Search

The world-circumnavigation mission by the IRIN’s 86th Flotilla – consisting of the frigate IRIS Dena and the forward-base ship IRIS Makran - stands out as a turning point in Iran’s naval history. While long-range naval missions bring many political and strategic advantages, they also pose peculiar legal challenges, many of which were highlighted during the 86th Flotilla’s mission. In the particular case of the 86th Flotilla, the key issue was the sanctioning of Dena and Makran by the United States as they were about to enter the port of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. This paper aims to examine the sanctioning of IRIS Dena and IRIS Makran in relation to the principle of warship immunity. The results of the study indicate that the sanctioning of the two Iranian warships violate international law on several counts but may nevertheless prevent the two vessels from calling at foreign ports in the future. Meanwhile, the two warships enjoy sovereign immunity which prevents the United States or any other state from exercising judicial or enforcement jurisdiction against them. The research method of this study is descriptive – analytical and the information has been collected through library sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to analyse extraterritoriality from public international law and private international law perspectives. Although many scholars relate the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction to both private and public international law, in practice the topic is mainly considered as belonging to the latter. Moreover, extraterritorial jurisdiction is not a common notion under private international law. Perhaps because the extraterritorial norm is intended to regulate first and foremost state conduct and not relationships between private persons, but this vision does not take into account that the latter are frequently affected by the norm. It is argued here that from a public international law perspective, the legal framework of extraterritorial jurisdiction is unsettled and incomplete. The bottom line is that states are largely free to unfold their power, given that international law does not really regulate extraterritorial jurisdiction but only establishes the negative obligation not to trespass on state sovereignty. Thus, considering extraterritorial jurisdiction from a national perspective, in this paper, under the general framework of private international law is not only necessary but also justified. In addressing the above, this article will first analyse extraterritoriality as an exception under public international law (2). It will reflect on the lawful/unlawful grounds for the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction and will show that the abandonment of territoriality in jurisdictional assertions is more desirable than feasible. Then extraterritoriality will be analysed as an inherent feature of private international law, that can be traced in all three domains regulated by the private international law (3). It will also make a case on the extraterritorial reach of national constitutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Business actors create and operate in global production networks that bring them in contact with regulatory frameworks across multiple levels and domains. Importantly, they also participate in shaping those regulatory frameworks. But what are the specific interests they pursue in their involvement in regulation? Traditionally, scholars tended to assume that the focus of business actors is primarily on avoiding (stringent) public regulation. Recent developments have highlighted a broader range of business interests, however. Accordingly, this paper investigates business positions on the ascription of duties and rights in regulation, specifically in the fields of due diligence, supply chain liability, and extraterritorial jurisdiction. The paper explores these issues in the context of business regulation in the field of Human Rights, looking at the United Nations Guiding Principles on human rights, their German implementation in the 'Nationaler Aktionsplan Wirtschaft und Menschenrechte' and the associated processes, in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Domestic courts sometimes prosecute foreign nationals for severe crimes—like crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, and war crimes—committed on foreign territory against foreign nationals. We argue that migrants can serve as agents of transnational justice. When migrants move across borders, as both economic migrants and refugees, they often pressure local governments to conduct criminal investigations and trials for crimes that occurred in their sending state. We also examine the effect of explanatory variables that have been identified by prior scholars, including the magnitude of atrocities in the sending state, the responsiveness of the receiving state to political pressure, and the various economic and political costs of prosecutions. We test our argument using the first multivariate statistical analysis of universal jurisdiction cases, focusing on multiple stages of prosecutions. We conclude that transnational justice is a justice remittance in which migrants provide accountability and remedies for crimes in their sending states.

The Effects Doctrine creates an important basis for the application of local law outside of its territory. It reflects the understanding that in this day and age, actions taken in one jurisdiction can significantly affect other jurisdictions. The use of competition law extraterritorial jurisdiction, based on the effects doctrine, has long been debated. The purpose of this study is to discuss the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction to competition law in Indonesia. This research uses the normative juridical method to analyze legal norms and principles. The approaches used include statutory approach, comparative law approach, and case approach. The result of this research is that regulations regarding the prohibition of monopolistic practices and unfair business competition have not explicitly regulated extraterritorial norms in Indonesia. However, the Business Competition Supervisory Commission made a legal breakthrough by applying the extraterritorial principle to resolve the involvement of foreign business actors and impose sanctions on them. This article argues that Indonesia significantly needs to amend its competition law and increase cooperation with other countries to enforce competition law.

Global human rights sanctions (also known as Magnitsky sanctions) regimes target individuals and entities involved in gross human rights abuses. The sanctions measures, including visa bans, transaction restrictions, and asset freezes, are implemented through executive decision-making processes. This article critically analyses the legality of Magnitsky sanctions in relation to the principle of state sovereignty, exploring whether these new transnational legal regimes disrupt the existing international legal order. Given that global human rights sanctions can be employed to address both individual responsibility and state responsibility for human rights violations, this paper scrutinizes the legitimacy of the jurisdiction of these sanctions and evaluates whether they can be justified as countermeasures, respectively. This paper argues that the jurisdiction of sanctions is not in violation of international law. As unilateral measures against states for violating human rights law, Magnitsky sanctions can significantly contribute to the formation of customary international law on third-party countermeasures.

Ukraine has faced ongoing armed conflict within the eastern parts of its territory since 2014. The state witnessed the annexation of Crimea, de facto occupation of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, the shooting down of Flight MH-17, and numerous human rights violations in the eastern parts of the country. Since the Russian aggression in 2022, Ukraine has faced armed conflict throughout the country. At the same time, Russia and Ukraine had been states parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Russia ceased to be a party to the ECHR on 16 September 2022, due to its expulsion from the Council of Europe (CoE) six months earlier. All the applications against the Russian Federation filed to the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) before this date should – and will – be examined by the Court. This research mainly aims to analyse the Court's existing case-law concerning the events in Ukraine after 2014, and the ECtHR jurisprudence concerning armed conflicts. The purpose of such analysis is to examine the possibilities and challenges the Court will face in its forthcoming judgments in inter-state applications filed by Ukraine against Russia. It should be stressed that the execution of these future judgments may also be an issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Los demandantes exigen la repatriación de sus hijas y nietos que se encuentran retenidos en campos de prisioneros en Siria en condiciones calificadas como inhumanas por numerosos organismos internacionales. El Estado francés se niega a intervenir, cuestionando la legitimidad de la pretensión, la existencia de vínculo jurisdiccional y la exigibilidad de tal comportamiento. Se recurre al Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, que juzga que la pretensión es legítima, existe vínculo jurisdiccional y la conducta es exigible en circunstancias específicas, sentenciando que Francia debe reexaminar las solicitudes mediante un proceso en el que existan garantías frente a la arbitrariedad. La clave de la sentencia es el establecimiento de un vínculo jurisdiccional por la violación del artículo 3.2 del protocolo nº4 del CEDH, responsabilizando a Francia de la creación de una situación de exilio de facto.

The Proposal of the Directive regarding the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence provides new judicial protection for environmental damages and climate litigation caused by corporations, even in an extraterritorial context, considering the Directive's scope of application. This prompts a discussion about the exercise of an extraterritorial jurisdiction by Member States' courts. At European Union level, the titles of jurisdiction, identified in the Brussels I Recast Regulation, allow foreign victims to proceed before the court of a Member State, but only if the parent company is established in that specific Member State. Otherwise, these criteria are generally considered inadequate and insufficient. The proposed Directive seems to be a new opportunity to reform the European private international law, aligning it with the right to access to justice, as provided by Article 10 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction in international law has garnered significant attention due to its implications on sovereignty, human rights, and global governance. This paper explores the diverse practices and approaches towards extraterritorial jurisdiction in Southeast Asian countries, considering both the advantages and disadvantages associated with its application. The pros of extraterritorial jurisdiction include the ability to hold individuals and entities accountable for actions committed beyond national borders, thereby addressing transnational crimes, ensuring justice for victims, and upholding international norms and standards. Furthermore, it can serve as a deterrent against cross-border offenses, promoting stability and security in the region. However, the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction also raises several concerns and challenges. One of the primary drawbacks is the potential infringement upon state sovereignty, as it involves the assertion of legal authority over foreign territories and nationals. This could lead to tensions between states and undermine diplomatic relations. Moreover, inconsistent or unilateral application of extraterritorial jurisdiction may result in legal uncertainty and conflicts of laws, hindering international cooperation and legal harmonization efforts. By examining the various practices in Southeast Asian countries, including legislative frameworks, judicial decisions, and diplomatic engagements, this paper aims to provide insights into the complexities surrounding the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the region. It underscores the need for balanced approaches that reconcile the pursuit of justice with respect for sovereignty and international law principles. Additionally, it highlights the importance of multilateral cooperation and dialogue in addressing transnational challenges while safeguarding the rights and interests of all stakeholders involved. Overall, this analysis contributes to a better understanding of the nuanced dynamics shaping the debate on extraterritorial jurisdiction in international law and its implications for Southeast Asia's legal landscape and regional cooperation mechanisms.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction is of great importance in guaranteeing data sovereignty and regulating data flow in crossborder data flow. However, by examining the extraterritorial jurisdiction practice of cross-border data flow in China, it is found that the jurisdiction is faced with the dilemmas of threat of abuse of extraterritorial law enforcement jurisdiction, the marginalization of extraterritorial jurisdiction status and the severe compliance risks of cross-border data enterprises. The crux mainly lies in the deficiencies of relevant laws and regulations, the divergences of understanding of "domain" and discrepancies in the concept of jurisdiction between countries. China can solve this problem through the localization of comparative law experience. Firstly, it needs to abstract the basic paradigms of extraterritorial jurisdiction of data with "reasonableness", "the principle of international comity" and "multilateralism" as the core and its benchmark transformation. Furthermore, it needs to integrate with data law system in China and perfect extraterritorial jurisdiction from three dimensions: accelerating the theoretical transformation of jurisdiction from "conservative" to "aggressive", promoting the embodiment and extensive application of domestic data protection legislation, and strengthening the coordination and cooperation of extraterritorial jurisdiction mechanisms between countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we explore how a public national media outlet, the British BBC, represents an international legal case which has a highly political nature. The case is US versus Huawei/Meng Wanzhou, which took place between 2018 and 2021. Accusations were that the Chinese technology company committed fraud, leading the global HSBC bank to breach US sanctions against Iran. The charges were made by the US using what is called an 'extraterritorial law', which, while rejected as law by governments around the world, is policed by US economic powers and control over international finance. Using Critical Discourse Analysis we show that, while the BBC presents much detail of legal process, the actual nature of the law the US uses to bring criminal charges against international companies and banks, is neither considered nor questioned. Our interest is how such a law, which has a huge influence over global trade and politics, is presented to the public in this particular case. We contribute to the position that the nature of laws, how they are used and known, must always be understood within the prevailing discourses of the moment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of information technology has accelerated the process of globalization and has also internationalized the issue of personal information storage and protection. Personal information can be stored in a cross-border cloud based on the development of Internet technology. However, the separation of the controlling place and the storage place of personal information has brought new challenges to the international regulation of personal information protection. For example, the conflict of legislation, law enforcement, judicial jurisdiction, and the exercise of cyber sovereignty between different countries, etc. In order to strengthen international cooperation on the safety of personal information, it is recommended to promote the sharing of cloud storage of personal information by establishing international selfregulatory organizations, constructing a safety line for the protection of the private rights of information, creating the principle of confirming interests before the usage of information and strengthening the mechanism of punitive compensation in malicious commercial use, etc. It is important to further improve domestic unified legislation and clarify the extraterritorial effects of domestic laws. And introduce data controller standards under the principle of international comity to break the inherent territorial jurisdiction principle. Besides, it is also very necessary to establish and improve the graded and classified management and early warning mechanism for the commercial use of personal information stored abroad. Finally, it is important to take an active part in international negotiations and strive for the right to make international rules on personal information protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

With the increasing internationalization of its securities market, China has recently introduced Article 2(4) of the 2019 Securities Law, in order to deal with the important issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction over cross-border securities transactions. While it represents an important development, the provision is couched in very broad terms, bringing uncertainties and difficulties to its application in practice. This article proposes a phased reform agenda for improvement: in the short run, the effect test under Article 2(4) should be clarified with more guidance; in the long run, China should go beyond the effect test to consider other relevant tests such as the conduct test and the transactional test. The recent high-profile case of Luckin Coffee is carefully studied to show the factors that China may consider in applying Article 2(4), including the test of national interests, the principle of international comity, and the issue of judicial recourse constraints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Espaço Jurídico: Journal of Law is the property of Espaco Juridico: Journal of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

It has been reported that an estimated 100,000 multinational corporations (MNCs) account for about a quarter of the global gross domestic product (GDP), generating a turnover which exceeds, by leaps and bounds, the public budget of many countries. Unfortunately, the manner of operation of the ever-expanding MNCs appears to engender rampant environmental degradation and wanton human rights violations in host nations. Even though frameworks aiming to regulate the activities of these corporations are in place, the effectiveness of the said regulatory mechanisms has been vociferously challenged, time and again, by academics and experts across the globe. Drawing on a range of pertinent case law as well as secondary sources, this article attempts to critically explore, and navigate, the extent to which the existing regulatory frameworks have been effective in holding MNCs accountable for their environment and human rights-related transgressions. The article establishes that the extant regulatory mechanisms have, to some extent, however miniscule, helped to promulgate awareness and inculcate environmental and human rights issues into corporate culture. It, however, demonstrates that these frameworks are grossly inadequate owing to the complex nature of the MNCs, the overtly broad and obscure nature of the existing international instruments and the reeking corruption in domestic political and judicial institutions. It recommends the codification of binding documents, backed by adequate compliance mechanisms, and the creation of an International Court having special jurisdiction over all MNCs.

Copyright of Contemporary Military Challenges / Sodobni Vojaški Izzivi is the property of Sciendo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Geneva Declaration on Human Rights at Sea was officially launched on 1 March 2022. The document was produced by the nongovernmental organization Human Rights at Sea, and responds to an undoubted need to prevent human rights violations at sea and to provide redress to victims of such abuses. Connecting the international human rights regime with the law of the sea has been one of many challenges to respond to this issue. This article explores the content of the Geneva Declaration and its alignment with existing law of the sea. Beyond the jurisdictional complexities presented, it is important to consider how this informal instrument holds relevance for international lawmaking. While there are obstacles, the Geneva Declaration creates a needed opportunity to bring attention to and clarity around the legal protections of human rights at sea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper analyses the concept of extra-territorial jurisdiction as envisaged by the Euroepan Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This concept of jurisdiction implies an answer to the question whether a person outside the territory of a state can be considered to be under its jurisdiction, and thus whether the ECHR Party can violate any of their proclaimed rights. Initially, the author briefly discusses the concept of extra-territorial jurisdiction in The European Court of Human Rights case law (ECtHR). The author comes to the conclusion that the Court's jurisprudence is not clear or consistent. As a result, the article examines three alternative approaches to extra-territorial jurisdiction that are clear, reality-based, and human rights friendly. These three approaches involve the test of negative and positive obligations, the functionality test, and the control of rights test. In addition, the author considers three contemporary challenges that the ECtHR may face in the fields of migration, 'green' issues, and the use of modern technologies. The author claims that the ECtHR's understanding of jurisdiction is insufficient for modern challenges. The alternative approaches could be a viable answer to such issues.

The article draws on scholarships in the areas of international law, inequality and energy justice to engage in a dialogue with the business and human rights literature, from the perspective of the global south and Latin America, in particular. It engages with Gwynne Skinner's monograph about overcoming barriers to judicial remedy for corporate abuses of human rights. Skinner argues that if victims of these abuses cannot secure remedy in the countries in which the abuses occur – because of weak or corrupt institutions, among other factors – then the victims have a right to remedy in the home countries of the corporations and in countries in which they may conduct business – specifically, the United States, Canada and Europe. Skinner recommends that new legislation be introduced in these countries to ensure that their courts have jurisdiction to hear cases, under international human rights law, even when the cases have little or no links with the forum countries. I argue that a more robust international law and interdisciplinary approach shows that international human rights law alone provides a weak basis for the recommendations. I also reflect on part of the narrative that supports Skinner's argument, which builds a negative image of the courts in developing countries, to argue that this is unnecessary and that expansions of the bases of jurisdiction should be implemented on specific and stronger reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION. A specific feature of the current state of international relations is the existence of elements that reflect the growing antagonism between the leading countries that make up the world order, as well as between such countries and those international associations that are supposed to regulate and sometimes directly manage the cooperation among the subjects of international relations. The totality, the acuteness and the complexity of these antagonisms determine the phenomenon which is defined as a “crisis” by the experts who analyze the nature and the development of international relations. The article below analyzes different opinions of legal experts in relation to the objective needs of legal regulation of international affairs expressed from the view point of prospects and new forms of such regulation, as well as the legal instruments used by the countries when faced with encroachment on them on the part of other players, i.e. states and their associations. The author mentions the fact that the political, economic and legal development of the system of international relations in the last few decades has become sustainably dependent on the integration processes taking place within the framework of the world order in whole, i.e. on something commonly defined as the “globalization”, while the objective prerequisites for the harmonious integration with interests of all countries taken into account are often absent in the designated processes and the main drivers of globalization efforts are those subjects of international relations that get most of the benefits from these processes, such as states, public organizations, specific public figures. As a result, the customary and efficient forms and contractual relations in international law are being re- placed with the ideas of “global law” or “supranational law” based on the intent to implement the “denationalization” of law by way of submitting the legal systems of some sovereign states to the will of international institutions. The activities of such institutions established numerously in the post-war period are of increasingly administrative nature in cases when such organizations are vested with authoritative, supervisory or other similar powers whilst the specific features of national legal order are ignored. A separate issue in the development of international law, both at the doctrinal level and in terms of practices of international administrative and judicial bodies, is the trend towards the stimulating of the loss of the so-called “national legal identity” in favor of various network-based, surrogate and culturally unspecific forms of regulating relationships, first and foremost economic ones. The dilution of legal norms, standards and rules that are customary for the population of the developed countries makes a notable impact on the public con-science, creating the objective preconditions for a boom in “legal nihilism” and the public negation of the necessity to abide with the rules of law, all this going in parallel with such inadequately working principles as the “supremacy of law”, “observance of civil rights”, “democratic basis of social structure” etc. In the opinion of the author, the fact that the Western countries and their closest allies have lost the perception of the necessity to preserve the distinction and the independence of the legal concepts and institutions created during the centuries of the world development and have made their choice in favor of the expansion of the functions of international organizations and associations is the historical phenomenon that characterizes a certain stage in the development of the world order. The creation of economic and political forms at this stage is followed by the development of law that is cyclical, uneven and not always logical from the viewpoint of historical process. The return of the law to its traditional, system-level basics that are clear to everyone taking part in the social relations is often facilitated by crises, such as the one in place today when the existing challenges and problems are complemented by the objective force majeure events like the virus attack in 2020 which the amorphous “network-based” instruments or not entirely just and efficient elements of the “international legal order” cannot cope with, as opposed to the active governmental and legal mechanisms of sovereign states capable of ensuring the balance of legal instruments and administrative levers of management in crisis situations.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The methodology of the analysis is comprised of the system-based and formally jurisprudential methods that analyze not only the theoretical works of the leading Russian and foreign scientists, but also a considerable bulk of legal standards, judicial acts and sources pertaining to the activities of international organizations. This allows to look upon the general trends in the development of Russian domestic law and international law institutions, statutory acts and relevant legal doctrines, as well as to demonstrate their interdependence and the similarity in some of the lines of their development. The issue of conflict interaction of national (in particular, Russian) legal systems and the activities of international judicial bodies is discussed separately in the article. The obvious dependence of the activities of international judicial bodies based on the relevant international agreements and conventions on the political situation in the world is also shown in the article. A conclusion is drawn as to the advisability of revision of the key provisions of international acts adopted in different times and regulating the procedure for the formation and operation of international judicial bodies, such revision required so as to provide for the supremacy of the Russian Constitution in cases of conflicts between the court orders and the provisions of the fundamental law of Russia.RESEARCH RESULTS. The articles outlines the results of the analysis of the issue of state sovereignty and national jurisdiction from the viewpoint of the efforts taken by the leading Western countries with a view to ensure the advantages of their legal and judicial systems in the process of international, first and foremost, economic cooperation. Conclusions are drawn in the article as to the ways and forms of competition in the sphere of law whereby the separate groups of countries, seeking to constrain its economic rivals, impose such ways of regulating the economic activities that give advantages to specific economies to the detriment of the others. One of the aspects of such competitive practice, as the author believes, is the set of anti-offshore measures extensively implemented at the initiative of the US tax agencies and the international tax agencies marching in their lockstep in order to undermine the reputation of major Russian companies and create the conditions for the worldwide persecution of Russian businessmen and government officials.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Based on the examination of new phenomena in the international law practice, the author concludes that the efficiency of legal instruments aimed at the protection of Russian national interests, including those of the Russian private business, against various abuses and discriminatory acts on the part of foreign laws enforcement agencies and judicial bodies, must be enhanced. The application of the principle of “extraterritorial jurisdiction” intensively applied in the US courts is demonstrated by the examples of UD doctrines, such as “arm’s length” and Alien Tоrt Statute that are actively used in the American judicial system contrary to the principles and rules of application of the decisions of national courts enshrined in the relevant international covenants. A conclusion is drawn in respect of the growing influence of the social and political processes on the development of international law institutions and mechanisms for the regulation of public processes. As noted by the author, it is necessary to integrate the efforts of legal experts from different law schools and traditions in order to preserve the role of the main public regulator played by both national and international law.

INTRODUCTION. Currently, states can apply a whole range of law enforcement measures at sea in order to prevent such unlawful phenomena as piracy, slave trade, drug trafficking, migrant smuggling, etc. However, the problem of the exercise of jurisdiction by states within various maritime areas is the main sticking point during the implementation of these measures. In an attempt to exercise the law enforcement function at sea, the state can't ignore the fact that its ability to create legal norms and ensure their effective implementation depends not only on its will as a sovereign, but also on the restrictions imposed by international law. Therefore, maintaining a balance between limiting the “territorialization” of maritime areas and the need to carry out a law enforcement function logically entails the need to determine the nature and content of the concept of “jurisdiction of the state” within different maritime areas, as well as to identify specific features of this legal category. The present article focuses on this and other related issues.MATERIALS AND METHODS. Historical and comparative analysis along with dogmatic research approach were used in the research process and the entire research is well grounded in focusing on the norms of international treaty law and customary law. In addition to that this research focuses on the norms of national law governing issues related to the application of law enforcement measurement at the sea. Apart from those given material and methodical inputs, the doctrinal works of the relevant jurists have been used in this research.RESEARCH RELULTS. The author comes to an alternative conclusion that territorial jurisdiction within the maritime territory is not absolute, which is due, apparently, the principle of freedom of the high seas which have a longer support by the international community. The definition of jurisdiction as extraterritorial is not self-sufficient, since in case of conflict of jurisdictions, additional legal criteria are required to resolve such a conflict. The classification of extraterritorial jurisdiction depending on the principles on which it is based also does not solve the problem, since some principles, such as protective or universal, in turn, require additional criteria in order to become a self-sufficient tool to overcome legal uncertainty. The author notes that the ability to exercise territorial jurisdiction within maritime areas, as a rule, determines the ability to exercise legislative and executive jurisdiction, which are also not absolute. The exercise of extraterritorial legislative or executive jurisdiction at sea is potentially permissible only on the basis of international law to solve a specific function, for example, law enforcement.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. The main problem of the varieties of jurisdiction proposed by in- ternational legal science is that each of them only supplements each other, describing a possible choice, but not explaining why a particular choice should be preferred in case of conflict. It is obvious that current uncertainty has created some severe impacts upon the institution of law enforcement measures at sea as a result of the absence of standards for enforcement measures that could make a balance to the mechanism. Hence the law enforcer has to be cautious with a number of factors in deciding the implementation of law enforcement measures within the sea.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(1), 375-386 | European Forum Insight of 26 May 2020 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduzione. - II. Il coordinamento dello Stato costiero nella propria zona SAR. - II.1. Il quadro normativo. - II.2. Obbligo di coordinamento e tutela dei diritti umani dei naufraghi. - II.3. Obbligo di coordinamento e responsabilità internazionale dello Stato costiero. - III. L'obbligo di coordinamento nella prassi recente. - IV. Un tentativo di sintesi. | (Abstract) The Insight focuses on the impact of international human rights law and refugee law on the interpretation of the responsibility of coastal States for the coordination of rescue activities within their own SAR regions established under the SAR Convention. This analysis aims to investigate whether the interaction between these different legal frameworks produces a substantial overlapping between the extension of the search and rescue areas and the ones in which the coastal States can exercise a form of extraterritorial jurisdiction. According to the analysis conducted, the coordination of search and rescue operations, which includes the obligation to disembark survivors in a place of safety, seems to entail the exercise of an effective power over survivors and, consequently, the (automatic) recognition of extraterritorial jurisdiction of these States within their SAR regions.

The paper provides an in-depth analysis of the issue of extraterritorial application of human rights treaties in the specific context of transboundary environmental harm. The classic criteria for extraterritorial jurisdiction established through the landmark judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are revisited and compared with the extensive extraterritoriality threshold introduced by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its 2017 advisory opinion on environment and human rights. The author examines the features, requirements and limits of the new extraterritoriality threshold which is based on the effective control over intraterritorial activities that result in extraterritorial human rights' violations. The paper attempts to offer arguments for perceiving the new extraterritoriality threshold as a general standard of international human rights, as well as to examine whether it represents a (mis)interpretation of the duty to prevent transboundary environmental harm as a well-established rule of international environmental law. The author also discusses the prospects of expanding the application of the new jurisdictional threshold to other areas not necessarily linked to environmental degradation.

The ideal of the European Union (EU) as a global peace and security actor is increasingly clashing with the reality of a multipolar world defined by militarised conflict, and a loosening of the formerly close trans-Atlantic relationship with the United States. European policy-makers have identified strategic autonomy as a possible remedy in the face of a growing number of internal and external security threats. This paper adds to the conceptualisation of strategic autonomy by contextualising its current usage and political genealogy. Empirically, European strategic autonomy is examined concerning the efforts to preserve the Iranian nuclear deal after the Trump administration had ceased US participation in May 2018. In particular, the paper assesses the European response to counter the re-imposed unilateral United States (US) sanctions against European individuals and entities by updating the so-called blocking regulation, and setting up a special purpose vehicle (spv) for facilitating trade with Iran. The results show that the European struggle toward achieving strategic autonomy has largely failed, but that it holds valuable lessons to approximate this ideal in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increase in numbers of children travelling unaccompanied to Europe has provoked a sensitive debate as to how to treat their family members. While EU Member States generally grant family reunification for unaccompanied minors, the UK has opted to permit reunion in only 'exceptional circumstances'. Widely criticised, the UK government counters that child-sponsored family reunification creates incentives for unaccompanied migration that place children at risk. This article explores both policies from a human rights perspective. It suggests that, as regards children reaching Europe, EU policy is more consistent with human rights norms. However, UK policy raises legitimate questions about obligations towards children beyond Europe's borders. A rights-based justification for either EU or UK policy can be constructed, but requires recourse to additional principles on the balancing of rights among different groups of children. Clearer articulation and scrutiny of these principles could strengthen the rights rationale for child-sponsored family reunification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 15 November 2017, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion OC-23/17 on the relationship between human rights and the environment. The opinion responded to a request made by Colombia pursuant to Article 64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction of state parties to the Convention resulting from mega-infrastructure projects in the Greater Caribbean region. The purpose of this article is to discuss the general issues dealt with by the Court, concentrating on the significance of this Advisory Opinion for international law. The opinion contains two main interesting aspects. First, in the light of the opinion, states are responsible for the environmental damage they cause, regardless of whether it occurs within their borders or beyond them. Second, the Advisory Opinion recognizes that the right to a healthy environment is an autonomous, fundamental human right that shall be protected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The state of our environment is continuously deteriorating, and the frame of the 'Anthropocene' calls for transformative laws that respond to the current socio-ecological crisis. Since environmental diplomacy has signally failed to respond to current challenges, courts are being confronted with crucial questions that fundamentally address whether existing legal tools are sufficient to ensure human survival. In 2017, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a landmark Advisory Opinion that goes some way towards answering this question. The Advisory Opinion recognized extraterritorial jurisdiction for transboundary environmental harm; the autonomous right to a healthy environment; and State responsibility for environmental damage within and beyond the State's borders. This article analyzes the legal arguments constructed by the Court, assessing whether, and how, the Opinion changes paradigms of international environmental law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article stated that the global economic arena has taken new insights across the shore of nations. THE new economic challenges are waiting for the anti-trust enforcers to make sure strict compliance with the antitrust laws and in addition this dissertational work highlights the incipient violations across the borders and suggests its possible legel outcoms in the near future in order to make the economic market a level playing field for any business entrants. It particularly shed light on the cross border cartels and their effects on the relevant market, additionally we have taken the global view of the legislative aspects along with their de jure appliances and improvements for the proper economic growth under the auspices of legal framework. The ramification of cross border cartel enforcement has surfaced astoundingly between 1998 to 2015, underlining the earnest and prompt action to strengthen and revisit the competition law enforcement tools and proficiency. The technological advancements and liberalization of trade has risen significant challenges which includes the enforcement of cross border cartels and mergers. The globalization of corporate activities and deregulation of business markets and numerous industrial sectors has endangered the theoretical foundation of domestic and international competition enforcement regime. The transnational anticompetitive practices like monopolization of markets, collusive price fixing, vertical restraints of trade and international cartels currently challenged the jurisdiction and policies of OECD, WTO, UNCTAD, and ICN. This frightening situation necessarily be regularized by establishing worldwide competition policy and globally admirable enforcement standard. The weaknesses of unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral compacts be re-examined in order to cope with the cross- border competition challenges efficaciously. The extraterritorial, jurisdictional, and investigative mechanisms could be enclosed with binding nature of legal structures to deter cross border antitrust violations for smooth economic growth. The EU and US actively pursuing to establish the unanimous international antitrust regime instead of discrepancies to integrate WTO and ICN being multilateral cooperation forum. Currently, US, CANADA, EU, JAPAN and CHINA across the globe become more engaged in international cartels evidence gathering and investigations. The developments in information sharing, private enforcement, follow on civil litigation, dawn raids, extraterritorial reach of enforcement watchdog is yet to be established.

The continuous rising levels of rhino poaching in South Africa require smart strategies that move beyond prosecuting the actual poachers to engaging the transnational criminals who deal with the rhino horn after it leaves the country. In this regard, South Africa has a number of laws that deal with the poaching of rhino horns. The Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) does not provide for the adequate prosecution of offenders outside South Africa. It is argued that the POCA has to be amended to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction to deal with the prosecution of the higher echelons of those involved in rhino poaching. While the POCA provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction in some respects, the application of these provisions still presents challenges in their implementation. To substantiate this claim, this article first discusses the international networks that support the trade in rhino horn. A critique of the available statistics on rhino poaching follows, as does a suggestion that attention must be paid to the details in the statistical records to understand how desperate the situation is. Thereafter, an evaluation of South Africa's legislative framework and other interlinking factors that affect rhino poaching is performed This demonstrates the need for extraterritorial jurisdiction with regard to rhino poaching.

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article relates to contemporary topic, deals with subsoil use crimes and explores this as a subtype of environmental crimes committed by transnational corporations discussing the importance of choosing proper jurisdiction, and examines crimes in the field of subsoil use as a specific component of environmental crimes committed by transnational corporations involved in resource extraction and mining across the world. Their environmental harm, contribution to poverty and unfair utilization of resources is driven by greed and lure, and has long been heavily protected by legal jurisdictional cover-ups, which are now under scrutiny due to the globally evolving trend of exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain torts committed by extractive industry operators. Appropriate criminological theories and studies of general and green criminology along with environmental justice are reviewed and reflected on. The author refers to unfair correlation of natural wealth and poverty, comes across the Brantinghamian definition of “crime” before turning to Sutherland’s conception of white-collar crime. The article also presents content analysis and case studies of the undergoing litigations, namely the case of Trafigura and Royal Dutch Shell. In concluding notes suggestions are offered for the future of environmental justice and the prevention of environmental crimes in extractive industries and mining. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the turn of the nineteenth century, the establishment of unauthorized U.S. consulates throughout the Spanish Empire transformed both the infrastructure of Spanish colonial rule and the diplomatic relationship between Spain and the Early Republic. In places such as New Orleans, Havana, and Santiago de Cuba, U.S. consuls exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over national citizens without the authorization of Spanish imperial authorities, sparking intense diplomatic conflicts over the boundaries of national sovereignty. Invoking diplomatic reciprocity, Spanish colonial officials also made use of unauthorized consulates in Savannah, New Orleans, and Natchez in order to contain U.S. expansion, protect Spanish subjects and property, and police runaway slaves and Native Americans. Over the 1800s, these ad-hoc uses of unauthorized consulates challenged metropolitan designs and international diplomatic norms as they locked both U.S. state authorities and Spanish colonial governments in negotiations of state sovereignty, transnational migration, and reciprocity and created a new institutional framework of transnational governance in the Spanish Caribbean and the North American Gulf. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Vedanta v. Lungowe , the United Kingdom Supreme Court determined that civil claims for negligence brought by Zambian claimants against an English parent company (Vedanta) and its Zambian subsidiary (Konkola Copper Mines plc (KCM)) for damages experienced in Zambia can proceed in English courts. While framed as a domestic tort law case, the decision is significant for international efforts aimed at holding businesses accountable for their "negative impacts" on human rights. Writing for a unanimous Court, Lord Briggs's judgment hinged narrowly on the right of victims to access substantial justice. More broadly, Lord Briggs suggested that parent companies that hold themselves out in public disclosures as overseeing the human rights, environmental, social, or labor standards employed by their subsidiaries assume a duty of care to those harmed by the subsidiary. This suggestion has the potential to transform current corporate approaches to human rights due diligence and accountability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers the limits of extraterritorial criminalisation under international law in the context of a recent legislative proposal by the government of Sweden to impose criminal measures against the purchase of sexual services abroad. The article first presents the proposal and then a specific legal objection raised against it, namely that allowing Swedish courts to try purchases committed abroad irrespective of local law is inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention under international law. The substance of this objection is discussed against the background of general descriptions of the concepts of jurisdiction and non-intervention under international law. It is concluded that the meaning of the principle of non-intervention may have been overstated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article seeks to map the possible bottlenecks for international legal cooperation in the context of terrorism and/or organized crime. The assumption is that – because of the crime–terror nexus – any obstacle encountered in that area with respect to the suppression of one form of criminality will backfire on the other form as well. After addressing the indefinite concept of terrorism, and its connection with organized crime, we will look at extraterritorial jurisdiction and international cooperation in criminal matters. In the final section, we will offer a number of concluding observations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]