Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...than what is already available from non-US providers, so for years global platforms like Google Earth displayed only low-resolution imagery of the area. This is a remarkable example of the extraterritorial reach of a US legislation that with a domestic statute could effectively project one state’s security interests into the global infrastructure of witness Earth from above. This exceptional censorship regime hid evidence of expanding settlements, leveled villages, and military deployments, hindering both science and human rights monitoring for decades.​ The accountability costs were real. Through the Second Intifada and...

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)...

...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...

...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....

...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...

...of hostile acts” as the intention of each of these individuals “because they are a duty to his sovereign.” Precisely because that is not what the United States is doing here, the Eisenstrager rationale cannot be imported wholesale to resolve the Boumediene dilemma. Whatever the merits or failings of the ascriptive allegiance approach in Eisenstrager, it does not transform the Guantanamo detainees into enemy aliens. And, even if it remains binding precedent, it does not dictate that alien detainees can never seek review of their extraterritorial detention in federal court....

...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...

...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....

...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...