Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...VI. TREATY CLAUSES Initial Decisions on Treaty-Making Distinguishing Political Commitments from Treaties Object and Purpose Participation Conditions for States Participation Conditions for Non-State Actors NGO Involvement Conditions on Joining a Treaty Consent to be Bound Reservations Declarations and Notifications Constituting the Treaty and its Dissemination Languages Annexes Entry into Force The Depositary Applying the Treaty Provisional Application Territorial and Extraterritorial Application Federal States Relationships to Other Treaties Derogations Dispute Settlement Amendments Standard Amendment Procedures Simplified Amendment Procedures The End of Treaty Relations Withdrawal or Denunciation Suspension Duration and Termination Index...

...as originally understood, article 51 did not permit extraterritorial force against non-state actors without the consent of the territorial State. The real question, therefore, is whether state practice, whether as a constituent element of customary international law, or as subsequent practice for the purposes of interpreting the UN Charter, could have modified this original state-centric reading of the Charter. This question is at the heart of a forthcoming book, The Trialogue on the Use of Force against Non-State Actors (Mary Ellen O’Connell, Christian Tams, Dire Tladi). In my view, an...

...of State is taking place this Thursday, February 12th, 2015 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM US Eastern Standard Time. This year’s theme is: “The Role of the Law in the Fight Against ISIL: Use of Force, Sanctions, and Foreign Terrorist Fighters.” The Section of International Law is pleased to announce the fifth annual non-CLE webcast with the Office of the Legal Adviser from the Jacob Burns Moot Courtroom of the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C. Cosponsored by the American Society of International Law, the George Washington University...

...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....

...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...

Mitt Romney is holding a fundraiser this evening in London. (Here’s a nice scene-setter.) Almost quaint how he promises not to criticize Obama while abroad, in the tradition of politics stoppping at the water’s edge (as if physical location still mattered in the context of completely transnationalized media). Three quick thoughts: 1. This kind of extraterritorial campaigning is becoming routine. Lots of US citizens live abroad (estimates of as many as seven million), they can vote come November, and (way more importantly) they have a lot of money. For Romney’s...

...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...

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)...

...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...