Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...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,...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

Many thanks to the Opinio Juris team for hosting this conversation, and to colleagues who have already offered such interesting and insightful posts. In this spirit of exchange, I’ve crafted comments that I hope will challenge and extend some of their observations, as we all continue to digest this momentous opinion on- and off-line. The benefit of continued reflection will no doubt reveal shortcomings in my preliminary reactions. My current research takes a comparative look at the application of constitutional protections to non-citizens when a government acts extraterritorially, so stay...

Administrative lawyers think that international antitrust is a particularly interesting form of bureaucratic cooperation. We see a world where antitrust has changed from a focus of international dissention – see the anger over the US assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction and the effects test after WWII; note that it is the most cited American case in international law – to one where competition regulators meet their foreign counterparts and arguably conform their conduct to international norms, devised, for better or worse, by the regulators themselves. The constraints created by the international...

...the Alien Tort Statute has extraterritorial reach needed to be resolved first, and sent the case back for re-argument the next term. That re-argued case eventually became the 2013 Kiobel decision sharply limiting the extraterritorial scope of lawsuits brought under the ATS to cases that “touch and concern” the territory of the U.S. The corporate liability issue was left fully argued and untouched. To be sure, since 2013, several other circuit courts have issued opinions on the corporate liability issue and all have split from the original Second Circuit Kiobel...

...rule prohibiting intervention in the internal affairs of other states, the rules on territorial integrity banning extraterritorial enforcement action, international human rights law (and its extraterritorial application, as required), among others. By contrast, the finding of a violation of the prohibition to use force seems much more likely to create the expectation of a harsher response, than the violation of any other international rule. When all we see is nails, we are likely to only use a hammer.  In sum, I suggest that the complex framework advocated in Prohibited Force...

...for example, the difficulty in stretching the meaning of the Geneva Conventions’ Common Article 1 to cover an extraterritorial State obligation to react to all war crimes, including those not derived from the Conventions. It exposes the issue with resorting to Article 41 of the Articles on State Responsibility, which lacks formal legal standing, to try to establish a State responsibility to react to atrocity crimes as violations of jus cogens norms. And it demonstrates the glaring absence of a multilateral convention on crimes against humanity, creating enormous gaps in...

As the Court put it in Bowman, “Congress has not thought it necessary to make specific provision in the law that the locus shall include the high seas and foreign countries, but allows it to be inferred from the nature of the offense.” Here’s a brief excerpt of my Chapter 8 addressing the “government purpose” test that presumes the extraterritorial application of U.S. law: The Bowman Court concluded that “the same rule of interpretation [against extraterritoriality] should not be applied to criminal statutes which are … not logically dependent on...

million against Iran. But it did so on the basis of state tort laws for wrongful death, battery, and the intentional infliction of emotion distress. That’s right, the state tort laws of Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, New York, Texas, Virginia, and the District of Columbia were applied extraterritorially to combat terrorism in Beirut. Notably absent from this decision, or any other Dammarrell decision, is the word “extraterritorial.” There was absolutely no discussion of the presumption against extraterritoriality for this patchwork of state tort laws. I am a strong advocate of...