Search: extraterritorial sanctions

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...

[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...

...I must confess that I have written a draft article on the application of municipal criminal law in extraterritorial armed conflict but have been unable to invest the necessary time to refine and format it. Part of the reason for that is that I have also begun a different article that considers evidence and arguments for placing military commissions in a different theoretical perspective. I may try to post a summary of my key points of analysis on the former subject in the not-too-distant future. The latter article may ultimately...

...As to your point, I guess we do have some sort of governance "crisis" or "problem", simply because the Treaties do not include a contingency plan for a financial crisis of the current proportions and the control mechanisms proved inadequate. This is based on serious design flaws of the TFEU. Take the deficit rules in Art. 126 TFEU for instance. Countries are obliged not to exceed certain deficit levels. If they do, they need to reduce them to appropriate levels or they may face sanctions. However, sanctions are not automatic...

...mean for us lawyers? It means that the Security Council and the US/EU should back off of their increasing use of economic sanctions - a tool that also has alot of literature on it, all saying that in a case like Iran's nuclear program, economic sanctions are not going to cause the desired change in target state behavior (let me know if you want cites on this). It means that we should seek for creative legal/political means to allow Iran to continue its uranium enrichment program, while giving the West...

...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...

...other hand, it is not clear that with the Cotton letter there is a "measure" of the U.S. involved. Indeed, one can frame the letter as defending more obvious measures of the U.S., like the Security Council-authorized sanctions regime. I would be very hesitant to define "measures" as "executive foreign policy but not relevant legislation". Or what about a candidate who promises to sign a treaty if elected? And then of course there is Snowden. Jordan Eugene: a statement by a politician is not correspondence sent to a foreign govt....

...that is all about political commitment and then verified compliance by all sides with their commitments. I don't think the legal character of the agreement will have any bearing on how well it is implemented. That will depend solely on the political will of all parties. I'm far more concerned about the US not abiding by its commitments relating to sanctions than I am about Iran abiding by its commitments to freeze its nuclear program and agree to an additional protocol with the IAEA. William Worster Setting aside the many,...

...conduct of trial"). Concerning your last phrase: It is my understanding that the power to impose penal sanctions for the crimes defined in the statute is distinct from the question of power to sanction contempt of court: In-compliance with the rules of procedure (e.g. contempt of court) is neither a criminal offense nor an infraction (which are material law). Fine or detention penalties for such conduct are sui-generis sanctions of procedural law (at least in continental law). As procedural jurisdiction powers are explicitly assigned through Art. 15, the power to...

...and land of Palestinians (creating 'facts on the ground' that make the likelihood of a two-state solution ever more remote), away from its divide-and-conquer strategy with the Palestinians, including a blatant refusal to recognize the results of the (democratic) 2006 elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council (indeed, Israel, the US and the European Union responded with economic sanctions: Arabs aren't worthy of democracy...hmmm), away from the lingering consequences of ethnic cleansing and the Nakbah, away from Israel's considerable nuclear weapons arsenal and refusal to sign onto the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty...

Kyla4u Quote: "But other governments have a reciprocal incentive to sign on: we report on offshoring that’s hurting you, you help us out with offshoring that hurting us." Reciprocal reporting has very little to do with the incentive to sign onto FATCA. The incentive for signing an IGA has a lot more to do with the 30% sanctions imposed by the US on all US payments to any FFI who does not comply with FATCA. By signing an IGA, foreign governments greatly reduce the risk of having 30% sanctions applied...

CM Kevin, I agree that the brief should have been accepted in the interests of justice. However, I also think that sanctions should be imposed on any counsel - prosecution or defence - who knowingly disobeys a scheduling order without good cause. I'm sure that counsel in this instance would argue that there was good cause; however, such behaviour by an experienced lawyer sets a dangerous precedent which, without proper investigation and the application of sanctions if deemed appropriate, may encourage lawyers / self-represented accused in other cases to manipulate...