Between Private and Public International Law: Exorbitant Jurisdiction as Illustrated by the Yukos Case

2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuditta Cordero Moss
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Specific Aspect ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Russian Territory ◽  
The Us ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Bankruptcy Code ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

AbstractThe article analyses one specific aspect of the long and complicated proceedings in which the Russian oil company Yukos was involved: the question of jurisdiction relating to the application that Yukos made to a court in Houston, Texas, to open bankruptcy proceedings under chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code and thus grant protection against the creditors to permit restructuring of the company. Yukos being a Russian company burdened by massive debt connected with taxes owed to the Russian authorities, and virtually the totality of its as-sets being located on Russian territory, the first question that arises is how it is possible for a court in the United States to have jurisdiction in this case. This article examines the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction in civil cases, from the point of view of both private and public international law.

scholarly journals “Don't Do as I Do”—The US Response to Russian and Chinese Cyber Espionage and Public International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 613-626
Author(s):  
Patrick C. R. Terry
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
Sensitive Information ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Cyber Espionage ◽  
First Time

The Russian government is accused of hacking emails circulating among senior members of Hilary Clinton's campaign team to support President Trump's election in 2016. This was not the first time the United States was the target of massive cyber espionage: The Chinese government is believed to have gained sensitive information on 22.1 million US government employees through “cyber intrusions” in 2014. This Article will examine whether cyber espionage of this kind is unlawful under public international law and will conclude that it is. Specifically, such espionage can result in a violation of territorial sovereignty and will likely violate the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States. Yet, based on the controversial “clean-hands-doctrine,” past US actions in the realms of cyber espionage and intervention may well invalidate any claims it asserts against Russia or China.

scholarly journals Limits on the Extraterritoriality of United States Export Control and Sanctions Legislation

2021 ◽  
pp. 187-217
Author(s):  
Joop Voetelink
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Export Control ◽  
Export Controls ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
The Right ◽  
States Export

AbstractThe sovereignty of states is reflected in the notion of jurisdiction, empowering them to enact and enforce laws and regulations, and to adjudicate disputes in court. The jurisdiction of states and the exercise thereof is primarily territorial, limiting the exercise of state authority to their respective national territories except in specific situations. However, in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, it would be hard to maintain that a state should be denied the right to exercise its sovereign powers beyond national borders when there are reasonable grounds for doing so. Consequently, the exercise of extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction has become more accepted, although it is limited to particular situations and circumstances. These have to do with the exercise of jurisdiction over nationals, vessels and aircraft registered in or pertaining to the legislating state, as well as certain activities aimed at undermining the state’s security or solvency or which constitute crimes under international law. However, in principle it is not allowed to regulate activities of foreign nationals or entities operating wholly outside the legislating state’s territory. One area where this has become increasingly prevalent is through the exercise of export controls over foreign nationals and legal persons. The United States (US) has long been engaged in the exercise of this type of extraterritorial jurisdiction and is, without doubt, the state that is most proactive in doing so. This chapter considers US extraterritorial claims with respect to its export control and sanctions legislation and explores the limits of this practice under public international law.

scholarly journals The Crimea Declaration and Its Role in the De-Occupation of Crimea

2019 ◽  
pp. 638-646
Author(s):  
Tymur Korotkyi ◽  
Yevheniia Lukianchenko ◽  
Nataliia Khendel
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Crimea ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Common

The article analyses the role of the Crimea Declaration in the restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It is argued that unilateral acts of states are widespread in international relations. Violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea is an encroachment not only on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. This is an infringement upon the fundamental principles of international law and the current international order. The article considers the point of view of the American diplomatic practice in relation to the Crimea Declaration. The Crimea Declaration is expressed in the form of a unilateral statement containing a protest regarding actions and their consequences, violating international law, by the direct recipient of the Declaration, namely, the Russian Federation. The Declaration is aimed at protecting the rights and interests of Ukraine, which is the common goal of the entire international community, and encourages its members to join this position. The Crimea Declaration fully corresponds to the definition and criteria of protest, which allows us to speak about the relevant international legal implications arising from the Declaration and other relevant acts of the United States that form a unified system. It is concluded that despite the fact that the Declaration contains general and framework provisions, it clearly reflects the US position regarding the condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, violation by Russia of fundamental principles of international law with regard to Ukraine, the non-recognition of the annexation of Crimea and its consequences, and the need for an expeditious de-occupation of Crimea. Keywords: the aggression of Russia against Ukraine, occupation of Crimea, Welles Declaration, Crimea Declaration, protest.

“Head in the Clouds”: The Clash between Territorial Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, and the Territorial Detachment of the Internet

2021 ◽  
pp. 4-32
Author(s):  
Julia Hörnle
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Global Law ◽  
Theoretical Foundations

Chapter 2 lays the theoretical foundations for the book and conceptualizes the notion of jurisdiction in different contexts, framing jurisdiction in relation to territoriality, sovereignty, and state authority. It clearly explains the different legal meanings of the term “jurisdiction” and how the term is used in law, political theory, and international relations. The chapter examines jurisdiction in four different areas of law: (1) public international law, (2) private international law, (3) the criminal justice system, and (4) regulatory jurisdiction. Furthermore, the chapter explains globalization as a background to the Jurisdictional Challenge and the challenge to state-made law. It summarizes the discussion on global law as a reaction to the Jurisdictional Challenge. Finally, the chapter juxtaposes sovereignty and territoriality and concludes with a discussion of extraterritorial jurisdiction and recent jurisprudence, particularly in the US.

Extraterritorial Exercise of Jurisdiction for Environmental Protection: Addressing Fairness Concerns

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAYE ELLIS
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Transboundary River ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Fairness Concerns ◽  
A Site

AbstractTeck v. Pakootas revisits the infamous Trail smelter, which made history in public international law. This more recent case should be set to make history as well, due to the manner in which the issue of extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction was handled. The substantive result reached in the courts seems fair, reasonable, and appropriate: a notorious polluter, Teck Cominco Metals Inc., is called to account by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and required to study the feasibility of cleaning up a site it contaminated by dumping effluents in a transboundary river over the course of several decades. Yet, both courts that examined this case on the merits failed to understand the ramifications of this extension of the Environmental Protection Agency's jurisdiction across the Canada–United States border. This article begins with a doctrinal analysis of jurisdictional rules in private and public international law, and then proceeds to evaluate those rules with the help of insights from scholarship on global administrative law and international public authority.

scholarly journals 9/11 as False Flag: Why International Law Must Dare to Care

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Baker Benjamin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
African History ◽  
The Us ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
International War

At the heart of contemporary international law lies a paradox: the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 have justified 16 years of international war, yet the official international community, embodied principally in the United Nations, has failed to question or even scrutinise the US government's account of those attacks. Despite the emergence of an impressive and serious body of literature that impugns the official account and even suggests that 9/11 may have been a classic (if unprecedentedly monstrous) false-flag attack, international statesmen, following the lead of scholars, have been reluctant to wade into what appears to be a very real controversy. African nations are no strangers to the concept of the false flag tactic, and to its use historically in the pursuit of illegitimate geopolitical aims and interests. This article draws on recent African history in this regard, as well as on deeper twentieth-century European and American history, to lay a foundation for entertaining the possibility of 9/11-as-false-flag. This article then argues that the United Nations should seek to fulfil its core and incontrovertible ‘jury’ function of determining the existence of inter-state aggression in order to exercise a long-overdue oversight of the official 9/11 narrative.

Part I The Conceptual Framework, 4 Jurisdiction and MNE Regulation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muchlinski Peter T
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
International Law ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Regulatory Standards ◽  
Legal Jurisdiction ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

This chapter investigates the legal basis for exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over multinational enterprises (MNEs). The state’s exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction rests on the international law rules relating to state jurisdiction. A state’s legal jurisdiction can be divided between the jurisdiction to prescribe laws, to adjudicate disputes and to enforce legal orders and judgments. This classification follows the traditional division of governmental authority between legislative, judicial and executive powers, though each branch of government can engage in any of the three. The chapter evaluates the three heads of jurisdiction in turn, relying to a large extent on US practice, which is the most developed in this field. In more recent years, not only the United States, but other global economic powers, have sought to avoid extraterritoriality conflicts though harmonization of regulatory standards and the development of cooperative regulatory structures.

Meandering Jurisprudence and Unanticipated Legacies

2020 ◽  
pp. 130-146
Author(s):  
Mark Drumbl
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Civil Litigation ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Trial Judges ◽  
The Us ◽  
Alien Tort Statute ◽  
Tort Claims

Assessments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s (ICTY) jurisprudential legacy tend to focus on the ICTY’s relationships with domestic criminal law. This chapter turns a new corner by examining the ICTY’s unexpected footprints in domestic civil litigation, specifically private tort claims brought in the US under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS, or Alien Tort Claims Act). Incorporation of international (including ICTY) materials in US ATS litigation remains a contested matter in which individual judges (both trial judges and appellate judges) demonstrate idiosyncratic behaviour. Some are ‘international law ignorers’, some are ‘international law enforcers’, some are ‘international law translators’, and some are ‘international law creators’. On this note, the ICTY’s legacy also touches upon broader questions of public international law and transnational legal migrations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document