Search: extraterritorial sanctions

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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...rule prohibiting intervention in the internal affairs of other states, the rules on territorial integrity banning extraterritorial enforcement action, international human rights law (and its extraterritorial application, as required), among others. By contrast, the finding of a violation of the prohibition to use force seems much more likely to create the expectation of a harsher response, than the violation of any other international rule. When all we see is nails, we are likely to only use a hammer.  In sum, I suggest that the complex framework advocated in Prohibited Force...

...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...

...(para. 432). An Extraterritorial Duty It should be noted that the duty to take measures to prevent genocide, as an erga omnes obligation, is an extraterritorial task that exists regardless of territory or a specific link to the state in question. Therefore, all states party to the Genocide Convention, which also have influence on Israel through political and economic connections, have a well-established duty to prevent the commission of genocide in Gaza. One may argue that the current situation in Gaza does not definitively constitute the crime of genocide. However,...

If someone sexually assaults a woman in Canadian territorial waters, where would you expect that person to be prosecuted? Why, in Alaska of course. Earlier this week the Alaska Supreme Court rendered an unusual decision in State v. Jack addressing the question of whether a state criminal statute against sexual assault could be applied extraterritorially to prosecute someone who committed the act in the territorial waters of Canada. I’m all in favor of prosecuting persons who commit sexual crimes in Canadian territorial waters. But the question is, by whom and...

Distracted by #ComeyDay and other international crises, I missed this recent U.S. federal court decision in Sexual Minorities of Uganda v. Lively, dismissing an Alien Tort Statute lawsuit on Kiobel extra-territoriality grounds. While using unusually critical language to denounce U.S. pastor-defendant Scott Lively’s involvement in Uganda’s anti-homosexual laws and actions, the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts held: …Defendant’s status as an American citizen and his physical presence in the United States is clearly not enough under controlling authority to support ATS extraterritorial jurisdiction. The sporadic trail of emails sent by...

...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...