Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...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...

...Juris, David Glazier (Loyola, LA), Detlev Vagts (Harvard), Roger Clark (Rutgers-Camden), Devin Pendas (Boston College) and Lawrence Douglas (Amherst). The discussion will start with a cross-posted introduction by Kevin today, and end with his reply to the discussants on Friday. Both the discussants and our readers are of course welcome to join in in the comments. Following discussion of Kevin’s book, Opinio Juris and EJIL:Talk! will host a joint discussion of Marko Milanovic’s book, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles and Policy (Oxford UP). Cross-posted at EJIL: Talk!...

...the possible destruction of North Korea’s army as permissible defensive action, coupled with the self-defense justifications advanced for the US’s wide-scale extraterritorial drone program since 2010, may reflect serious attempts to reinterpret and loosen the well-accepted rules on the principle of proportionality to the point of irrelevance. These expansive readings of self-defense, however, have never been endorsed by the rest of the international community or even the majority of them. On the contrary, the requirement of halting and repelling an armed attack still represents the only primary benchmark for the...

...the point yet where there’s a sense that there’s anything that could replace that,” the second military official said of the drone attacks. From the legal side, however, I wonder if the Obama administration is cognizant of the kind of pushback that the soft-law community is gearing up to offer. The position of the human rights community continues to harden, in the sense of treating targeted killing as extrajudicial execution under human rights law, and to pushing that conclusion onto the United States through four legal premises: Extraterritorial application of...

...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....

...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...

Last week the Ninth Circuit issued a controversial opinion in Mujica v. Airscan, Inc., that sharply limits the scope of human rights litigation. The claims in Mujica arose in Colombia and allegedly implicate corporate collusion with the Colombian military. Following Kiobel the common consensus was that Alien Tort Statute litigation would be severely curtailed based on the presumption against extraterritoriality. Not surprisingly, the Ninth Circuit rejected the Plaintiffs’ claims, finding that where the only connection to the United States was the Defendants’ nationality, the claims do not “touch and concern”...

...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...

...control over territory. Furthermore, States must ensure their cyber capabilities and operations comply with existing international obligations, including human rights law, international humanitarian law, and treaty commitments. The extraterritorial application of human rights obligations takes on new dimensions when State surveillance technologies can monitor individuals globally or when State cyber operations affect critical infrastructure providing essential services. In December 2018, the UN General Assembly adopted the Eleven Norms of Responsible State behaviour in cyberspace. Although these norms are voluntary, they are based on international law obligations. However, it is concerning...