Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...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...

...which the court reserved on ways in which it might be curtailed still further – in passing, the court noted but declined to take a view on whether the ATS might have no extraterritorial application, limiting it to conduct within the United States. Once corporations were understood as targets, once everyone understood that neither plaintiff nor defendant required any traditional connection to the United States, as parties, in conduct, nothing, and once the plaintiffs bar saw opportunities to join forces with the NGOs and activists, the trend of the ATS...

...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 the UN and those of the troop contributing states (TCC). Siobhan states that according to a number of courts, human rights violations of a UN Peacekeeping force may be attributable to the TCC, and possibly to both the UN and the contributing state. In discussing this issue, she focuses primarily on the exercise of (extraterritorial) jurisdiction, rather than on attribution issues. The attribution question is however highly interesting. Siobhan refers inter alia to the Nuhanovic and Mustafic cases. In these cases, the Dutch Supreme Court held that in the...

For the first time, a truth and reconciliation commission has picked up stakes and moved to a foreign country to take public testimony: The Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission began its first extraterritorial session in St. Paul Minnesota this week. The Star Tribune has the full story here. One remarkable aspect of the story is the size of the Liberian expat community in the twin cities, and what it says about how the international becomes local — and vice versa: Minnesota is home to about 30,000 Liberians. It is one...

From the Guardian, an account that even an academic would have a hard time making up: Honduras may allow for extraterritorial appeals in some number of jurisdictions, amounting to “semi-independent city-states,” established to improve investment appeal: The complex constitutional agreement under discussion involves Mauritius – an island 10,000 miles away in the Indian Ocean – guaranteeing the legal framework of the courts in the development zones, known locally as La Región Especial de Desarrollo (RED). Mauritius, a member of the Commonwealth, still uses the privy council in Westminster as a...

...part of Volume 35(2), the National Law School of India Review (‘NLSIR’) is releasing a Special Issue focusing on the interactions of TWAIL with ideas of jurisdiction, extraterritoriality, statehood, and sovereignty. The vision behind the Issue owes its origins to Prof. B.S. Chimni’s path-breaking article titled “The International Law of Jurisdiction: A TWAIL Perspective”. In his work, Prof. Chimni highlights the need to critically (re)view the categories of ‘territory’ and ‘extraterritorial. Prof. B.S. Chimni will provide an Afterword, with general reflections and takeaways from the Special Issue. Keeping with our...

...to address in the early stages of this draft. Looking forward A treaty that would link B&HR would provide a more coherent and less fragmented international law, stipulating that human rights would take part of the law that regulates businesses. A treaty could clarify the precise content of states’ duty to protect human rights by being explicit in the extraterritorial reach of this duty, in order to dissipate any confusion. It would define clear legal obligations of corporations with respect to human rights, and could address how multi-national corporations can...

Philip Alston has posted an important new essay on targeted killing on SSRN. Here is the abstract of the essay, which is forthcoming in the Harvard National Security Journal: This Article focuses on the accountability of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in relation to targeted killings, under both United States law and international law. As the CIA, often in conjunction with Department of Defense (DOD) Special Operations forces, becomes more and more deeply involved in carrying out extraterritorial targeted killings both through kill/capture missions and drone-based missile strikes in a...

...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...

...limiting itself to authorizing private citizen (as opposed to “national”) exploitation, and subjecting that exploitation to “international obligations of the United States.” The Act also goes on to “disclaim” extraterritorial sovereignty (shouldn’t that be “extraterrestrial” by the way?) It is the sense of Congress that by the enactment of this Act, the United States does not thereby assert sovereignty or sovereign or exclusive rights or jurisdiction over, or the ownership of, any celestial body. I think the law’s backers are correct that it does not violate US treaty obligations. All...