Search: extraterritorial sanctions
28 Jan Guest Post: Dodge–The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality Does Not Apply to Jurisdictional Statutes
...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,...03 Apr The Unattractive Question is Back: SCOTUS (Again) Considers Corporate Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute
...the Alien Tort Statute has extraterritorial reach needed to be resolved first, and sent the case back for re-argument the next term. That re-argued case eventually became the 2013 Kiobel decision sharply limiting the extraterritorial scope of lawsuits brought under the ATS to cases that “touch and concern” the territory of the U.S. The corporate liability issue was left fully argued and untouched. To be sure, since 2013, several other circuit courts have issued opinions on the corporate liability issue and all have split from the original Second Circuit Kiobel...16 Jun Function Over Form
Many thanks to the Opinio Juris team for hosting this conversation, and to colleagues who have already offered such interesting and insightful posts. In this spirit of exchange, I’ve crafted comments that I hope will challenge and extend some of their observations, as we all continue to digest this momentous opinion on- and off-line. The benefit of continued reflection will no doubt reveal shortcomings in my preliminary reactions. My current research takes a comparative look at the application of constitutional protections to non-citizens when a government acts extraterritorially, so stay...02 Jun Case of the Month: United States v. Juvenile Male 1
...documents and the court granted the juvenile’s application for subpoenas duces tecum. But the Navajo nation refused to provide the documents. Why? Navajo lawyers argued that the subpoena would be ignored because “the Navajo Nation is a separate sovereign nation, and as a matter of public policy, foreign subpoenas issued from neighboring sovereigns are not honored.” Instead of complying with this foreign order the juvenile should follow a “routine procedure for domestication of extra-territorial subpoenas through the Navajo Nation courts.” The court granted a second motion to compel, but the...
04 Feb ICC and Palestine Symposium: Mind the Gap– The ‘Palestine Situation’ before the ICC
...acquiesce lightly to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of Israeli military and civilian courts in the West Bank. Against the backdrop of the current Israeli administration’s intention to annex large swathes of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the de facto exercise of Israel’s extraterritorial jurisdiction is gradually absorbing Palestinian land within the Israeli state; if this remains unchallenged, the process of conquest through an expansion of jurisdiction could become irreversible, clearly contravening international law. Taking the example of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine (which are a “flagrant violation under international...
05 Feb The African Union (Rightly) Endorses Pure Sovereignty in Cyberspace
...States.” The most important consequence of pure sovereignty is that it prohibits states from engaging in extraterritorial cyber-espionage. The Tallinn Manual 2.0 claims that because international law does not regulate such espionage in the physical realm, it does not regulate it in the cyber one. Most scholars take the same position. Russell Buchan and I, however, have argued precisely the opposite — that international law prohibits extraterritorial espionage in both the physical and cyber realms. We now have 55 more states that agree with us. The African Union’s communique is...
13 Jan Mexico’s Civil Litigation Against US Gun Manufacturers and Dealers for Cartel Violence: Developing a Standard of Corporate Complicity in Gross Human Rights Violations
[Tomas Hamilton is an Assistant Professor in International Criminal Law at the University of Amsterdam. Marina Aksenova is an Assistant Professor in International and Comparative Criminal Law at IE University in Madrid.] In the ongoing civil suits in Mexico v Smith & Wesson & others and Mexico v Diamondback Shooting Sports Inc. et al, the Mexican government has brought claims against US gun manufacturers in Massachusetts and gun dealers in Arizona for extraterritorial harms suffered by the Mexican State in the context of cartel violence. The US district court judge...16 May Book Discussion “Outsourcing War and Peace”: Too Many Gaps – The Need for a Better Accountability Framework for Private Military and Security Contractors
...is the most obvious: pursuing criminal prosecutions or civil tort suits against contractors who commit abuses. With regard to criminal prosecution, our current system of enforcement is seriously flawed in a number of respects. To begin with, there are gaps in the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), the primary law that gives U.S. courts the power to try contractors when they are accused of committing serious abuses. That statute does not clearly govern contractors who work for agencies other than the Defense Department, such as the State Department contractors involved...