Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...the ATS—both involve the “discovery” of a latent legal framework waiting to be employed; Ratner argues that “it is not clear how switching to the ICL model eliminates… the very problem that Kiobel addressed. i.e., the extraterritorial reach of domestic law.” Although I acknowledge not addressing extraterritoriality in depth in my introduction, I do cite evidence from a comparative survey which concluded that 11 of 16 states surveyed have jurisdiction over international crimes perpetrated by their nationals overseas. Ratner also objects that “if we think… diversity of criminal law accomplice...

...post on the irreducible categories of international and non-international armed conflict and why they are the “residual” forms of armed conflict, rather than a category called armed conflict that is then further subdivided. It has bearing on this question of where an armed conflict is underway.) Meaning, Marko starts from two points – one is extraterritorial application of the ICCPR. I don’t buy that, the US doesn’t buy it – and I don’t think its position unprincipled or ungrounded. If one disagrees not just as to the view, but also...

...critical when it comes to doctrines like “unwilling or unable,” because its actual adoption by states would open the floodgates to the extraterritorial (ie, sovereignty-infringing) use of force against non-state actors. There may well come a time when the “unwilling or unable” test reflects customary international law, but that time is not now. Two states do not a customary rule make, however powerful those states may be. And we cannot simply ignore the states in the Global South, however inconvenient powerful states in the Global North may find their views....

...fundamental problems with how lower courts have approached these suits. These problems center on five key issues: First, whether the ATS applies extraterritorially – that is, whether a U.S. court can properly apply U.S. federal common law under the ATS to conduct that occurred entirely in the territory of a foreign State. Second, even if such a cause of action could properly be recognized, whether exhaustion of adequate and available local remedies in that foreign country should be a prerequisite to bringing an ATS suit. Third, whether corporations or other...

...substantive legal grounds. To this end, the prohibition on the imposition of nationality may mandate non-recognition in particular instances of passportization. A valid grant of nationality requires the consent of the naturalized individual. Coercing someone into naturalizing vitiates their consent, rendering the resulting grant of nationality invalid. Therefore, where Russian forces directly coerced Ukrainians into applying for Russian passports, either by threatening them with violence or prohibitive administrative sanctions, the resulting grant of nationality is invalid. In arguing for blanket non-recognition, as opposed to the unlawfulness of individual instances, states...

...statements therein made) to opine on whether the practice of extraterritorial self-defense against non-State actors absent consent of the territorial State was permitted or not by article 51 of the UNC. In prospecting for opinio juris a richer vein could not be found: States used legal justificatory discourse, expressed their own legal views, and weren’t coy on articulating what they thought was the definitive meaning, extent, and significance on the customary rules purportedly expanding (or not) self-defense. This seems to be the indicative of certainty about the articulation of legality...

...resolved under the customary international law of jurisdiction. The Lotus and the distinction between prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction The starting point when considering whether territorial states may or may not delegate their prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction by treaty to an international court over nationals of non-consenting states is of course The Lotus. With respect to the exercise of prescriptive jurisdiction, Lotus stands for the principle that ‘what is not prohibited is permitted’ (a prohibitive rule). This rule does not apply to the extraterritorial exercise of enforcement jurisdiction as Lotus holds...

...how India, Honduras, and Switzerland have introduced laws with an extraterritorial reach that clarify these states’ responsibilities for overseeing private security operations abroad. Finally, data protection principles and legislation are particularly relevant in controlling the data processing activities of PMSCs. Over 130 countries around the world have introduced data protection and privacy legislation that would be directly applicable to the companies operating in their jurisdiction. Also, the Council of Europe Convention 108  – officially titled ‘Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data’ –...

...fear for their life. These evolving extraterritorial control mechanisms raise profound questions about the circumvention of established protection frameworks that have traditionally governed asylum policy. A Continuum of Externalization To understand the significance of this new “staging expulsion” model in the U.S., we must place it within a broader trend in migration governance: the externalization of migration control. Externalization refers to policies by which countries like the U.S., Australia or EU countries shift their migration enforcement responsibilities onto third countries – often in exchange for financial support, visa waivers or...

...The ICC has launched a new policy under which it will operate as a ‘justice hub’, supporting national authorities. At the same time, record numbers of states are pursuing domestic trials of international crimes on the basis of universal and extraterritorial jurisdiction. The vital role of inter-state assistance has never been more apparent: a robust legal framework which enables states to request and share information and evidence, access victims, witnesses and assets, and extradite suspects is essential if states are to effectively prosecute international crimes. The purpose of the Ljubljana-The...

...“solidarity” – that is, “national, international, multilateral, bilateral, and multisectoral collaboration, coordination and cooperation in order to achieve a fairer, more equitable and better prepared world” (art. 4). Other experts of international law and relations argue that global solidarity encompasses not only pandemic preparedness, but espouses broader obligations, including the notion of common but differentiated responsibility, the denouncing of charitable assistance, and intergenerational equity – providing for manifestations of solidarity in pandemic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. Aligning this clear commitment to global solidarity with extraterritorial human rights obligations of...

...— it’s unclear from the fact sheet — its new understanding of the use of lethal force applies only to the current conflict. Second, although I don’t imagine that the US much cares, the jus ad bellum-like targeting standards announced in the fact sheet do not necessarily satisfy the limitations on lethal force imposed by international human rights law. As I have pointed out ad nauseum on the blog (see here for an example), whether an extraterritorial use of force is legitimate under the jus ad bellum says nothing about...