Search: extraterritorial sanctions

Philip Alston has posted an important new essay on targeted killing on SSRN. Here is the abstract of the essay, which is forthcoming in the Harvard National Security Journal: This Article focuses on the accountability of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in relation to targeted killings, under both United States law and international law. As the CIA, often in conjunction with Department of Defense (DOD) Special Operations forces, becomes more and more deeply involved in carrying out extraterritorial targeted killings both through kill/capture missions and drone-based missile strikes in a...

...state torts for wrongful death, battery, and false imprisonment are the basis for causes of action for international human rights litigation, then state choice of law rules are going to become the rage for human rights practitioners. We should all start reading the conflict of laws treatises of Patrick Borchers and Symeon Symeonides again, and start considering the constitutional and international law limits of the extraterritorial application of common law torts. Fortunately, some incredibly productive young guns like Chris Whytock, Trey Childress, and Anthony Colangelo are filling the gap. My...

...a decision of the High Court of England and Wales that has already received a good bit of attention. The reason I limit the question to “in armed conflict” is that outside of armed conflict, the source of detention power is clear. There, it’s domestic law as constrained by international human rights law that provides the answer. A single important asterisk is made necessary here because a very few recalcitrant states, like the US, deny that human rights law applies to their extraterritorial conduct. The reason I limit the question...

...I called the “war on drugs” in a previous post. But the indictment of the entire rebel leadership takes this “war” to a new level. First of all, it further demonstrates the remarkable extraterritorial scope of U.S. statutes criminalizing drug trafficking. Second, the indictment criminalizes (for drug law purposes) the entire Colombian civil war. In theory, if the Colombians capture a FARC leader in their civil war, they can now extradite him to the U.S. to stand trial for drug crimes, rather than charging him with human rights abuses or...

...possible readings of an exchange between Justice Scalia and the US Solicitor General on whether the Court should give deference to the views of the State Department. During our special Kiobel Roundtable, Curtis Bradley argued that the presumption against extraterritorial application is a better fit than the stronger presumption against extraterritoriality to limit the scope of the ATS. In his post, William Dodge also pointed out that suggestions by respondents to apply the presumption against extraterritoriality did not appear to gain traction with the justices. He also touched on the...

...of such detentions depends a lot on the particular facts of the case. Category (2), while also leaving some ambiguities, sounds a fair bit like conduct that is now – but was not necessarily in 2001 – covered by the federal criminal laws of the United States. Receiving military training from a terrorist organization is its own independent federal crime and/or is almost certainly prosecutable under the extraterritorial material support offense. Category (4) – “History of associations with extremist activity” – seems to me simply too vague to make heads...

...since been seized of this conflict, one of a growing number of instances over the past two decades which have given rise to extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Leading Grand Chamber judgments of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (no. 13216/05) and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (no. 40167/06) from 2015 which concern the 1992 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remain under enhanced supervision by the Committee of Ministers, classified as a “Complex Problem” due to the unresolved political conflict. It was therefore inconceivable that the Interim Measures could have succeeded where the Grand Chamber and the Committee...

...highly critical opinion began by observing that the Second Circuit had made a forty-year-long blunder in characterizing Rule 10b-5’s extraterritorial reach as jurisdictional, when in fact it pertained to the merits. (The parties did not dispute the merits characterization, but they had not briefed it.) A remand was nonetheless inappropriate, Justice Scalia explained, because this “threshold error” had not been integral to the reasoning of the courts below. Justice Scalia went on to excoriate the Second Circuit for constructing a jurisprudence that ignored the presumption against extraterritoriality. In addition, he...

Over at Lawfare, I have posted a brief review of three books on international law, war, and counterterrorism, with a particular focus on the changing shape of counterterrorism through drone warfare and targeted killing. These are all excellent books and I commend them to the scholarly community. Noam Lubell, Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors (Oxford 2010) Kimberley N. Trapp, State Responsibility for International Terrorism (Oxford 2011) Hew Strachan and Sibylle Scheipers, The Changing Character of War (Oxford 2011)...

...addresses concerns such as the sufficiency of the allegations of material support, the jurisdictional requirements of causation, and joint-tort theories. I think the joint-tort theory is particularly significant. It is not necessary to directly commit the terrorist attacks. A claim of aiding and abetting is sufficient. (No mention in the case about the extraterritorial application of state tort laws discussed here). Hunton & Williams was on the case for the Government of Sudan. The law firms of Fay & Perles and Karp Frosh, were on the case for the plaintiffs....

...persons, or the interests of persons in things.” (O’Keefee, p. 735) The second is the jurisdiction to enforce, which regulates the State’s power to “enforce or compel compliance or to punish noncompliance with its laws or regulations.” (Houck, p.1367) The latter is typically territorial, whilst the former can be extraterritorial. (Stahn, p. 450) In relation to the delegation of a State of its jurisdiction to the ICC, it is important to distinguish ‘sovereignty’ from the ‘exercise of ‘sovereign rights’’. Unequivocally, “a State may continue to be sovereign even though important...

...of hostile acts” as the intention of each of these individuals “because they are a duty to his sovereign.” Precisely because that is not what the United States is doing here, the Eisenstrager rationale cannot be imported wholesale to resolve the Boumediene dilemma. Whatever the merits or failings of the ascriptive allegiance approach in Eisenstrager, it does not transform the Guantanamo detainees into enemy aliens. And, even if it remains binding precedent, it does not dictate that alien detainees can never seek review of their extraterritorial detention in federal court....