering, the statute would be a...
08.04.10 | |

22 Jan

...First of all, the notion that all issues of foreign relations are exclusively within the province of the Executive Branch is plainly wrong. The Constitution grants Congress the power to “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” Seems pretty clear that foreign policy looms large in any exercise of that power. There are currently trade sanctions against several countries, including Cuba, and all were passed by Congress. Congress is currently considering a sanctions bill against Iran. That seems to me squarely within those Constitutional powers. I don’t think anyone would seriously...
22.01.15 | |

01 Nov

...right-wing (and left-wing) academics, in and out of Israel, whose opinions I would think repulsive. Academic freedom means that my opinion on the matter can't be a basis of sanctions. This is why I firmly stated that Prof. Salaita's "unhiring" was an academic freedom breach (even though I do find his expressed -- not "silent" -- views repulsive); and it applies equally here. Kevin Jon Heller David, Thanks for your comment. I think perhaps my rhetoric got the better of me -- having thought about it, "vast majority" was a...
01.11.15 | |

24 Nov

...if states A and B had a treaty on free trade, and the UNSC then imposed trade sanctions on B, A would no longer have a treaty obligation to allow trade with B because the resolution would prevail over the treaty, but that obligation would revive as soon as the UNSC removed the sanctions. So, in short, what needs to happen here is for the UNSC to bless the temporary deal; once that is done the agreement can be implemented. Kevin Jon Heller Hi Marko, Martin Holtermann said the same...
24.11.13 | |

06 Jun

...right to enrichment as an arrogant insult from Western nations afraid of a high-tech Muslim nation. But it has signaled it would accept some limits. For the West, enrichment is the center of fears over Iran's intentions. Enrichment can produce either material for a nuclear warhead or fuel for a nuclear reactor. The latest proposal was revealed a week after Washington changed strategy on Iran and — in an apparent acknowledgment that it lacked support for sanctions against the Islamic republic — conceded to entering into direct talks with Iran...
06.06.06 | |

09 Mar

...the country on the other side to issue sanctions against the US or declare war on it. That's what "violation of international law" means. It shouldn't stop anyone from doing the right thing. For example, the US should repudiate the various Drug War treaties which purport to demand that various drugs be made illegal. This would theoretically be a "violation of international law" and would theoretically be grounds for all the other countries in the treaty agreements to implement sanctions or declare war on the US, *but they wouldn't do...
09.03.15 | |

14 Aug

...again leaves international law at the mercy of powerful states. Why is it that the US, the EU, and Japan have been able to refuse to lift subsidies to their domestic industries in clear violation of WTO law? Because the aggrieved states are not powerful enough to impose retaliatory sanctions that would damage the violators sufficiently and make them change their ways. The US and EU are content to offer each other side payments so as to carry on with their patterns of subsidies, but when Cambodia or Mali wants...
14.08.05 | |

22 Mar

...I will await his reply. Peter Orlowicz So what precisely does the Convention mean by torture, if it doesn't include pain and suffering arising only from lawful sanctions? There's something circular about saying that the Convention doesn't apply to lawful sanctions, then determining particular treatment is an unlawful sanction solely by reference to the Convention. (Edit: Beaten to it by Mr. Lewis.) Michael W. Lewis Milan, You raise a good question that requires a much longer answer than a comment can provide. If you are interested in taking this up...
22.03.11 | |

27 Oct

...with sanctions in pre-war Iraq: the elites did not suffer, but the bulk of the population surely did). Cesare Romano Economies do play a role in meeeting the basic needs of peoples, and there would be a very real dimunition in human rights when people are poor and destitute. But human rights abuse is never a matter of economics, only of political decisions by governments. People in Iraq weren't suffering becase the sanctions tightened the Iraqi economy. They were suffering because of Saddam. Again, first get your HR straight, then...
27.10.06 | |

19 Dec

...that -- I haven't studied the history closely). I'm not aware of an example where the Clinton Administration took that view, although, again, I'm hardly familiar with every case where it might have come up. To clarify: Of course it is the case (and the Clinton Administration said so) that certain treaties do not establish binding rules of conduct (e.g., criminal sanctions) for private parties without further statutory or regulatory action. But the question in this case is whether the treaty imposes an obligation on the Executive branch itself (and,...
19.12.06 | |

18 Apr

...sold parts of a chemical or biological weapon to a state-financed terrorist group such as al-Qaeda. The principle, however, is exactly the same. The principle isn't the same, in that the federal government made it illegal to do business with Al Qaeda, but not with the South African government at the time. As for what we "really want," do we "really want" 12 random jurors, rather than Congress, to decide whether to impose sanctions on a foreign government? Because the upshot of this decision is that a federal jury would...
18.04.09 | |