In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: extraterritorial sanctions

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 | |

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 | |

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 | |

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 | |

27 Oct

...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...
27.10.06 | |

22 Mar

...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...
22.03.11 | |

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 | |