In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: extraterritorial sanctions

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 | |

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 | |

08 Jun

...Israel's considers) there is no occupation there is simply no law to apply (reference to general principles of law will not get someone very far, whereas Israel -- along with other States -- does not recognise extraterritorial application of its ICCPR obligations in accordance with that instruments basic text). In any event, the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that Israel does apply are its humanitarian provisions (see Ajuri and Others v. Israel Defence Force Commander, 125 I.L.R. 537, 547, ¶ 13 (Israel H.Ct.J. 2002)). shmuel Ori, "if (as Israel’s...
08.06.14 | |

10 Nov

...(generally more restrictive) HR (and other applicable peacetime norms), not ILOAC standards. Whether such actions may be carried out extraterritorialy, i.e. in the territory of another state, is a question of jus ad bellum, not ILOAC, as Marko likewise rightly noted and the two regimes on the use of armed force should not be conflated. The ILOAC may or may not apply regardless of the jus ad bellum questions. I think that in terms of jus ad bellum, the US president would have a harder task than just coming up...
10.11.08 | |

04 May

...armed attacks by non-state actors not amounting to armed conflict -- to be governed by human rights law, particularly extraterritorially. In such cases, states may observe IHL as a matter of policy or by analogy but had no requirement to do so as a matter of law. This, I think, is Jordan Paust's position, and somewhat reflects the U.S. position (depending, perhaps, upon the administration). While I respect Kevin immensely, he frequently argues, without citation, that no European country views the law this way. Absent a thorough study, I can't...
04.05.11 | |

17 Feb

...read the text in favor of people who will have state power applied against them. (Consider the Geneva Conventions.) Also, there is I believe a strong plain language presumption with treaties, and I don't thinking banning this kind of arrangement would be an absurd result that rebuts this presumption. Obviously such arrangements have not been thought integral/essential to piracy prosecution, as they have never been used since 2006. Finally, an easy way around the rule is the procedure used for the Lockerbie bombing trial: extraterritoriality. Edward Swaine Eugene, thanks for...
17.02.09 | |

17 Nov

...of his choice. While sloppy thinking may be endemic to the debate, one hopes the judge will sort things out. "Terrorists" have no more or fewer rights than bank robbers, but a non-citizen captured and held overseas and then tried for some sort of extraterritorial murder is not entitled to certain procedural rules (with regard to things that happened in foreign countries) that would apply to a resident accused of a murder in the US. One may believe that civilian courts would be more likely than military courts to make...
17.11.09 | |

04 Jan

...And in response to Benjamin G. Davis, who seems to think that somehow US extraterritorial taxation is fair because of the exclusions: frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about. The problem is that most people in the rest of the world pay a lot of VAT/or GST/HST--the United States doesn't have a national sales tax. Most of Europe and Canada does. Furthermore the earned income exclusion doesn't count against investment income--including many registered accounts in Canada (RESP, RDSP, TFSA). Finally, you cannot count taxes paid under the...
04.01.12 | |

13 Mar

...states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects." Const. Art. III § 2. Nom Err, Ben. I understand you speak in jest, but citizenship is an idependent basis for extraterritorial jurisdiction, so your citizenship makes clear you can be reached by US law even when overseas. The question is whether it applies to non-citizens when they are not within US territory. See US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)(Fourth Amendment does not apply to US agents breaking into a Mexican's home in Mexico)....
13.03.08 | |

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 | |