In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: extraterritorial sanctions

13 Apr

...the British Right, and particularly on the more 'conservative' newspapers - and, of course, on the yellow press of whatever persuasion. The Conservatives have even vowed to repeal the Human Rights Act if elected. Not that they seem to have the faintest idea what the Act does, mind you... da23will There's certainly a strong policy argument against extending the extraterritorial application of HR treaties too far if it means that states are going to refrain from arresting pirates on the high seas, for fear that they'll be unable to return...
13.04.08 | |

04 Jun

...from genocide and crimes against humanity, they do not believe that all gaps in the express protections of international humanitarian law are filled by international human rights law -- particularly in extraterritorial aspects of armed conflict. The reason for the latter view -- in full disclosure one that I share -- is that modern international humanitarian law consists of conventional and customary constraints on what might otherwise be considered a proper measure to defeat an enemy. In other words, it generally requires that the measures employed in armed conflict be...
04.06.10 | |

23 Jan

...obligations under the United Nations Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture. The article also provides an Appendix that sets forth a Torture Timeline 2001 – 2007 and addresses standards for criminal complicity that would be applicable concerning criminal or civil sanctions against members of the prior Administration who are clearly reasonably accused. [forthcoming, 18 Barry L. Rev. (2013)] The Bush-Cheney Legacy: Serial Torture and Forced Disappearance in Manifest Violation of Global Human Rights Law – Jordan J. Paust Introduction I. Rejection of...
23.01.12 | |

20 Apr

...section 1605A has an extraterritorial scope; it is not limited to claims related to acts of terrorism within the United States. Even before the terrorism exception was first adopted in 1996, a US federal court had interpreted a different section of FSIA (section 1605(a)(5)) to find that Chile was not entitled to immunity in connection with a political assassination – an act of terrorism – on US territory (Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 488 F. Supp. 665 (D.D.C. 1980)). The key difference between the existing regime and the proposed amendment...
20.04.16 | |

13 Jun

Francisco F. Martin I haven't read the Boumediene decision or the Halliday and White article (and, therefore, do not know if they mentioned any admiralty cases), but aliens captured extraterritorially (whether on the high seas or in foreign territory) were and are entitled to habeas relief by federal courts sitting in admiralty by virtue of the savings to suitors clause of the 28 U.S.C. sec. 1333 (first enacted in the Judiciary Act of 1789). I do know that some of the Gitmo detainees were transported by ship and/or captured by...
13.06.08 | |

05 Dec

...three part functional test for the extraterritorial availability of the Great Writ: "at least three factors are relevant in determining the reach of the Suspension Clause: (1) the citizenship and status of the detainee and the adequacy of the process through which that status determination was made; (2) the nature of the sites where apprehension and then detention took place; and (3) the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner’s entitlement to the writ." The Court has not emphasized citizenship too heavily in its decisions regading the general availability of...
05.12.12 | |

30 Mar

...offences’ are defined as inter alia extraterritorial offences “which [constitute] an offence under the law of another state [presumably the territorial state] and which would have constituted [terrorism] … had that activity taken place in the Republic”. To my mind, at least, that conditions SA’s UJ in Okah to offences that were also offences under the law of Nigeria (loosely ‘double criminality’). There is another contender for UJ however (section 15(2)), which states in relevant part that any act [NOTE: not ‘specified offence’] committed outside the Republic shall, regardless of...
30.03.14 | |

05 Nov

...to situations affected or potentially affected by the ICJ decision. It is further worth observing that the Constitutional Court while reaching the conclusion that article 2 and 24 of the Constitution prevail over the rule of international law granting sovereign States immunity for acta jure imperii, made it clear that its reasoning was referred to war crimes and crimes committed on Italian soil (Paras 4.1 and 5 of the decision). This said, what relevance can we expect the decision of the Italian Constitutional Court will have for extraterritorial claims? What...
05.11.14 | |

13 Jun

...does not reflect international law despite the assertion that it does], which expressly does not apply to section 404, etc., etc. -- and Moxon and Bolchos had extraterritorial aspects that the majority opinion ignores -- such as the fact that foreign flag vessesls are the equivalent of foreign territory wherever the happen to end up and the fact that a violation of international law can take place elsewhere in some cases but the vessel ends up in a U.S. port). Despite the shocking 9-0 ultimate vote, errors must be addressed...
13.06.13 | |

05 Aug

...belligerents, and thus are subject to domestic criminal charges for their mere participation in the conflict (though APII art. 6(5) encourages amnesty). But such participation is not an international crime. For an unprivileged belligerent to kill a U.S. soldier in combat in Afghanistan falls within U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction, and presumably constituted a domestic-law crime in 2001-02, so it can be tried in a regular U.S. court. Neither can be said, so far as I can see, for otherwise-lawful acts of war committed by unprivileged belligerents against our "co-belligerents." Howard Gilbert...
05.08.08 | |

04 Oct

...So, you rightly ask, what work is the LOAC doing? Why not just apply IHRL directly to the specific factual circumstances surrounding each deprivation of life? Here are a few thoughts: First, the LOAC may apply where IHRL does not. As you know, there is a move to apply IHRL to all extraterritorial killings by state agents, but if that move fails then the LOAC may be the only applicable law in many cases. Second, where both apply, the LOAC provides a floor of protection, a minimal content to “arbitrary”...
04.10.16 | |

22 Aug

...by non-state actors BEFORE the organization, intensity and duration criteria are met. That, to me, seems to be most dynamic area of IHL going forward (and the largest issue surrounding the Tallinn Manual). U.S. policy statements endorse the view that IHL governs acts of national self-defense against extraterritorial non-state actors who pose an "imminent" and "continuing" threat. Others claim human rights law governs even though the U.S. claims it doesn't apply extraterritorially. How that difference of opinion is ultimately resolved has tremendous practical consequences for states and non-state actors alike....
22.08.14 | |