In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: extraterritorial sanctions

08 Oct

...least to me. States do not generally assert a right to self-defense in certain circumstances out of "a sense of legal obligation." Now, I suppose a state might assert an obligation, perhaps a "responsibility to protect" its citizens from unlawful and unjustified harm emanating from an extraterritorial location...but that hasn't clearly happened, at least not yet. Ashley's article, and others, have noted a historically common state practice that is consistent with first principles of international law -- first principles that underlie the neutrality law of armed conflict and even the...
08.10.12 | |

21 May

...I am uncertain whether that is true. Certainly in internal armed conflict, domestic law can be the only source of immunity for violence (along the lines of public authority). In extraterritorial NIAC, there is no reason why territorial states in which armed attacks occur could not provide or recognize the equivalent of combatant immunity for a foreign state's armed forces, and state practice might actually support this as being the case. At bottom, it is not necessary to classify a conflict as IAC to immunize a state's armed forces. Going...
21.05.11 | |

05 Mar

...the ATS applies to piracy, which occurs (typically) on the high seas. This framing of the issue will raise the question whether the presumption against extraterritoriality distinguishes between extraterritorial applications of US law depending on whether the situation in question is within another state's jurisdiction. The Court in recent years hasn't seemed to apply such a distinction. I've argued, however, that it should. Specifically, a presumption against extrajurisdictionality that applies more strictly to situations outside U.S. prescriptive jurisdiction under international law than to situations (such as piracy on the high...
05.03.12 | |

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 | |

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 | |

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 | |

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 | |

24 Oct

Liz The term "collective punishment" doesn't usually apply to sanctions or blockades. For instance, I don't recall anyone claiming the sanctions on South Africa were 'collective punishment'. New term for a new era or does it selectively apply to Israel only? right. 2 Liz South Africa may have been under a blockade, but Gaza is under military siege, if not military occupation. There's a huge difference. Ali The sanctions against South Africa were not meant against the civilian population, where as Israel is actually intending to deprive the Palestinian population...
24.10.10 | |

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 | |

16 Apr

...part of its obligations under UN Charter Article 56, point to the UN's own obligation to "promote...respect for...human rights," and then argue that these obligations take precedence over the US's own obligations under the UN Headquarters Agreement. That's the winning argument, right? Wow. Jordan The U.S. permits some civil sanctions against human rights violators in its courts and there is no S/L in customary international law. I see no reason why a visa denial could not be a proper sanction response even if other sanctions might be more onerous. Tyler...
16.04.14 | |