Search results

Abstract
The US is increasingly weaponizing economic sanctions to push through its foreign policy agenda. Making use of the centrality of the US in the global economy, it has imposed 'secondary sanctions' on foreign firms, which are forced to choose between trading with US sanctions targets or forfeiting access to the lucrative US market. In addition, the US has penalized foreign firms for breaching US sanctions legislation. In this contribution, it is argued that the international lawfulness of at least some secondary sanctions is doubtful in light of the customary international law of jurisdiction, as well as conventional international law (eg, WTO law). The lawfulness of these sanctions could be contested before various domestic and international judicial mechanisms, although each mechanism comes with its own limitations. To counter the adverse effects of secondary sanctions, third states and the EU can also make use of, and have already made use of, various non-judicial mechanisms, such as blocking statutes, special purpose vehicles to circumvent the reach of sanctions, or even countermeasures. The effectiveness of such mechanisms is, however, uncertain.

Abstract
This article provides an analysis of the Dutch Supreme Court judgment in the Mothers of Srebrenica case, placing it in its context, and comparing it with earlier and related decisions, in particular the judgments in the cases of Nuhanović and Mustafić. The Mothers of Srebrenica is a foundation established to represent the interests of the approximately 6000 surviving relatives of the victims of the fall of Srebrenica during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia (1995). The foundation holds the Netherlands responsible for not having done enough to protect the victims of the Srebrenica genocide. This contribution addresses the attribution of the conduct of the United Nations peacekeeping contingent to the troop-contributing State (the Netherlands), followed by the wrongfulness of the peacekeepers' conduct and the State's attendant liability for damages suffered by the victims. It is argued that the Dutch State's international responsibility was only engaged because of the exceptional circumstances present in Srebrenica at the time. In the ordinary course of events, the liability of troop-contributing States is unlikely to be engaged if the Supreme Court's review standard were to be applied.

On 20 November 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Jaloud v the Netherlands held that the Netherlands had failed to adequately investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of an Iraqi citizen. Mr. Jaloud had allegedly been killed by a Dutch lieutenant at a vehicle control point in Iraq in 2004. The Court attributed the impugned conduct to the Netherlands and clarified that individuals injured by shots from the checkpoint fell within the jurisdiction of the Netherlands as it was controlling the checkpoint. The Court's decisions on attribution and jurisdiction, we argue, are open to question and may not have created the anticipated clarification. Furthermore, we argue that the implications of Jaloud for the scope of the duty to investigate the use of lethal force in out-of-area military operations remain unclear and contested. In the Netherlands, which has a history of tension between military police and active serving soldiers, as well as an investigatory policy that is cautious about criminal investigations, more clarity was needed. Since the judgment fails to set out unambiguous legal obligations, we conclude that it is unlikely that the judgment will have an impact on investigatory policy.

In this article, it is argued that Member States do not normally incur liability for damages caused by acts of the international organizations of which they are members. Deciding otherwise may endanger the autonomy and separate legal personality of the organization. Member State liability can only be found in cases in which some intervening state conduct can be established, as is laid down in Part V of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, drawn up by the International Law Commission in 2009. A strict interpretation of the principle that the organizational veil should not be pierced may prevent Member State intervention in the affairs of the organization, and thus strengthen the latter's autonomy vis-à-vis its Member States. However, in order to do justice to the legitimate claims of third parties adversely affected by the conduct of the organization, and to rebuff attempts at making Member States liable for such conduct, it is highly desirable that the organization puts in place adequate claims commissions and dispute-settlement mechanisms that are easily accessible to third parties.

"By engaging with ongoing discussions surrounding the scope of cross-border regulation, this expansive Research Handbook provides the reader with key insights into the concept of extraterritoriality. It offers an incisive overview and analysis of one of the most critical components of global governance. Authored by central voices in the global extraterritoriality debate, the Research Handbook on Extraterritoriality in International Law offers legal, interdisciplinary, and regional perspectives on this evolving field. It covers a variety of issues, such as the economics of extraterritorial crime, judicial extraterritoriality, and extraterritorial human rights obligations. This comprehensive Research Handbook will be a valuable research resource for scholars and students of international law and politics, as well as international and domestically oriented legal practitioners who seek to grasp the difficult legal questions surrounding extraterritoriality"--