Search: extraterritorial sanctions

Tobias Thienel On the letter of the Convention: the question of whether a state party to the Convention is bound by it in respect of its acts of extraterritorial jurisdiction is surely among the thornier issues, but I will hazard a few observations nonetheless: Under Article 1 of the Convention, its guarantees apply to 'everyone within [the high contracting parties'] jurisdiction'. This means primarily the territory of any state party, but also extraterritorial jurisdiction, where a state party in fact exercises 'effective control' (note: not the Nicaragua test, see Tadic,...

...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?...

...rights or those principles of personal liberty which lie at the foundation of our jurisprudence.”); Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. at 271. The Bush Administration repeatedly has failed to construe the GCs and other IHR and IHL treaties liberally. For example, Mr. Bellinger claims that the ICCPR does not extend extraterritorially based on the purported plain text of the ICCPR and the travaux. Jan (above) is absolutely correct in his analysis of the ICCPR based on the Vienna Convention: the ICCPR must be interpreted to apply extraterritorially. Indeed, the UN...

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...

...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...

...so remarkable that I became a member for the first time about two weeks ago. Best, Ben Ben Regarding the Yahoo case: Obeying the laws of a nation should be no bar to international law liability; nor should it be a bar to liability under US domestic law. I'm curious about why you think China's requirements on Yahoo should affect a question of US law. Should we really hold our citizens to lower standards when acting abroad? Isn't the prevention of such substandard extraterritorial conduct at the heart of laws...

[Eugene Kontorovich is a Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law] The extraterritoriality analysis starts with piracy, which has gotten significant play in the courts of appeals’ extraterritoriality cases like Doe v. Exxon and Rio Tinto (as well as in the Kiobel oral arguments on corporate liability). Because Sosa held that piracy would be actionable under the ATS, it is clear that the battle over extraterritoriality in Kiobel will be a naval engagement. It is true that piracy occurs extraterritorially, and under the current piracy statute, can be prosecuted...

...Generally it depends on both the intent of the legislature passing the law to regulate extraterritorial conduct and whether those laws are consistent with international law principles. In the case of illegal pharmaceutical websites it is easy because they are promoting the product in the United States, targeting U.S. customers, and shipping the illegal goods into the United States. For Wikileaks you would need to show that the relevant laws were intended to capture Assange's conduct. His conduct of publishing classified documents occurred at home and abroad. Of course, much...

...chilling conclusion that the whole world has become a battlefield. It implicates that AQ-operatives may be liable to similar deadly attacks wherever they are hiding (ok, this time it was Abottabad and the Pakistani government seems to turn the other cheek, but what’s next: Paris? Rome?). I prefer the following (extraterritorial law enforcement) approach: without the obtaining of Pakistani consent, the only reasonable justification the US could put forward for infringing another Sate’s sovereignty, is the right to self-defence (art 51 UN Charter). Apparently, the US had actionable intelligence that...

...have never entered derogations in respect of extraterritorial military engagements. The first point I would answer like this: yes, there can. The 'nation' is the community in the area to which the Convention applies in any instance. Article 15 merely assumes that states will derogate in respect of crises affecting their 'nation' stricto sensu, in their own territory, because that is where the Convention usually applies. But if it applies elsewhere (say, to - constructively - Turkish conduct in Northern Cyprus), surely it would be unfair to exclude any derogation,...

...global influence and tackle global challenges. These sort of extraterritorial lawsuits seem a much greater threat to democratic sovereignty from a sovereigntist perspective than international law. And if other countries extraterritorial litigation turns out to be unfriendly to western conceptions of human and environmental rights, it may be opposed by the new internationalists who have embraced transnational litigation when it was only U.S.-centered. So, I wonder if in the legal academy there might also be a reinvigoration of the IL bandwagon, as you put it. That Sovereigntists might recognize that...

...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...