Enforcement Jurisdiction Research Articles

The constrained politics of the Svalbard offshore area

Abstract This study identifies some mechanisms through which external factors constrain state behavior. Examining Norwegian governance for the disputed Svalbard offshore area, it finds the behavior of Norway to be constrained in multiple ways by the conflicting policies of foreign powers toward the area. When shaping the management regime of the controversial maritime zones of the former terra nullius Svalbard, Norwegian authorities cautiously consider the possible international ramifications of their actions. Norway's behavior—not only manifested in policy but also in the exercise of contested legislative and enforcement jurisdiction—is curbed amid international disagreements over Norwegian rights in the area.

International Regime and the EU Developments for Preventing and Controlling Vessel-Source Oil Pollution

Summary: Sea-going vessels introduce pollutants into the marine environment in three principal ways: through oil and other cargoes entering the water due to collisions or other maritime casualties; through loading, unloading, and bunkering operations; and through operational discharges of oil which are made deliberately, during normal operation. This article critically assesses the EU developments and the international legal regime for preventing, reducing and controlling vessel-source marine oil pollution. The critical analysis will be in the light of the MARPOL Convention 1973 as modified by the 1978 Protocol, which provides the international rules and standards for controlling pollution from ships, and the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC), which provides prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of flag, coastal or port states.

III. CERTAIN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN FRANCE REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO v FRANCE), PROVISIONAL MEASURES, ORDER OF 17 JUNE 20031

In its decision in the Arrest Warrant case,2 the International Court of Justice studiedly refused to address systematically the legality and ambit of a purported exercise in absentia of universal criminal jurisdiction by one State over a government minister of another State. This, coupled with the dicta of certain judges with reservations as to the scope of universal jurisdiction3 and the (at best) lukewarm support for such jurisdiction displayed by certain other judges,4 might be taken as a discouragement to States to engage in similar exercises of jurisdiction. However, the contemporary trend in many developed States in favour of taking measures of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction to apprehend and punish the alleged perpetrators of serious international law crimes, coupled with the entry into force of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, indicates that more such attempts are quite likely to be made. Within a year of its decision in the Arrest Warrant case, the ICJ again found itself the forum for a similar dispute. On 9 December 2002 the Republic of the Congo (‘the Congo’) filed an Application instituting proceedings against France5 in circumstances notably resembling those that had prompted the Democratic Republic of the Congo (‘the DRC’) to act against Belgium. Again, the Applicant was an African State protesting against an alleged abuse of universal jurisdiction and failure to respect immunities on the part of its European former colonial ruler. Despite the prima facie similarity between the two cases, however, the chances that the eventual decision in the Certain Criminal Proceedings case will go beyond the Arrest Warrant case to elucidate the doctrine of universal jurisdiction are very slight. This note is confined to considering the circumstances behind the Congolese Application and Request for the Indication of a Provisional Measure, and the Court's response thereto in its Order of 17 June 2003.

Policing jurisdiction in native American sovereignty

The sovereignty of Native Americans makes Congress the ultimate arbitrator of Native American affairs. Notwithstanding, the complexity of enforcing criminal statutes within and without Indian country reflects a miscellany of law enforcement jurisdiction. In any tribal criminal law enforcement action three distinct governments are involved: tribal, state, and federal. Each government has a stake in the outcome; and each enjoys exclusive, partial, or no jurisdiction, depending on the location of the offense, type of offense, and the races of the parties involved. To ascertain which government or governments has jurisdiction, police and prosecutors should conduct a three-step test to determine: (1) location of the crime; (2) supremacy of law issues; and (3) race of the offender and race of the victim.

The Internet and the Legitimacy of Remote Cross-Border Searches

A remote cross-border search takes place when persons in one nation use computer networks to explore data on computers in another nation. It is increasingly clear, especially after the September attack, that remote-cross border searches by public officials will be an important tool in the fight against cybercrime and cyberterrorism. Many commentators argue that cross-border searches violate the territorial sovereignty of the country where the data is located. This essay argues that such searches are consistent with international law principles of enforcement jurisdiction. It does not argue that there will be no limits on such searches, but rather that such limits are not deducible from norms of territorialism. The limits on remote cross-border searches will emerge from a messy process of cross-border search and retaliation, as nations adjust themselves to the changed circumstances of the Internet. In addition to arguing in support of these conclusions, the essay tries to shed light on the relationship between technological change and the evolution of jurisdictional concepts.

I. Drug Trafficking at Sea: the Case of R. v. Charrington and Others

In 1991 the United Kingdom became a Party to the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, one of the purposes of which is “to improve international co-operation in the suppression of illicit traffic by sea”.1 Article 17 of that Convention has, as its central purpose, the establishment of international standards, procedures and practices designed to facilitate the obtaining of enforcement jurisdiction whereas Article 4 addresses the closely associated issue of prescriptive jurisdiction.2 The Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1999 contains a number of provisions of relevance in this latter context. These include the taking of extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain drugs offences taking place on board the vessels of other Convention parties.3

Forth Tugs Ltd v. Wilmington Trust Co.

641State immunity — Attachment and execution — Jurisdictional immunity — Distinction between adjudicatory and enforcement jurisdiction — Jurisdiction founded upon foreign State's ownership of property within the territorial jurisdiction — Property used solely for consular purposes — Whether inability to attach such property to enforce judgment precludes exercise by court of its adjudicatory jurisdiction — State Immunity Act 1978, Section 13(6)(b) — Whether only operating after judgment given against foreign State — The law of Scotland

Enforcement jurisdiction in the exclusive economic zone—the Indian experience

Abstract The emergence of the exclusive economic zone concept radically altered ocean management, offering Third World states an unprecedented opportunity to increase national income, raise foreign exchange earnings, and improve national diets. India, following many other states, hesitantly claimed the newfound jurisdiction while the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea was still in session and the adoption of an internationally agreed convention was nowhere in sight. Having had no cohesive oceans policy since attaining independence, India was, like many other developing nations, totally ill‐equipped to enforce the new rights and assume obligations in its vast maritime zones because this type of competence was being assumed for the first time in the maritime history of the country. This article discusses the legislation enacted, institutional arrangements devised, the scheme of enforcement envisaged, and how various difficulties were resolved in order to enforce laws designed to protect India's natio...

Relations between Federal and Local Police

Although sound constitutional policy supports some aspects of federal law enforcement jurisdiction, there remains a vast ambit of overlapping federal and nonfederal criminal jurisdiction guided primarily by political fashions. The lack of a rational basis for delineating these respective jurisdictions inhibits strategic planning for efficient, effective, coherent anticrime efforts. The incentives and disincentives to communication, cooperation, coordination, and collaboration are substantial, with leading contemporary incentives including the need to combat multijurisdictional criminals and the lure of equitably sharing assets forfeited by drug offenders. Considerable progress has been made in fostering a climate of positive interchange between federal and nonfederal police, from information exchange to technical assistance to multijurisdictional operational task forces. Making continued progress in strategic planning remains a daunting task given the powerful mythology and political realities that support the persistence of more than 14,000 local and at least fifty federal police agencies.

A Swiss Perspective on Conflicts of Jurisdiction

Economic relations between Switzerland and the United States are very substantial. The United States ranks second to the Federal Republic of Germany as the biggest purchaser of Swiss products. Swiss investments in the United States total billions of dollars; quite a few Swiss multinational companies have their biggest subsidiaries in this country, and these subsidiaries often far surpass the operations of the parent company. Furthermore, Swiss banks, forming an important financial center, have very close connections to their U.S. counterparts as well as to the exchanges in New York and Chicago. Given this network of relationships, it is not surprising that the jurisdiction of the two countries often overlaps. This is not by itself particularly worrisome. Problems arise, however, when the two countries are not in agreement as to whether sufficient grounds exist for one country to claim jurisdiction, when the demands of the law of that country contradict the demands of the law of the other. In the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) the term conflicting requirements is used to describe both this situation and the situation where one country seeks to enforce its law against persons subject to the legislation and territorial jurisdiction of another country. Most often, the generally accepted distinctions in legal theory between jurisdiction to prescribe, jurisdiction to adjudicate, and jurisdiction to enforce are blurred in the actual case. Not surprisingly, what finally troubles the bilateral relations between countries is the exercise of enforcement jurisdiction, the use of power to carry their commands into effect by bringing consequences to bear upon those who defy them.' Conflicts on the question of who has the capacity ... under international law to enforce a rule of law2 would, of course, arise even between countries that have the same set of laws and share the same views on sovereignty and jurisdiction. What really keeps diplomats busy, however, is the fact that legal concepts and procedures on both sides of the Atlantic are sometimes very

Editorial Note

Previous article No AccessEditorial NoteGarnett McCoyGarnett McCoy Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Archives of American Art Journal Volume 26, Number 11986 Sponsored by the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/aaa.26.1.1557357 Views: 1Total views on this site Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1986 Archives of American ArtPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:O. Shane Balloun The True Obstacle to the Autonomy of Seasteads: American Law Enforcement Jurisdiction Over Homesteads on the High Seas, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2010).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1754234

Enforcement Jurisdiction, Foreign State Property and Diplomatic Immunity

1. The extensive literature on the subject includes Harvard Research (1932) 26 A.J.I.L. Suppl. 451-738; Lauterpacht (1951) 28 B.Y.I.L. 220; Sucharitkul, State Immunities and Trading Activities (1959), and his reports as Rapporteur to the International Law Commission on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, UN Documents A/CN.4/323, 331 and Add.l, 340, 357, 363 and Add.l, 376 and Add.1-2; Sinclair (1973) 22 I.C.L.Q. 254 and (1980-II) 167 Hague Rec. 113; see also (1979) 10 Neth.Y.B.I.L. for national reports on State practice. 2. Alcom Ltd. v. Republic of Colombia [1984] 2 W.L.R. 750 (HL reversing the CA: [1983] 3 W.L.R. 906). 3. Other problems concern the scope of the exceptions contained in ss.3-11, e.g. contracts of employment (s.4; see Sucharitkul, op. cit. supra n.1, at Document A/CN/4/363 (1982), and, for the English law prior to the Act, see Sengupta v. Republic of India (1982) 1 C.R. 221; 64 I.L.R. 352 (EAT)); tortious liability for personal injuries (s.5; for conflicting US decisions as to whether the injuries as well as the tortious act have to occur within the local jurisdiction, see Persinger v. Islamic Republic of Iran (1984) XXIII I.L.M. 384 (US Ct. App. Col. Cir., 13 March 1984); the construction of a State's submission (s.2(2); cf. Libra Bank Ltd. v. Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, 676 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1982), S & S Machinery Co. v. Maxinexportimport, 706 F.2d 411 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 104 S.Ct. 161 (1983)); and the scope of exclusions, e.g. s.16(2) relating to armed forces of the State.