Search: extraterritorial sanctions

[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.] Part I of this commentary...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...ATS claims arising in the territory of foreign states would require rejecting thirty years of ATS litigation, including the holding of Filártiga v. Peña-Irala. As Justice Kagan explained, it would also require abandoning the reasoning of the Court’s 2004 decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. Justice Scalia pointed out that applying the presumption against extraterritoriality would bar claims arising on the high seas as well as those arising in the territory of a foreign state, despite Sosa’s indication that the ATS was intended to apply to piracy, an international crime that...

...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...

...is proper for a US court to find jurisdiction over a foreign corporate entity on the basis of of a US corporate subsidiary. Chief Justice Roberts flagged the importance of this further question at the very end of his Kiobel opinion, which relied upon the presumption against extraterritoriality; for something to “touch and concern” the United States, he said, sufficient to satisfy jurisdictional requirements under the ATS, contacts would have to be more than mere corporate presence. Corporations are often present in many countries, and it would reach too far...

...right to use force in self-defense more easily. First, the nature of the potential attacker: Although state practice in the aftermath of international armed conflict suggests no change from the traditional conception of armed attack when two states are involved, consider how the aftermath of an extraterritorial conflict against a non-state group, particularly a terrorist group, might contribute to driving down the threshold for an armed attack. After the state has suffered an armed attack and used force in self-defense against the non-state group already, leading to the armed conflict...

...indicated, the same Ninth Circuit majority also held in Sarei that the adjudication of transitory torts under the Alien Tort Statute does not violate a statutory presumption against extraterritoriality (slip op. at 19334-39) (or, I might add, international law constraints on the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, since the conduct-regulating norms being applied under the ATS come from international law). In addition, in response to an argument raised by the dissent, the majority found that claims relating to violations of international norms that meet the test of universal acceptance set...

...process. Debate around the redundancy of the right to development in light of the existing human rights framework exists and is periodically reanimated. Mainstream criticism of the right to development revolves around the liberal implications of a right seemingly legitimising economic development to the detriment of social and environmental factors, or misconstrues the right to development as merely ‘a synthesis of more traditional human rights’ (p. 481). More recently, critiques have contended that the redundancy of the right to development stems from the emerging recognition of the extraterritorial applicability of...

...this case raises unusual issues of dual sovereignty and double jeopardy. The only reason that Yakoob is subject to the double jeopardy problem is because the United States has imposed extraterritorial criminal penalties for crimes committed by Canadians in Canada. It’s much harder to argue that both Canada and the United States have dual sovereignty claims, or at a minimum that the United States’ claim to sovereignty is equal to that of Canada’s. Can someone more conversant in the area help me out? Is anyone aware of a similar case...