Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...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,...

...Supreme Court has recognized over the years (in 20 cases) that corporations and companies can have duties and rights under treaty-based and customary international law. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1701992 There have always been a number of non-state actors with formal participatory roles and international law has, therefore, never been merely state-to-state. Sanctions against corporations and companies have normally been economic in nature. Better awareness of the roles of various non-state actors in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries should be helpful with respect to future efforts to assure normative compliance and effective sanctions....

...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...

...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....

...use of their jurisdictions as safe havens - ICARA/IKPA deal with abductions out of the US but not to it, I think this is a fundamental weakness in the current HC aproach of dealing with the issue after the child has been taken - imposing sanctions on a parent who abducts to your jurisdiction may be a better way of preventing an abduction to begin with rather than the current cat-and-mouse game with an abducting parent simply hiding until a child is settled in the new environment; 2. Sanctions against...

...me suggest two other controversial legal arguments and ask you whether you think they too should be subject to criminal or ethical sanctions.The bombing of Serbia without UN Security Council authorization is NOT a violation of the UN Charter. Abortion is a fundamental individual right protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In both cases, there are difficult arguments on both sides. Would it really advance our credibility as a profession (lawyers) to seek prosecution and/or disciplinary sanctions for lawyers who made arguments in favor of these...

...The question thus is whether the Supreme Court’s affirmance constituted a dismissal for lack of SMJ, or instead was a dismissal on the merits. Contextual clues in the Chief Justice’s opinion—in particular, the application of the presumption against extraterritoriality (PAE)—indicate that the Court went beyond the issue of SMJ and reached aspects of the merits. The Court concluded that “[o]n these facts,” the PAE barred relief in this case. There are certain limited circumstances in which a federal court may dismiss on the basis of threshold issues before ascertaining its...

...the context of NIAC, Article 42 detention authority even in the more constrained context of IAC is dramatically limited, permitting only that detention as is “absolutely necessary” for the security of the detaining power. Is it “absolutely necessary” for the security of the United States that it be able to detain terrorist suspects picked up anywhere in the world under a legal authority that goes beyond its own sweepingly extraterritorial and often preventively focused criminal law? Guess we’ll find out if the administration advances the Art. 42 theory in court....

...that statute, and why the Supreme Court keeps trying to limit its extraterritorial reach. But human rights lawyers and NGOs only resort to what are essentially legal loopholes like the ATS, because it’s so extraordinarily difficult to litigate cases about human rights abuses across different countries. I think it speaks to a broader structural imbalance enmeshed in our international legal institutions: that it’s far easier for powerful state actors and wealthy corporations to access (or evade) justice than poorer nations or oppressed individuals.    Another thing that I discovered is...

...annex East Jerusalem (paras. 14–16); (ii) the establishment of settlements and outposts in the West Bank, and the associated exploitation of natural resources, building of settler-only roads and infrastructures, demographic engineering measures, and extraterritorial application of Israeli domestic law to settlements and settlers (paras. 24–47); and (iii) the unequivocal statements by Israeli officials of the intent to appropriate permanently portions of the West Bank (paras. 48–53). The importance of the COI’s report is that it considered Israel’s violation of binding rules of international law not in isolation, but in the...

...Afghanistan? Justice Kennedy’s ruling in Boumediene was nothing if not intensely functional in nature, so the parties’ briefs (and argument) devoted substantial time to discussing how the Kennedy criteria for determining when/whether the U.S. Constitution applies extraterritorially: (1) the citizenship and status of the detainees and the process for determining their status; (2) the nature of the sites of apprehension and detention; and (3) the practical obstacles to extraterritorial application of the constitutional right. As usual, the best account of the hearing can be found at Scotusblog. Yesterday’s upshot: U.S....