Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...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...

...the decision its treatment of the "Multinational Force-Iraq" as, effectively, a U.S. government entity? Roger Alford Steve, No that is not my principal concern. At bottom this is about the extraterritorial application of U.S. habeas corpus law in the face of the territorial sovereignty and authority of Iraq and Iraqi courts to detain and try those persons alleged to have committed crimes on Iraqi soil. It is an affront to the Iraqi court's primary authority over crimes committed in its own territory for a U.S. court to issue an order...

Chris Jenks Kevin I think this link may work better to get to John's article http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/mqp015v1 John C. Dehn Thanks Kevin and Chris for the article plug. In essence, my article argues that "murder in violation of the law of war" is a domestic, "common law of war" offense applied extraterritorially. For those suspicious of that argument, the existence of this undoubtedly federal common law was recognized post-Erie in Ex parte Quirin. The article did not reach the question of whether applying this municipal law extraterritorially is consistent with international...

...authority. But there is absolutely nothing of which I am aware that limits Congress's constitutional authority to sanction extraterritorial acts that violate international law. Territorial acts more clearly depend upon the relationship and congruity of any applicable international and constitutional limitations on Congress's powers. Furthermore, it is debatable whether fundamental law of war principles require an attacker to meet formal IHL requirements for prisoner of war status and the combatant's privilege. On that point, I note that the perfidy prohibition is stated by some---incuding European experts and scholars that I...

...be since the discussion was all over the map. Anthony Colangelo I recently published an article in the Virginia Law Review that address in large part the ATS and extraterritoriality, entitled A Unified Approach to Extraterritoriality, 97 Va. L. Rev. 1019 (fall 2011). I suspect the issue has taken on new significance in light of the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Morrison v. Nat'l Aust. Bank revitalizing the presumption against extraterritoriality. In the article, I argued that if ATS suits apply extant international law, the presumption should not apply. Rather,...

...what otherwise (if engaged in by combatants) would have been lawful acts of war -- but such targetableness (word?) and lack of immunity do not create war crime responsibility. The lack of immunity is with respect to prosecution for any applicable domestic law (e.g., an extraterritorial U.S. federal statute that can apply because of compliance with one of four principles of jurisdiction under international law (like objective territorial, protective). After Hudson & Goodwin, there is no relevant federal "common law," much less some extraterritorial federal common law even if a...

...I think it will be interesting to see how US arguments in opposition to Spanish jurisdiction will affect the interpretation and application of the US Extraterritorial Torture Statute (recently invoked to convict Chuckie Taylor). Greg Fox Can Mathias (or anyone else) provide a link to the complaint itself? Thanks much. Anthony Colangelo Greg, the complaint translated from Spanish to English via Google is available on-line here. Mary, as for the impact of this case on the Chuckie Taylor prosecution and other cases of U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction, I agree that it...

...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...

...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...

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...

...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...

...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...