Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...action, not all the run-in-the-mill ways that states try to influence run another. Thus, in the Nicaragua case, the ICJ wrote that coercion is “the very essence of prohibited intervention.” (para. 205) Broadcasts, diplomatic protest, withholding of foreign assistance, most prescription of domestic law to cover extraterritorial conduct, funding of foreign human rights NGOs, and other non-coercive acts, while sometimes unpleasant for the government on the receiving end, are not acts of unlawful interference or intervention, even if some global actors may claim that. If they were, much of routine...

...(UNIIIC). Saturday 10 November is just as rich and exciting, with 11 panels covering issues as varied as conflict resolution and justice, international arbitration, multinational enterprises, health care in war zones, the rules governing financial crises, development and humanitarian assistance and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Saturday also presents a stimulating plenary panel on the Security Council with David Malone and Rohan Mukherjee from Princeton University The full program and details for registration are available here. The Conference Co-chairs are Fannie Lafontaine (Laval University) and Rodney Neufeld (DFAIT). CCIL Vice-president (Annual Conference) is...

...has been developed in the jurisprudence of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and other sources, such as the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial State Obligations in area of ESCR.  This obligation means that States should coordinate with each other in the allocations of responsibility to address COVID-19, as well as acting in concert through international agencies, such as the World Health Organization. In addition, certain States, typically developing States with fewer available resources, should seek international assistance to ensure the effectiveness of their COVID-19 responses when, despite...

...this case raises unusual issues of dual sovereignty and double jeopardy. The only reason that Yakoob is subject to the double jeopardy problem is because the United States has imposed extraterritorial criminal penalties for crimes committed by Canadians in Canada. It’s much harder to argue that both Canada and the United States have dual sovereignty claims, or at a minimum that the United States’ claim to sovereignty is equal to that of Canada’s. Can someone more conversant in the area help me out? Is anyone aware of a similar case...

...for Extraterritorial Self-Defense,” Ashley Deeks (Columbia Law School, incoming Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law) offers the first sustained descriptive and normative analysis of the “unwilling or unable” test in international law. Descriptively, it explains how the “unwilling or unable” test arises in international law as part of a state’s inquiry into whether it is necessary to use force in response to an armed attack. It identifies the test’s deep roots in neutrality law while simultaneously illustrating the lack of guidance about what inquiries a victim...

...indicated, the same Ninth Circuit majority also held in Sarei that the adjudication of transitory torts under the Alien Tort Statute does not violate a statutory presumption against extraterritoriality (slip op. at 19334-39) (or, I might add, international law constraints on the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, since the conduct-regulating norms being applied under the ATS come from international law). In addition, in response to an argument raised by the dissent, the majority found that claims relating to violations of international norms that meet the test of universal acceptance set...

...as if it were a duty owed to nationals abroad, a new form of extraterritorial public service that may even flow from human rights. That surfeit of protection for the select few, of course, coincides in some countries with a further undermining of protections for foreigners, particularly unlawful immigrants. What will be the consequences of these evolutions, especially if they become even more entrenched in months to come? Globalization was always a half-truth or a half-lie depending on one’s perspective, a phenomenon as much symbolizing the freedom of movement for...

...right to use force in self-defense more easily. First, the nature of the potential attacker: Although state practice in the aftermath of international armed conflict suggests no change from the traditional conception of armed attack when two states are involved, consider how the aftermath of an extraterritorial conflict against a non-state group, particularly a terrorist group, might contribute to driving down the threshold for an armed attack. After the state has suffered an armed attack and used force in self-defense against the non-state group already, leading to the armed conflict...

...conflict—at least for now. No Responsibility of Russia during the Phase of Active Hostilities The Court found Russia responsible for human rights abuses (Articles 2, 3, 5, 8; Article 1 P1 and Article 2 P4) only in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, but not during the phase of active hostilities. In this regard, the argumentation of the Court and the dissenting opinions reveal that it was not easy for the Court to legally resolve the issue related to the extraterritorial applicability of the ECHR in the active phase of...

...Pakistan, and it violates the right to life of the person killed. It is the wrongfulness of the former only that can be precluded by an invocation of self-defense, just like Pakistan’s (or Yemen’s, or whoever’s) consent would preclude it. But, assuming the (extraterritorial) application of human rights treaties to a given situation, I don’t see how self-defense could be used to preclude the wrongfulness of an act contrary to the individual rights enshrined in such treaties. It is indisputable, for example, that self-defense as a matter of the jus...

...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...

...ITS Libra was ordered to move away from the distressed vessel. We thus agree with the Committee in that the due diligence obligation was breached by Italy’s delay in action and the failure to cooperate effectively (para 8.5). Conclu ding Remarks This findings of the HRC in A.S., D.I., O.I. and G.D. v. Italy are to be applauded, despite the Committee’s treatment of SRRs and jurisdiction. The decision appears as a beacon for future cases and provides a potential new direction in the extraterritorial protection of human rights at sea....