Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is quoted as saying: “How do you understand sovereignty in the cyberdomain? It doesn’t tend to pay a lot of attention to geographic boundaries.” Putting aside what may be the fundamental territorial misunderstanding in the quote, I wonder what the evolution of territoriality suggests with regard to this national security initiative. Kal’s book details the various extraterritorial options. Conquering and controlling “cyberterritories” is obviously out of the question. But assuming soverign borders are still operative in this context, Kal’s book suggests several other options. Will...

...process. Debate around the redundancy of the right to development in light of the existing human rights framework exists and is periodically reanimated. Mainstream criticism of the right to development revolves around the liberal implications of a right seemingly legitimising economic development to the detriment of social and environmental factors, or misconstrues the right to development as merely ‘a synthesis of more traditional human rights’ (p. 481). More recently, critiques have contended that the redundancy of the right to development stems from the emerging recognition of the extraterritorial applicability of...

...federal law may complicate the pleading of such cases under state law. As to choice of law, the conflicts scholars observed that in most cases the law of the state of injury will be applied, which might lead to forum non conveniens dismissals. However, to the extent U.S. domiciliaries are involved, there is some likelihood that U.S. state law might be applicable, which raises issue of due process, extraterritoriality, and preemption. In short, there were lots of new and interesting observations with the conclusion that articles remain to be written...

...agenda, but did not have the authority to conduct prosecutions. Syrian civil society organizations, including victims’ groups, also played a critical role in gathering and analyzing information to support accountability and advance justice. With their help, European courts prosecuted some of these crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction or other forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction. This has led to multiple trials that have so far been the only, though limited, justice avenues available to victims and survivors. The broader impact of impunity for crimes in Syria is evident. For example,...

...to international crimes experienced by the Rohingya – this formal complaint puts the assertion to the test. So far, the complete lack of response to Setara’s complaint confirms that justice for the Rohingya is not possible. In other parts of the world, initiatives utilising universal and extraterritorial jurisdiction are also underway, in which Rohingya women and in particular, survivors of sexual violence play a critical role. In November 2021, a court in Argentina decided to open investigations into crimes committed in Myanmar, under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Prior to...

...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...

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...

...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...

...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...

...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...