...a sort of double standard in the enforcement of international law, which strikingly differs depending on whether the wrongdoer is a great power or one of its closest allies. Thirdly, other unilateral measures affecting global problems have multiplied despite clear-cut treaty prohibitions on them: the imposition of customs tariffs, the deportation of migrants, the extraterritorial arrest of drug traffickers and terrorists, the boost in greenhouse emissions, and the sanction of UN and ICC officials just for doing their job. Fourthly, an ever-growing number of states are withdrawing from, or hampering...
...The ICC has launched a new policy under which it will operate as a ‘justice hub’, supporting national authorities. At the same time, record numbers of states are pursuing domestic trials of international crimes on the basis of universal and extraterritorial jurisdiction. The vital role of inter-state assistance has never been more apparent: a robust legal framework which enables states to request and share information and evidence, access victims, witnesses and assets, and extradite suspects is essential if states are to effectively prosecute international crimes. The purpose of the Ljubljana-The...
...investigations into international crimes in Ukraine” (p. 10), Trial international notes more generally the “increasing use of the principles of universal and extraterritorial jurisdiction to curb impunity for international crimes” (see here). But, how can a State prosecute efficiently persons accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious international crimes in cases when the relevant conduct took place in the territory of one State, (some of) the victims and witnesses have found refuge in the territory of another, and the author is present in the territory of yet...
...Hong Kong, the opening of treaty ports, and extraterritorial privileges for foreign nationals. Similar arrangements were imposed on pre-Meiji Japan (1854 Treaty of Kanagawa) and Korea (signed with Japan after the Meiji Restoration, 1876 Treaty of Ganghwa), often under conditions of gunboat diplomacy. These historical unequal treaties had distinct commercial dimensions. First, states such as China and Korea lost their autonomy over tariff-setting, with tariff levels fixed at low rates favourable to Western imports. Second, the inclusion of Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) clauses locked weaker states into perpetual concessions, ensuring that any...
...and here). Although causing much controversy in France, double criminality is not practiced by other states actively exercising universal jurisdiction such as Belgium, Germany and Sweden. Whilst the principle is recognized as an essential safeguard to extraterritorial prosecutions before domestic courts, the present post shows that it is fulfilled in the specific context of universal jurisdiction over international crimes. Double criminality as a requirement for universal jurisdiction was first applied by the Court of Cassation in the Chaban case in November 2021. As a former reservist of the General Intelligence...
...agreement on modalities and a work plan. Divergence over the extraterritorial reach of human rights law, and State reluctance to confer anything resembling status on armed groups, were among the obstacles in both processes. A reform proposal has to engage with the record of the terrain it proposes to enter. We ask, what would make a treaty negotiation succeed where the 2012 and 2015 processes stopped short? And, which of the objections were principled and which merely convenient? Where the Gap Actually Lies We want to close constructively, because there...
...for harmonized civil liability, the Omnibus defers entirely to national tort laws, where many Member States do not currently recognize a clear duty of care for extraterritorial harms. Additionally, the deletion of the provision enabling NGOs and trade unions to bring representative actions places the burden of initiating transnational litigation solely on individual victims—often rural communities, migrant workers, or Indigenous peoples lacking sufficient resources for protracted legal proceedings—and the absence of collective redress procedures under EU law further diminishes the likelihood of meaningful remedy. Misalignment with International Standards and Practices...
...of documentation cannot be overestimated. As part of the efforts to resist denialism, dedicated documentation efforts have foregrounded the experiences of victims/survivors, kept their narratives alive, and provided a wealth of evidence to push back against misinformation and revisionism. Second, and related to this, documentation has also laid the basis of the most remarkable and internationally discussed developments, namely criminal litigation efforts that opened a crack in the wall of impunity. Multiple prosecutorial initiatives under the principle of universal jurisdiction – as well as other forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction –...
We regret to inform our readers that we have had to remove a post entitled “Legality of Extraterritorial Coercive Economic Measures Taken Against Russia from the Lens of International Trade Law” and published on our site in September 2022. It has recently come to our attention (and has been conceded by the author submitting that piece) that the post was translated and reproduced in substantial part from the piece “Considerazioni Sulle Misure Coercitive Adottate Nei Confronti Della Federazione Russa E Della Bielorussia Alla Luce Del Diritto Del Commercio Internazionale”, authored...
...to Azerbaijan’s Karabakh region. It is not an extraterritorial corridor as Armenia and Russia do not have any sovereign rights (e.g., transit rights) over the road. Azerbaijan’s laws apply to the passage. Azerbaijan’s army, police, customs, and other agencies do not check the persons and cargo yet. The Russian peacekeeping force supposedly exercises this function on behalf of Azerbaijan in the passage and also in Karabakh as well. However, unclear passage rules in the Lachin corridor are the main cause of this international legal dispute. To prevent potential abuse...
...standards, the Commission addresses several other important aspects of the Charter’s application to the rights of Climate Migrants and Climate Refugees. First, the Guiding Principles affirm that, necessarily, migrants have a right to development that must include climate-resilient development ( Principle 32). The Commission thus urges States party to the Charter to take action to address the extraterritorial effects of climate change. And, in the context of the right to climate resilient development, second, the Commission notes that States must adopt mitigation measures in addition to adaptation and resilience strategies...
...contemporary realities are placing unprecedented strain on these foundations. Climate change threatening statehood; non-state actors exercising de facto territorial control; contested maritime and land boundaries; extraterritorial jurisdiction; and the enduring legacies/challenges of decolonisation and self-determination. In parallel, the prohibition on the use of force, the resilience of territorial integrity, and the role of international adjudication mechanisms in deciding territorial disputes are increasingly being tested by ongoing military conflicts and deeply contested geopolitical contexts. Against this backdrop, an overarching question emerges: Does international law’s understanding of territory remain fit for purpose...