In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: extraterritorial sanctions

18 Apr

...the plaintiffs to re-file their complaints against the US defendants to overcome the new Kiobel extraterritoriality presumption. This means that she is willing to explore in greater detail the Kiobel requirement that plaintiffs’ claims “touch and concern” the territory of the U.S. with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality. Will knowledge by the US parent of the subsidiaries’ activities in South Africa be enough? Will receiving profits from the subsidiaries be enough? I assume that is the best the plaintiffs will be able to plead is knowledge by...
18.04.14 | |

05 Apr

...believe international law does not constrain covert operations, at least from the perspective of U.S. domestic law. First, we must remember that Title 50 operations may be authorized as an integral part of an armed conflict or in the absence of one. Thus, IHL may or may not be triggered and apply to a covert operation or program, and IHRL would apply only to the extent one accepts (contrary to long held official U.S. views) that IHRL applies to a nation's extraterritorial actions. Regardless of whether either body of international...
05.04.13 | |

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 | |

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 | |