Search: extraterritorial sanctions

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...

...human rights system. This will be the focus of this piece. The Inter-American Court, taking into consideration all asylum treaties, and, in particular, the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees of 1951, has held that the right to seek and receive asylum through recognition of refugee status “sets certain specific obligations upon the State: i) the obligation of non-refoulement and its extraterritorial application; ii) the obligation to allow to file asylum applications and not to push back at the border; iii) the obligation not to criminalise or sanction...

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...

Distracted by #ComeyDay and other international crises, I missed this recent U.S. federal court decision in Sexual Minorities of Uganda v. Lively, dismissing an Alien Tort Statute lawsuit on Kiobel extra-territoriality grounds. While using unusually critical language to denounce U.S. pastor-defendant Scott Lively’s involvement in Uganda’s anti-homosexual laws and actions, the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts held: …Defendant’s status as an American citizen and his physical presence in the United States is clearly not enough under controlling authority to support ATS extraterritorial jurisdiction. The sporadic trail of emails sent by...

If someone sexually assaults a woman in Canadian territorial waters, where would you expect that person to be prosecuted? Why, in Alaska of course. Earlier this week the Alaska Supreme Court rendered an unusual decision in State v. Jack addressing the question of whether a state criminal statute against sexual assault could be applied extraterritorially to prosecute someone who committed the act in the territorial waters of Canada. I’m all in favor of prosecuting persons who commit sexual crimes in Canadian territorial waters. But the question is, by whom and...

...and requests rejected by the Commission (and its gargantuan workload) by sheer virtue of more readily available knowledge and less room for educated guesswork among its users. A few weeks ago, a scholar and practitioner I greatly admire (and whose knowledge of international law is exceptional) expressed their doubts as to the reasons why a petition against the US at the IACHR had being rejected. The petition itself -from what was disclosed- had to do with claimed responsibility for extraterritorial violation of human rights as a consequence of military/law-enforcement activities...

...and seek justice. However, to open the Cause, Argentina had to resolve several preliminary issues: the characterization of the crimes, the prevalence of Spanish courts’ jurisdiction, and the possibility to prosecute the crimes according to domestic law. In this regard, Argentina stated that the facts constituted international crimes covered by the principle of universal jurisdiction. It established that no investigation was being carried out in Spain for the same facts or crimes; thus, other countries could prosecute those responsible. It explained the need for extraterritorial jurisdiction, referring to the obligations...

...and the demonstrable hostility in the DRC” against anyone who is critical of the government or anyone who is perceived to be “attacking the mining industry” are prohibitive factors. Using the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) the plaintiffs submit that the US is the appropriate forum as there is a legal basis for extraterritorial jurisdiction. The IRA bolster their jurisdictional argument by stating that, “the policymaking that facilitated the harms Plaintiffs suffered was the product of decisions made in the United States by Defendants…This case is brought under the...

...breakaway region of South Ossetia in August 2008 (More on the facts here). Even though the Court found numerous violations of human rights committed by Russia after the cessation of active hostilities and signing of a ceasefire agreement on 12 August (the right to life, prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment, the right to property and housing rights, the right to liberty and the freedom of movement), the judgment has been criticised (e.g. here and here) due to the Court’s determination that Russian Federation did not exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction during...

...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...

...public ethic of that community. As Howse and Langille put it, “public morals” may be justified either as “instrumental regulation designed to counter certain social ills, or as expressive regulation designed to express or give force to intrinsic moral intuitions or shared values.” The fact that there is not universal concern for seal welfare, or that Canada and Norway do not share EU’s concerns, is irrelevant for WTO purposes. Second, the public moral concerns may derive from conduct that is wholly extraterritorial to the Member State. Under this reasoning, a...

...to substantive criminal law. Contrast what it says about the principal/accessory distinction with what it says about extraterritoriality as an aggravating factor, which the defence (correctly) alleged in its appeal brief lacks any foundation whatsoever in customary international law (and has never been applied by any international tribunal): The Appeals Chamber considers that it was unnecessary for the Trial Chamber to refer to public international law in order to take into consideration the extraterritorial nature and consequences of Taylor‘s acts and conduct. The Appeals Chamber accepts the Trial Chamber‘s finding...