Search: extraterritorial sanctions

extraterritorial regulation’s effect on democratic participation, it’s a good idea to specify which theory of democracy underpins it. I also think that connecting extraterritorial regulation and democratic theory is tempting, but problematic. If we want to understand the causes and consequences of extraterritorial regulation, it’s useful to formulate structured case-studies. At least, they will give us an idea about the politics of extraterritorial regulation. Prof. Milanovich claims that, for better or worse, politics cannot be expunged from the inquiries aimed at understanding extraterritoriality. The interesting part is to explain why....

Kagan). There is a lot to ponder in this case, which touches on questions of statutory interpretation, federal securities law, and the extraterritorial scope of U.S. statutes. For me, though, the key holding is that, yes, there really is a hard presumption against the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws that requires a very clear statement by Congress to be overcome. As Justice Scalia writes: The results of judicial-speculation-made-law—divining what Congress would have wanted if it had thought of the situation before the court—demonstrate the wisdom of the presumption against extraterritoriality....

...the ICCPR. ECHR Extraterritorial application: The ECHR extraterritorial application concerning Italy’s support to the LCG should be considered separately in light of the origin and the form of the support provided (remote/immediate support). The ECHR extraterritorial applicability to Italy’s support provided from Libya seems to be confirmed by the ECtHR’s jurisprudence.  According to the ECtHR “where, in accordance with custom, treaty or other agreement, authorities of the Contracting State carry out executive or judicial functions on the territory of another State, the Contracting State may be responsible for breaches of...

...after the ICJ decision, Greece continued to veto “Macedonia’s” admittance without facing any consequences. On the issue of potential sanctions against Turkey from the EU, though some may find it wrong for the EU nations who are in NATO to enact sanctions against their NATO ally Turkey, this would not be the first time this has occurred. In August 2018, the US brought sanctions against Turkey over a detained American. Additionally, the US has threatened sanctions against Turkey for the separate issue of Turkey potentially doing a defense deal with...

...there was nothing in this sanctions regime that prevented the Swiss authorities from providing effective judicial review mechanisms on the domestic level. As a result, it concluded that Switzerland had violated Article 13(1) ECHR by not providing Mr. Nada with access to judicial review on the domestic level, by means of which he could have verified those measures implementing the Resolution 1267 (1999) sanctions regime. This implies nothing less than that a sanctions regime such as the one resulting from Resolution 1267 (1999) necessarily and implicitly allows states the discretion...

...repercussions from such a step. But abandonment will nonetheless raise at least one interesting legal question. If the United States ends the Iran deal, can it thereby trigger the re-imposition of Security Council sanctions against Iran? First, a bit of background (discussed more here). Prior to the JCPOA, the Security Council had imposed various sanctions against Iran – sanctions which all countries were legally obligated to enact. The core bargain in the Iran deal involved the lifting of sanctions, including these Security Council sanctions, in exchange for Iran’s commitments not...

...of a U.S. person. “Blocking” means that the property is frozen so that the owner cannot exercise any power or control over it despite still retaining title. In order to impose such sanctions, the President simply needs to determine, based on “credible evidence,” that a foreign person either is “responsible” for a “gross violation[]” of internationally recognized human rights or acted as an agent for that person. The same “credible evidence” standard applies to sanctions for corruption, or “materially assisting” corruption. Taken together, it is hard to read this law...

...with the objectives set by the Security Council without resorting to the use of force. Sanctions thus offer the Security Council an important instrument to enforce its decisions. The universal character of the United Nations makes it an especially appropriate body to establish and monitor such measures. The Council has resorted to mandatory sanctions as an enforcement tool when peace has been threatened and diplomatic efforts have failed (see below). The range of sanctions has included comprehensive economic and trade sanctions and/or more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel...

...to bypass EU sanctions. However, no sanctions have been issued against Russia itself for its involvement in Transnistria. A possible reason for this is that there have already been a myriad of sanctions against Russia for its actions in Crimea, a situation where Russia had no right to be in that region and has been more aggressive, yet the West’s sanctions against Russia in response to the Crimea situation have not put an end to the dispute in Crimea. Sanctions are no more likely to end the Transnistria conflict. Moreover,...

open to the U.S. But rather than assert this unquestioned right, the President has chosen the alternative route of authorizing asset and visa sanctions on ICC lawyers. Finally, the sanctions are contrary to U.S. national interests. They will not succeed in blocking ICC investigations, which are undertaken by lawyers duty bound to carry out their responsibilities as prosecutors. Worse, the ineffectual sanctions mock our bipartisan commitment to human rights and the rule of law, alienate our allies, and encourage repressive regimes. Bloody and lawless rulers can now be expected, not...

...so-called “sanctions” and restrictive measures targeting, directly or indirectly, Iran (and Iranian companies/nationals). The JCPOA was concluded on 14 July 2015 by China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the US, the High Representative of the European Union (the E3/EU+3) and Iran with two purposes: to ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program, on the one hand, and to produce “the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program”, on the other hand. On...

...ATS cases are extraterritorial in ways that piracy cases would not have been. Nevertheless, and here I depart from the position of the respondents in Kiobel, I do not think the strong presumption against extraterritoriality—which was applied, for example, to the securities fraud statute in Morrison—is a perfect fit here. When the ATS was enacted, it was conceivable that the United States would have been responsible for providing opportunities for redress for certain extraterritorial conduct by U.S. citizens, as illustrated by the Sierra Leone incident noted above. Moreover, when the...