Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...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...

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....

...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...

...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...

...(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...

...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....

...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...

was too “deficient and vague” to be a common law rule. Lower courts have discussed the application of the Alien Tort Statute to so-called “foreign cubed” cases – where the parties are foreigners and the conduct takes place abroad – as a matter of extraterritoriality, a term that suggests the presumption of statutory construction against extraterritorial application. While there is a presumption against extraterritoriality, the application of U.S. law to conduct abroad is not uncommon. Yet even the most controversial or aggressive use of extraterritoriality typically involves the regulation of...

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...

...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...

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...

...which it is not really dead-on, however, though sometimes referenced in relation to it. Reid is the question of the extraterritorial application of the US Constitution, and whether a civilian US citizen lawfully present on a US military base in time of peace, with a SOFA in operation (ie, 1950s Germany), is entitled to a regular US civilian trial with all Constitutional protections in a capital murder case rather than trial in military court under the UCMJ – answer, yes. But, if that’s Reid, what about a US citizen who...