Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...malaise about removing human judgment from the cycle of violence, including at the stage of executing orders. For example, Christof Heyns, then UN Expert on Extraterritorial Execution, called the use of force without reflection “mechanical slaughter.” One of the concerns expressed by Heyns, in comparing AWS with human soldiers, was precisely the lack of “ability of robots to distinguish legal from illegal orders.” The development of mechanical soldiers has, it seems, contributed to a greater recognition of the value of human judgment and common sense in human soldiers. Embracing that...

...populated space on its own territory, the state may lack control over these parts. Practice of human rights bodies suggests though that siege scenarios are unlikely to translate into reduced state obligations vis-à-vis the besieged population when undertaking military actions. Extraterritorial jurisdiction also appears to exist. Secondly, it is controversial whether human rights obligations for armed groups exist or not. Finally, there is the difficulty to determine the actual content of the right to food applicable during armed conflict. Obviously, the obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the right to...

...the United Nations in a question of enforcing UN Security Council sanctions is the same as that between the United States and Egypt in the case of the extraterritorial application of anti-trust law. But to think that the two scenarios are governed equally by politics alone, is to miss something important. Post-national governance, to use the fashionable term, involves more than mere “multiplicity.” It depends on constitutional connective tissue between the various legal systems that are at play with one another. The plural theory of constitutionalism that I, for one,...

...greater fidelity to traditional understandings of international law. (Harold Koh, the former Legal Advisor to the U.S. Department of State, made similar pleas around transparency during his May 7 speech at Oxford.) These are all critical points that Congress and others should be hearing, but I would like to shift the focus—away from U.S. responsibilities and on to the responsibilities of the States that consent to the use lethal force on their territories. This is part of the “drone” discussion (or, to be more accurate, the “extraterritorial use of lethal...

...Richard Lazarus helpfully commented to us during the inaugural Harvard-Boalt-UCLA Junior Environmental Scholar workshop that he has seen variations of this before – that this lawsuit would be an attempt to change the “default position” in an unresolved environmental conflict. I think that is true, although we did not articulate that as directly or elegantly as Professor Lazarus did. Our paper presents a melding of two different conflicting perspectives. Austen Parrish, the international scholar, generally laments the extraterritorial application of domestic law, while I, the environmentalist, look for ways to...

...investigations into international crimes in Ukraine” (p. 10), Trial international notes more generally the “increasing use of the principles of universal and extraterritorial jurisdiction to curb impunity for international crimes” (see here). But, how can a State prosecute efficiently persons accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious international crimes in cases when the relevant conduct took place in the territory of one State, (some of) the victims and witnesses have found refuge in the territory of another, and the author is present in the territory of yet...

...ground. It implicitly distinguished a de jure and de facto basis of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Netherlands formally (de jure) had jurisdiction because the territorial entity, the State of Bosnia-Herzegovina, had basically surrendered its competence to govern in the area to the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). Clearly, UNPROFOR cannot be equated with the State of the Netherlands, but considering the Supreme Court’s answer to the attribution question (see above), this was nonetheless relevant. The Netherlands also had de facto jurisdiction, because an examination of the facts had shown that it...

In reading Kal’s description of territoriality’s ebb and flow, I was particularly interested in the evolution in judicial thinking with regard to constitutional scope or domain. His description of the path from In re Ross, which stated emphatically that the Constitution does not follow the flag, to Reid and Boumediene, which give some extra-territorial force to the Bill of Rights and other constitutional guarantees, is excellent. The evolution has obviously been gradual, even glacial. Within this narrative, there are some fascinating examples of courts dramatically pushing constitutional boundaries outward, including...

...access to victims. The United States has ended military aid to Myanmar and imposed economic sanctions in response to the human rights abuses being committed in Myanmar. Secretary Pompeo has pledged to hold those responsible for the “abhorrent ethnic cleansing” accountable. It has also recently announced that it will provide more than $185M in humanitarian aid to Myanmar’s Rakhine State. The United States commissioned its own investigation into the Rohingya situation involving over 1000 randomly selected refugees in camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, who were surveyed in April 2018. The...

Douglas Burgess, Jr., has an editorial in today’s New York Times arguing that piracy should be considered terrorism in order to facilitate its prosecution. It’s an interesting piece, but I have to take issue with the basic premise of his argument: Are pirates a species of terrorist? In short, yes. The same definition of pirates as hostis humani generis could also be applied to international organized terrorism. Both crimes involve bands of brigands that divorce themselves from their nation-states and form extraterritorial enclaves; both aim at civilians; both involve acts...

...a violation of the principle of non-intervention (p. 395). But Roscini acknowledges that this goes against the mainstream position, which would consider this as an extraterritorial enforcement of the hacker states’ power, in terms of violation of the other states’ territorial sovereignty (p. 392). A position which the UK and US, however, do not align with, as they do not consider cyber operations on another state’s territory to constitute violations of international law per se.  Further grey areas include ambiguity as to how cyber activities are to be considered under...

...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...