Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...prevent the application of IHL no matter how much damage it inflicts.) In recent commentary (e.g. our PENNumbra debate and here), it seems Kevin would allow attacks beyond active conflict zones, but only if the targets' activities give them targetable status in IHL and are directly related to the hostilities occurring in an active conflict zone. Mary Ellen would not permit that position, but recently stated that she would permit an intrusion upon a foreign state's territorial integrity to engage in extraterritorial law enforcement, the intrusion necessary to do so...

...feasible, the parameters of the actual zone of conflict". Arguing for an extraterritorial NIAC, in the sense that the conflict simply follows the terrorist around wherever he goes, would create an unbearable reality. Courts would never be able to set the relevant zones of conflicts and parameters for the applicability of IHL and states would be given complete autonomy in breaching their neighborint states' territorial borders whenever they presume that a terrorists with whom they are in conflict has entered such territory. Given the fact that almost all states today...

M. Gross Are you seriously suggesting we should strike down a state law because a foreign country has chosen to exercise what amounts to an extraterritorial veto? Can I ask what kind of State law could not be struck down if offending a foreign country was all that was required for a sufficient nexus with foreign policy for a successful preemption challenge? John Turner Will all the people against the new law please pay restituition to the crime victims of illegal aliens. Who by the way would not be crime...

...states". Indeed, if the Court wanted to be clear that a legal element was not required, it could have found a simpler example, could it not? On another issue, what do you make of the reference in para 74 to Myanmar's obligation to exercise universal jurisdiction or extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain crimes? One could go wild and argue that it implies that UJ or extraterritorial jurisdiction themselves create some inter-state element that satisfies the territorial element. This would be crazy, but how else is Myanmar's jurisdiction relevant to the issue?...

...such an exception is relatively clear and constitutional, as happened in Hamdi. The exception need not comply with common law understandings of public authority. Let us hypothetically say that the CIA was used in the initial stages of the invasion of Afghanistan and worked side by side with special forces. Under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, they would likely be subject to prosecution for any conduct that violates a federal felony statute applicable in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., which includes murder. Let us further say...

Jordan one problem (especially since there is no lex specialis override of human rights jus cogens, customary human rights guaranteed in all contexts John Bellinger, The Convention Against Torture: Extraterritorial Application and Application to Military Operations, Lawfare blog (Oct. 26, 2014) (claiming that when he was the State Department Legal Adviser in 2006 the U.S. position was never that the Convention Against Torture “did not apply at all during armed conflicts..., but rather that military operations ... were governed by the specific rules in the laws of war, not human...

...a great amount of comparative law, meaning that you start to take many things for granted. I remember having a discussion on Volokh, for example, about "extraterritorial" laws. (The post was about Italian internet regulation, I think.) I tried to explain that the case in question could reasonably be characterised not as extraterritorial, but as based on a different definition of the location of certain torts. This lead to all sorts of confusion. Similarly, prof. Anderson has recently been posting about companies and the ATS. If I understand the issue...

...started to speak to questions of the Laws of War and Int'l Humanitarian Law? Christopher Gibson Dear Roger, With increasing global integration, economically and otherwise, there is a commensurate increasing tension between national law and the intrusion of transnational issues into the (formerly) exclusively national sphere. Roger, your article, “Misusing International Sources to Interpret the Constitution,” provides an insightful analysis of some of the associated complex issues for Constitutional law. One can also consider an associated dilemma as follows: giving effect to national law may have extraterritorial effects, but failing...

Marty Lederman Thanks, Bill. Two quibbles: First, and most importantly, the Convention in Missouri v. Holland did *not* create "close seasons." If it had done so, then it would have imposed a legal obligation on Missouri hunters of its own accord, albeit one without any criminal or other sanctions attached. Paul's argument on Tuesday was that that was what the Migratory Bird Convention did, in fact -- which he said makes it distinguishable from the CWC, which does not impose any obligation on Carol Anne Bond. (As I wrote in...

...American nations, tribes, and peoples) -- e.g., http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484842 And, of course, there is the problem posed by federal preemption. Hostage Re: Of course, states are expressly bound under the Supremacy clause re: “all” treaties of the United States" ... Another interesting conumdrum is the interplay between the foreign commerce clause, the treaty obligation to accept decisions of the UN Security Council on sanctions, and individual state determinations which prohibit investment of their own pension funds & etc. in businesses doing commerce with countries that the Executive branch has placed on...

...in recent years’ should take cognizance of the fact ‘expanding punishment resources will have more effect on cases of marginal seriousness rather than those that provoke the greatest degree of citizen fear. The result is that when fear of lethal violence is translated into a general campaign against crime, the major share of extra resources will directed at nonviolent behavior.’ [….] [C]rime crackdowns have their most dramatic impact on less serious offenses that are close to the margin between incarceration and more lenient penal sanctions. The pattern of nonviolent offenses...

...that, by virtue of passing and implementing such a statute, the U.S. has violated a treaty. Presumably the U.S. must risk suffering whatever international law sanctions are appropriate for such a breach. But that's not very unusual, is it? Isn't the whole point of the "last in time" rule that later-enacted statutes trump earlier ratified treaties for purposes of domestic law and, more importantly, for purposes of the Supremacy Clause? That is to say -- Congress *often* enacts "last in time" statutes that effectively violate treaties, or that breach federal...