Search: extraterritorial sanctions
09 Nov Israel’s War in Gaza is Not a Valid Act of Self-defence in International Law
...aggression by Germany and Japan. Israel’s obligations in the law of occupation and international human rights law (applicable extraterritorially), which govern how it exercises its military authority in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, oblige it to secure public order and protect human rights. However, even if these obligations, especially those in occupation law (specifically, Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, part of occupation law) can be understood as a general matter to encompass an obligation to use force in occupied territory to neutralize threats emanating from there to...
05 Sep Iran’s Threat of Retaliation
...international efforts focus primarily on preventing the effects of such threats, rather than on addressing the threats themselves or sanctioning them. There may be an implicit understanding that deviates from the stricter conclusions of the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion. Specifically, the threat of force in response to the extrajudicial and extraterritorial killing of a high-ranking individual within domestic settings (even if they are considered leaders of terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the US and the EU) might be viewed as a proportionate...
11 Oct Rethinking International Law After Gaza Symposium: Trade, Resistance and International Law – Responding to Atrocities
...world states violate human rights, rule-of-law-abiding weapons manufacturers in the first world respond to the conscience of humanity by adhering to their extraterritorial human rights obligations (see, EU Criterion Two). However, when benevolent and civilised states commit atrocities, these actions are often dismissed as the unfortunate consequences of war. The suspension of arms trade is not even considered until the scale of the atrocities becomes too significant to ignore. When it’s raining bombs, trade becomes a passive factor against carnages and barbarisms of weapon-yielding entities, states or non-state entities or...11 Jul A Canal Runs Through It
...the plaintiffs. But the court isn’t buying it. It finds that the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) doesn’t protect foreign harms, including Mexican seepage wetlands just south of the border. Statutes don’t normally have extraterritorial application and there’s nothing in NEPA to suggest Congress wanted to protect these foreign environmental harms. Okay, that argument didn’t hold water, so the plaintiffs try for trans-boundary harm. Harms in Mexico will have trans-boundary harms in the United States. Like what? Well, the loss of seepage in Mexico will reduce crop importation to the...
06 Sep Once Again: Drone Killings and International Law
...actors (BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/16, paras. 50–51). At any rate, such extraterritorial operations may constitute a violation of the sovereignty of the State of sojourn. If this State – for example, Afghanistan (now represented by the Taliban) – did not consent to such an attack, the strike would constitute a violation of the principle of non-intervention derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of States (Article 2(1) UN Charter) (cf. ICJ, Nicaragua Judg. 1986, para. 202); it could also amount to a violation of the prohibition of the use...01 Oct Kiobel Argument Goes Badly for Shell (FWIW)
...well, allowing for the possible interposition of procedural bars to the making of Alien Tort claims (as pushed by Sotomayor). He got in an effective IG Farben analogy and even a little human rights speechifying (see p. 55). Breyer gets the award for zinger of the day: “if Hitler isn’t a pirate, who is?” (Anyone want to do the legal math on that one?) So predictions of the ATS (extraterritorial) demise may be premature. On the other hand, recent experience demonstrates that predictions based on oral arguments are not especially...
04 Apr Is 2022 the Year of Genocide? Recent Events at the ICJ Suggest Yes
...prompted to respond to a legal finding of genocide through sanctions, boycotts, or the pursuit of universal jurisdiction cases, especially in light of Article I’s obligations “to prevent and to punish,” which the Court has long held are “not territorially limited by the Convention.” This extraterritorial duty will, as mentioned previously, be relevant to the Ukraine case, in which the Court will determine whether Russia’s use of military force to prevent and punish “genocide” in Ukraine is legal. This inquiry could, in tandem with an advisory opinion on whether China...