Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...of any prescription drug without a valid prescription was prohibited in baseball, and even earlier under federal law. In 1971, baseball’s drug policy required compliance with federal, state, and local drug laws and directed baseball’s athletic trainers that anabolic steroids should only be provided to players under a physician’s guidance. Problem is, under traditional rules of extraterritoriality, the federal regulation of the use of performance enhancing substances does not obviously apply when such use occurs in other countries. And various sections of the Mitchell Report detail allegations of “illegal” use...

...Guantanamo are serving any of these purposes. To the extent they may be justified in this context at all, it is as the only forum in which it is possible to charge violations of the law of war – either because there is no relevant charging offense under federal criminal law, or because federal criminal law did not at the time extend to cover extraterritorial offenses. I suppose other justifications might be offered, and I’d be happy to have them. But I doubt the we-can’t-win-under-the-evidentiary-standards-in-Article-III-court rationale is one of them....

...the clergy, seemingly relying on the Holy See’s supreme power in the Church and the duty of obedience of the members of religious orders. We suggest that the Committee’s approach could be strengthened by a reflection on the role of the HS’s as the supreme power and its consequences for the scope of its obligations under the CRC; a better explanation of the ducal nature of the CRC ratification; and engaging with the broader question of extraterritorial jurisdiction in international human rights law. The Holy See, Supreme Power in the...

...their domestic rule of law, state authorities must ensure that their domestic law does not give legal effect to the basis for business activities in Israeli settlements. All business activities carried out under Israel’s illegal regime by the corporate nationals of law-abiding states would entail concrete legal risks under the company’s home-state law, insofar as those activities oblige the state to give legal effect to Israel’s internationally unlawful acts as though they were lawful. 3) The report’s recommendations to states fall short of adequately addressing foreign corporate involvement in extraterritorial...

...of the actor, the nature of the recipient(s), and the nature of the information. If the intent to harm a nation's security interests is present, I have trouble accepting an argument that potential criminal culpability should stop with the first non-citizen or non-government employee who receives (rather than extracts) and then further discloses a government's secrets. Of course, the biggest obstacle to prosecuting a violation of an extraterritorially applied domestic law is the lack of legitimate extraterritorial enforcement power. Merely having an applicable law on the books does not automatically...

...Where the tension does come to a head, the government is faced with the obligation to either give up on its secrecy interests or else face sanctions (including the dismissal of charges). This is the prospect that we have to be worried about insofar as we push more of the burden of terrorism detention into the criminal justice system. It may be that the problem won’t actually arise often, or even at all. Or it may prove a huge obstacle in some cases. I don’t think any of us are...

The Guardian published an editorial by a Republican political operative today blaming WikiLeaks for releasing a State Department cable concerning a meeting between Tsvangirai and Susan Rice in which Tsvangirai discussed the possibility of peacefully removing Mugabe from power: Now, in the wake of the WikiLeaks’ release, one of the men targeted by US and EU travel and asset freezes, Mugabe’s appointed attorney general, has launched a probe to investigate Tsvangirai’s involvement in sustained western sanctions. If found guilty, Tsvangirai will face the death penalty. And so, where Mugabe’s strong-arming,...

...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...

...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...

...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,...

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...

...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...