Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...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...

...to either ignore or downplay that it is people from host states who file extraterritorial complaints in home states and that host states are typically either indifferent or actively supporting claimants. Instead, home states often support the companies incorporated within their territories operating abroad through several means. This includes signing investment and trade agreements aimed at protecting home states corporations from foreign laws and courts (See e.g. Sornarajah) or filing amicus curiae in support of home states’ corporations (See e.g. the Netherlands and UK amicus curiae in Kiobel). Therefore, to...

...States does not accept the extraterritorial application of the canonical human rights treaties with respect to its own conduct and those of its agents outside of the territorial United States, so from the US point of view, that distinction is legally neither here nor there. In order to give the geographical distinction content, Koh’s argument says not that human rights law applies with respect to the US, but instead that the requirements of self-defense independently require an imminence of threat analysis even within an armed conflict that includes AQAP as...

...Bellinger over at Lawfare can rightly claim credit for keeping the extraterritoriality issue before the Supreme Court in Kiobel. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s conclusion that “principles underlying” the presumption against extraterritoriality apply to claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) represents a victory for the Bush Administration’s legal position in ATS cases, an administration John served with distinction. That Bush Administration legal position, however, marked a sharp break with past positions of the United States Government regarding extraterritorial application of the ATS. In 1980, the Carter Administration argued in Filartiga...

...Syrian conflict – the opportunities have been scant to date. The majority of suspected IS members brought to justice have been tried on terrorism-related charges that have not surfaced any ICHL violations, including sexual or gender-based harms, for which an accused may bear criminal responsibility. This is largely true of prosecutions both in Iraq and in other states exercising extraterritorial or universal jurisdiction. However, a growing number of cases focusing on ICHL violations are being built in these third states against IS members and other actors in the Syrian conflict....

...(Another of the contributors, Hans Boddens Hosang, has done some of the most rigorous thinking on self-defense bases and origins, worth reading more of here and here). The first position – that a service member or his unit’s self-defense is supported by the extraterritorial application of domestic self-defense rights – is the predominant view for most European countries (see, e.g., the Norway contribution, the personal self-defense description in the Netherlands contribution, and these case studies referencing the positions of France, Germany, and the UK). The last approach, the sovereign self-defense...

...the sea, a vessel sailing on the high seas is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State of the flag it is flying. This principle of international law has led the Court to recognise, in cases concerning acts carried out on board vessels flying a State’s flag, in the same way as registered aircraft, cases of extraterritorial exercise of the jurisdiction of that State …. Where there is control over another, this is de jure control exercised by the State in question over the individuals concerned. The Court observes,...

...those whose lives it claims to improve. Nor does it comply with international law. Foreign investment is subject to states’ international legal obligations. States – including the U.S. – have extraterritorial obligations that require them to respect and protect economic, social and cultural rights abroad and to take “joint and separate action” to achieve respect for, and observance of, universal human rights. The latter obligation is widely understood to confer on states, particularly those in the global north, a duty to ensure that international assistance is provided in accordance with...

as the extraterritorial application of statutes, the rise of universal jurisdiction, and the “dollarization” of less developed countries, those borders remain fundamentally important in areas such as immigration and enforcement jurisdiction. Moreover, in each area in which territoriality has declined, the reasons for decline have differed. The abandonment of national currencies has been driven by economic motivations and competitive forces, while the extraterritorial application of statutes has been driven more by changes in ideas, with the evolution of approaches to extraterritoriality paralleling changes in thinking about the conflict of laws....

...As the reporters’ notes to Section 431 (dealing with U.S. practice with respect to jurisdiction to enforce) explains, U.S. court orders to produce information located abroad “have not provoked the protests from other states that might be expected if such orders constituted extraterritorial exercises of jurisdiction to enforce.” In the Microsoft case, the fact that none of the foreign governments filing amicus briefs—including Ireland—has characterized the warrant in question as an extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction to enforce seems conclusive. Dean Parrish directs most of his criticism at the Restatement (Fourth)’s...

...reach. The Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), confirms the distinction between substantive statutes to which the presumption against extraterritoriality applies and jurisdictional statutes to which it does not. In Morrison, the Court used the presumption to limit a substantive provision of the Securities Exchange Act, finding “no affirmative indication in the Exchange Act that § 10(b) applies extraterritorially.” Id. at 2883. But notably, the Court did not apply the presumption against extraterritoriality to the Exchange Act’s jurisdictional provision. To the contrary,...

...Take the dramatically expanded level of extraterritorial law enforcement activity nicely documented in the book. To the extent the courts haven’t found the Constitution to apply to such activity (see Verdugo-Urquidez), the doctrine looks like a reflection and an enabler of US hegemony. If the DEA wants to break someone’s door down overseas without any procedural protections, the domestic courts won’t stand in the way. Through this optic, it looks like open season for cops across borders. But international law is catching up to US-style rights on this score as...