In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: extraterritorial sanctions

14 Nov

...see an Iraqi prosecution after all since the Blackwater employees’ immunity wasn’t really all that broad. Alternatively, there are U.S. criminal statutes that might reach their activity in Iraq, but the most obvious candidate: the War Crimes Act, doesn’t seem to apply here, since these crimes don’t seem to rise to that level. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act may or may not apply, but that also looks murky since these were State Department contractors, not Pentagon ones. So I actually think, offhand, that the Blackwater employees face a greater danger...
14.11.07 | |

28 Jun

...that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the ATS; Nestle USA hoped to extend that bar to domestic corporations as well.   The company presented only two questions for review.  One was whether “general corporate activity” in the U.S. is enough to overcome the presumption against extraterritorial application of the ATS.  The second was “[w]hether the Judiciary has the authority under the Alien Tort Statute to impose liability on domestic corporations.” According to Justice Alito, the second question — whether U.S. corporations can be sued — was “primary.” Not only...
28.06.21 | |

21 Jul

...apply (here, and here). Although causing much controversy in France, double criminality is not practiced by other states actively exercising universal jurisdiction such as Belgium, Germany and Sweden. Whilst the principle is recognized as an essential safeguard to extraterritorial prosecutions before domestic courts, the present post shows that it is fulfilled in the specific context of universal jurisdiction over international crimes. Double criminality as a requirement for universal jurisdiction was first applied by the Court of Cassation in the Chaban case in November 2021. As a former reservist of the...
21.07.23 | and |

12 Apr

[Dr. Smadar Ben-Natan is an Israeli and international lawyer, and postdoctoral fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle. She studies the intersection of international law, human rights, and criminal justice in Israel/Palestine, and has published on Israeli military courts, POW status, torture, and extraterritorial human rights.] [A previous version of this commentary was published in Hebrew by the Forum for Regional Thinking, part of the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. The author is a board member at B’tselem, one of the organizations discussed in this commentary.] Over the last 18 months,...
12.04.22 | |

22 Jul

...Intergovernmental Agreement (ISS-IGA). The moniker comes from NASA’s mission to land “the first woman and the next man” on the Moon by 2024. More recently, NASA has released its constitutive principles (Artemis Principles). The latest move follows President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) promulgated in April 2020 which recapitulates the US policy on commercial recovery and use of space resources. The Order clearly stated that the US does not view outer space as “a global commons”—a term used to signify extraterritorial spaces with common-pool resources. The Accord is consistent with the...
22.07.20 | |

20 Apr

majority’s opinion may have made the ATS more robust by clearing up some issues, she agreed with other commentators that Justice Breyer’s concurrence took the better conceptual approach. Anthony Colangelo criticised the majority opinion for extending the presumption against extraterritoriality to causes of action, which as part of lex fori are by definition not extraterritorial. Also favouring the Breyer concurrence was John Knox, who was happy to see the presumption against extrajurisdictionality resurfacing. Alex Mills pointed out that by applying a presumption against total extraterritoriality, i.e. in foreign cubed cases,...
20.04.13 | |

26 Jul

The joy of this project was making the kind of discovery Roger Alford recounts in his post. Alford’s chapter on international law as interpretive tool from 1901 to 1945 discusses, among other things, the Supreme Court’s various approaches to the extraterritorial reach of statutes during that period. Among these approaches was the government purpose test of Unites States v. Bowman (1922). It is interesting to compare Bowman to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. In Morrison, the Court applied the presumption against extraterritoriality to the...
26.07.11 | |

05 May

...CRC, the authorities must also seek international cooperation and assistance to boost their scarce resources to fulfill the right to health. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has made clear that States must coordinate with each other in the allocation of responsibilities, including by cooperating to provide “humanitarian assistance in times of emergency” and “contribut[ing] … to the maximum of its capacities.” The obligations under the ICESCR and the CRC are set out at greater length in the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial State Obligations in the Area of...
05.05.20 | |

20 Apr

...the Quasi-War and Seminole War.” But Kent notes that simply because the Constitution does not govern extraterritorial uses of coercive force, it does not mean that the Founders considered such actions extra-legal. The law of nations constrained the U.S. government’s actions abroad. If you will recall this exchange between the Solicitor General Paul Clement and Justice Souter in the recent oral argument in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, you understand the gravity of Kent’s position. The modern application of Kent’s argument is that if the writ cannot be suspended, it does not...
20.04.06 | |

28 Jul

...detainees held in overseas military bases besides Gitmo. And if your answer to that question is yes, does it also apply when the United States has even lesser control, such as detention by international, coalition, or foreign forces at our request and encouragement. Is the fundamental difference that Gitmo is essentially “territorial”, while all the other detention arrangements are “extraterritorial”? I know you hint at an answer in the book, but I would appreciate it if you could clarify what you think the answer would be in these other scenarios....
28.07.09 | |

26 Dec

...proposition that the Rome Statute obligates state parties to enact universal jurisdiction for ICC crimes Step 2: the decision to code a state as having enacted universal jurisdiction if it (a) is a party to the Rome Statute and (b) its domestic law provides for jurisdiction over crimes obligated by international treaty As I explained in my original post, Step 1 is flawed. The Rome Statute does not include universal jurisdiction, and has no obligation whatsoever for state parties to provide (extraterritorial) jurisdiction for ICC crimes. I suspect that the...
26.12.13 | |

17 Sep

...which the court reserved on ways in which it might be curtailed still further – in passing, the court noted but declined to take a view on whether the ATS might have no extraterritorial application, limiting it to conduct within the United States. Once corporations were understood as targets, once everyone understood that neither plaintiff nor defendant required any traditional connection to the United States, as parties, in conduct, nothing, and once the plaintiffs bar saw opportunities to join forces with the NGOs and activists, the trend of the ATS...
17.09.10 | |