Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...state torts for wrongful death, battery, and false imprisonment are the basis for causes of action for international human rights litigation, then state choice of law rules are going to become the rage for human rights practitioners. We should all start reading the conflict of laws treatises of Patrick Borchers and Symeon Symeonides again, and start considering the constitutional and international law limits of the extraterritorial application of common law torts. Fortunately, some incredibly productive young guns like Chris Whytock, Trey Childress, and Anthony Colangelo are filling the gap. My...

...a decision of the High Court of England and Wales that has already received a good bit of attention. The reason I limit the question to “in armed conflict” is that outside of armed conflict, the source of detention power is clear. There, it’s domestic law as constrained by international human rights law that provides the answer. A single important asterisk is made necessary here because a very few recalcitrant states, like the US, deny that human rights law applies to their extraterritorial conduct. The reason I limit the question...

...I called the “war on drugs” in a previous post. But the indictment of the entire rebel leadership takes this “war” to a new level. First of all, it further demonstrates the remarkable extraterritorial scope of U.S. statutes criminalizing drug trafficking. Second, the indictment criminalizes (for drug law purposes) the entire Colombian civil war. In theory, if the Colombians capture a FARC leader in their civil war, they can now extradite him to the U.S. to stand trial for drug crimes, rather than charging him with human rights abuses or...

...possible readings of an exchange between Justice Scalia and the US Solicitor General on whether the Court should give deference to the views of the State Department. During our special Kiobel Roundtable, Curtis Bradley argued that the presumption against extraterritorial application is a better fit than the stronger presumption against extraterritoriality to limit the scope of the ATS. In his post, William Dodge also pointed out that suggestions by respondents to apply the presumption against extraterritoriality did not appear to gain traction with the justices. He also touched on the...

...of such detentions depends a lot on the particular facts of the case. Category (2), while also leaving some ambiguities, sounds a fair bit like conduct that is now – but was not necessarily in 2001 – covered by the federal criminal laws of the United States. Receiving military training from a terrorist organization is its own independent federal crime and/or is almost certainly prosecutable under the extraterritorial material support offense. Category (4) – “History of associations with extremist activity” – seems to me simply too vague to make heads...

Mitt Romney is holding a fundraiser this evening in London. (Here’s a nice scene-setter.) Almost quaint how he promises not to criticize Obama while abroad, in the tradition of politics stoppping at the water’s edge (as if physical location still mattered in the context of completely transnationalized media). Three quick thoughts: 1. This kind of extraterritorial campaigning is becoming routine. Lots of US citizens live abroad (estimates of as many as seven million), they can vote come November, and (way more importantly) they have a lot of money. For Romney’s...

...since been seized of this conflict, one of a growing number of instances over the past two decades which have given rise to extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Leading Grand Chamber judgments of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (no. 13216/05) and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (no. 40167/06) from 2015 which concern the 1992 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remain under enhanced supervision by the Committee of Ministers, classified as a “Complex Problem” due to the unresolved political conflict. It was therefore inconceivable that the Interim Measures could have succeeded where the Grand Chamber and the Committee...

...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...

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)...

...the political context and other advocacy objectives. Understanding these considerations could explain the deployment of universal jurisdiction within the region. What is the law? Civil society actors deciding where to file universal jurisdiction case must begin by assessing the applicable domestic law. States, through their domestic statutes have adopted different approaches toward prosecuting extraterritorial mass atrocities. In recent years, several states have adopted laws requiring the consent of the Attorney-General or some other government official, the presence of the accused person, and/or some other connection to the state to activate...

...distinct and separate obligation imposed on States. Such an obligation, with respect to genocide, has extraterritorial application as confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Gambia v. Myanmar, and is mutatis mutandis applicable to CAH. Modelled on the Convention Against Torture (CAT), the Draft Articles impose a binding legal obligation upon States to not commit CAH (Draft Article 3(1)), whether directly or indirectly. In other words, any act or omission by a State could give rise to state responsibility if it contributes to or constitutes CAH. This...

...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....