Search: extraterritorial sanctions

...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...

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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...documents within the United States) and therefore that part is easy. But it is also well-recognized that in limited circumstances countries can prosecute foreigners for conduct that occurs abroad (such as foreign drug cartels, foreign anti-competitive monopolies, international terrorists, etc.). The International Bar Association (on page 142 of this report) has summarized the current state of international law on this subject: "[A]lmost all states exercise ‘pure’ extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction on one or more of four principal bases: the active personality principle, the passive personality principle, the protective principle and the...

...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...

...origins of U.S. thought on the applicability of human rights in armed conflict. Apart from the historical U.S. view, my suspicion is that a true empirical (both qualitative and quantitative) analysis of state practice in armed conflict would yield scant data supporting the extraterritorial applicability of most human rights law (meaning other than crimes against humanity) or its broad applicability in even internal armed conflict. If that is historically true or at least debatable, then in my humble opinion the burden is not on the Obama administration to demonstrate the...

...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...

...have died in Iraq. We are witnessing a yearning for the domestication of war.'Here we agree! It’s a bad trend. Let’s all together try to establish a just, stable, impartial and efficient international criminal justice system, so that individual states don’t have to create their own extraterritorial prosecution rules. Wait a minute, maybe we just agree on what’s the statu quo, not on how to solve its deficiencies.'For its part, it appears that United States refused to cooperate in the Spanish investigation. Had it done so and been able to...

...yet consider the rise of universal jurisdiction over recent years all over the world, which includes African countries such as Senegal exercising universal jurisdiciton over Hissene Habre, former dictator of Chad (There is video footage of a mission of the International Federation for HUman Rights to Chad on FIDH's website, but I cannot post the link..) It also includes the US adopting relevant legislation (see Opinio Juris posts), Canada, Chile and numerous European countries (see REDRESS/ FIDH, Fostering a European Approach to Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, 2004, Fostering a European Approach to...

...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)....