Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...models: the United States’ claim of extraterritorial self-defense, China’s consent-based cross-border enforcement on the Mekong, and Afghanistan’s joint operations grounded in host-State consent.  Counternarcotics Playbooks Tested: Military Interventions against Narcos United States: Extraterritorial Self-defence  The current U.S. approach appears episodic, externally oriented, and largely unilateral, consisting of a series of air-to-surface strikes against small maritime craft in the Caribbean and, more recently, the eastern Pacific. These operations are publicly justified as defence actions against “narco-terrorist” vessels allegedly linked to Venezuelan or Colombian networks. Since early September 2025, several such strikes...

...jurisdiction. However, no investigation against PMSC personnel has been initiated by the Court. Even in countries like South Africa where the legal framework contemplates special provisions for applying its regulations beyond its border, no steps have been taken to prosecute alleged violations against civilians. In the case of Ukraine, serious accountability gaps remain, as there is no clear legal provision ensuring extraterritorial application of the Draft Law on PMSCs. The aforementioned examples, along with dozens of other cases, illustrate that prosecution, accountability, and oversight of PMSC activities during armed conflicts...

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...

...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...

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...

...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...

...any other way contribute to the commission or attempted commission” of a war crime. Article 25(d) (emphasis mine). For these reasons, there appears to be an open question regarding whether international law permits the use of the other domestic modes of inchoate criminal liability to punish non-nationals for extraterritorial violations of the law of war. Exploring this rather complex issue requires retracing the origins of law of war violations and their punishment. States have punished law of war violations by adversaries and their sympathizers since long before there were international...

It is worth noting that Justice Kennedy offered a very short concurrence. Here is the complete text of his concurrence, which should hearten ATS supporters that there is some room for future extraterritorial ATS cases (a very small room, I guess). The opinion for the Court is careful to leave open a number of significant questions regarding the reach and interpretation of the Alien Tort Statute. In my view that is a proper disposition. Many serious concerns with respect to human rights abuses committed abroad have been addressed by Congress...

...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...

...foreign policy, Kal Raustiala traces the evolving concept from post-revolutionary American to late-nineteenth century imperialism, the Cold War, and our own era of globalization. He closes with a powerful explanation of America’s attempt to increase its extraterritorial power in the contemporary world. As American power has grown, its understanding of extraterritorial legal jurisdiction has expanded too. Throughout, Raustiala focuses on how the legal limits of territorial sovereignty have been tweaked to accommodate the expanding American empire. In addition to the OJ regulars, the discussion will be joined by three commentators:...

...climate change, to suggest that relevant human rights obligations lie solely with the State wherein harm is suffered. Rather, one must strike a balance between drawing attention to and clarifying human rights obligations applicable within vulnerable States on the one hand (i.e., domestic application), and drawing attention to and clarifying extraterritorial human rights obligations on the other-especially obligations applicable to those countries that bear the major responsibility for having caused climate change. These countries argue, rightly, that to fail to strike such a balance would be to consign vulnerable States...