In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: extraterritorial sanctions

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 | |

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 | |

29 Mar

...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...
29.03.09 | |

12 Sep

...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...
12.09.13 | |

10 Mar

...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...
10.03.13 | |

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 | |

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 | |

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 | |

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 | |

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 | |

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 | |