Term
|
Definition
| INDEED, THE ISLAND OF PALMAS TRANSFERRED FROM SPAIN TO THE NETHERLANDS VIA PRESCRIPTION THEREFORE; IT CANNOT TRANSFER THROUGH CESSION FROM SPAIN TO THE UNITED STATES. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| geological process by which, land changes |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| where the river dramatically changes and effects navigational ability |
|
|
Term
CHAMIZAL TRACT
1911 UNITED STATES VERSUS MEXICO |
|
Definition
| YOU HAVE THE RIO GRANDE, WHICH IS AN INTERNATIONAL WATERWAY, WHICH MEANS THE TERRITORIAL LINE BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES WILL BE THE MIDPOINT OF THAT WATERWAY. SAND ACCUMULATED, THAT THING IS CALLED THE CHAMIZAL TRACT. IT'S ABOUT 100 ACRES IN SIZE. MEXICO LAID CLAIM TO IT. THE UNITED STATES PROTESTED, AND WENT TO COURT IT WAS A COURT OF ARBITRATION ESTABLISHED BY THE TWO. THE COURT RULED THAT THIS ACCRETION PROCESS WAS HAPPENING ACROSS THE MIDPOINT AND RESULTED IN A DIVISION OF THE SANDBAR, IN PART OF IT MEXICAN AND PART OF THE AMERICAN. SOMETIME LATER THE UNITED STATES THAN IN ALL TO MEXICO, THE POINT OF THE PROCEEDING WAS NOT THAT WE WANTED THE STUPID SHADY LITTLE SANDBAR, THE POINT OF IT WAS THAT WE WERE DEFENDING AN INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
THE GREAT STATE OF LOUISIANA, THE TERRITORIAL SEA OF THE UNITED STATES WAS 3 MILES FROM THE BASELINE. IT IS THE TECHNICAL TERM WE DON'T USE SHORELINE BECAUSE THE SHORE CHANGES ALL THE TIME. WE GET 3 MILES OUT THAT'S IT. ENGLAND IS AT WAR WITH SPAIN AT THE TIME. THE BRITISH CAPTURED AN AMERICAN SHIP. THE SHIP WAS TRAVELING FROM SPAIN TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. THE BRIDGE DETERMINED THAT IT WAS SUPPORTING THE ENEMY THEREFORE WAS FAIR GAME, THEY WERE NOT COMPLETELY WRONG. THE FACT THAT THEY CAPTURE THE ANNA WHICH WAS THE SHIP'S NAME, OUT HERE(POINTS OUTSIDE OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA), IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS ONLY MAKES THE CASE STRONGER. WHAT THE US ARGUED HOWEVER, IS THAT, THE RIVER DOESN'T JUST DUMP WATER IT ALSO DUMPS SEDIMENT. AND THAT THE SEDIMENT HAS BUILT UP OVER TIME, TO THE POINT OF HAVING CREATING MUD ISLANDS. AND THESE MIGHT ISLANDS, BY VIRTUE OF ACCRETION, HAVING HAPPENED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL SEAS, HAVE EXTENDED THE TERRITORY. AND THUS EXTENDED BASELINE. AS A RESULT, THE US SHIP, THE ANNA, WAS CAPTURED WITHIN US BORDERS. THIS OF COURSE BEING A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. SO THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BRITISH COURT WAS, CAN UNINHABITABLE MUD ISLANDS HAVING BEEN PRODUCED VIA ACCRETION, EXTEND THE TERRITORIAL SEAS OF THE NATION-STATE?
IF YOU STAND ON THEM YOU WILL SINK.
THE COURT RULED, YES!
THE CAPTURE HAPPENED THEREFORE IN THE UNITED STATES TERRITORIAL SEAS, AND IS THEREFORE ILLEGAL. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
SO WE'RE SPEAKING OF A SOUTH AFRICAN GOLD MINE IN 1899, A QUANTITY OF GOLD WAS SEIZED FROM THE COMPANY. IT WAS SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA. PROPER COMPENSATION MUST BE GIVEN. THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE, IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT PAY THE COMPANY. THE GOVERNMENT IS IN VIOLATION OF DOMESTIC LAW. THEY OWE £4000 TO WEST RAND, THE OWNER OF THE GOLD MINE. SO LIKE ANY GOOD BUSINESS THEY TOOK THE GOVERNMENT COURT. THEY DID NOT GIVE PROPER COMPENSATION AS STIPULATED IN AFRICAN PUBLIC LAW. AS THE CASE IS MOVING THROUGH THE COURTS, ENGLAND TAKES OVER SOUTH AFRICA. NOW WEST RAND, HAVE TO SUE THE KING OF ENGLAND. BECAUSE, ENGLAND IS NOW THE SUCCESSOR STATE, IT DID NOT TAKE A PIECE OF THE DIAGRAM, IT TOOK THE WHOLE THING. HUGO GROTIUS'S UNIVERSAL SUCCESSION THEORY WOULD SAY THAT ALL OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT HOLD TO THE SUCCESSOR AS WELL AS THE OBLIGATION TO PAY THE COMPANY ARE VALID AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY. THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THE COURT DID NOT USE HUGO GROTIUS' THEORY, THEY APPLIED THE NON-SUCCESSION THEORY.
AND IN THE RULING, THE COURT SAID THAT UNLESS THERE IS A PROCLAMATION ACCEPTING OBLIGATION THEN THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT EXISTING RESPONSIBILITIES OR DUTIES. IN OTHER WORDS, AFTER IN 1900 AS VERIFIED IN THE 1905 CASE, WHEN TERRITORY IS ACQUIRED BY A SOVEREIGN STATE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO ACCEPT ANY OF THE OBLIGATIONS UNLESS IT PROCLAIMS ITS WILLINGNESS TO DO SO. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| This principle states that newly independent countries get a trial period in which to try out treaties that they might become parties to. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) Formal request
This will come through the DOJ
District attorney knows the perpetrator has fled somewhere, they'll ask the DOJ for help.
2) Supporting Evidence
Begins with a list of the alleged crimes
You cannot just ask a country for someone
3) The Return of the Individual
There are obligations when a person is sent. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) Traditional
Contains a list of extraditable crimes
Tends to get outdated very quickly
US - Japanese treaty is still traditional
2) Modern Treaty
Based on the principle of double criminality
-If it's a crime in both countries it's extraditable |
|
|
Term
SAVARKAR 1911 PCA
FRANCE V UK |
|
Definition
DEMONSTRATES THE POLITICS INVOLVED IN EXTRADITION
+ THE FACT THAT MERE REQUEST IS NOT ENOUGH
SAVARKAR WAS A BRITISH INDIAN
BORN IN SOUTH ASIA AS A BRITISH CITIZEN WAS ON CUSTODY ON A BRITISH MAIL SHIP.
THE SHIP STOPPED IN FRANCE, HE WALKED OFF THE SHIP.
A POLICE OFFICER STOPPED HIM AND DEMANDED THAT HE RETURN TO THE SHIP DUE TO NOT HAVING THE CORRECT PAPERS. AFTER THE SHIP LEFT, THE FRENCH REALIZED WHO HE WAS AND DEMANDED HIM BACK.
THEY WANTED HIM BECAUSE HE WAS AN INDEPENDENCE LEADER AND THE FRENCH WERE TRYING TO PROTECT HIM.
QUESTION:
SHOULD SAVARKAR BE RESTORED TO FRANCE? ARE THEY OBLIGATED TO RETURN HIM?
NO. THE REQUEST WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
DEMONSTRATES THE POLITICS INVOLVED IN EXTRADITION.
BANKER IN CHICAGO. EMBEZZLING.
FLED THE US KNOWING HE WOULD BE ARRESTED.
WENT TO GREECE. US REQUESTED EXTRADITION. THE GREEKS DEMANDED EVIDENCE. WE SENT EVIDENCE. THEY ASKED FOR MORE, WE SENT MORE AND THE SUBSEQUENT ANSWER WAS, "NO, WE'RE NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE EVIDENCE."
HE THEN TRAVELLED TO TURKEY, WHO SENT THEM TO THE US SIMPLY FOR BEING PROTECTED BY THE GREEKS. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
SAUDI ARABIAN, WEALTHIEST PERSON IN THE WORLD.
INDICTED IN NY FOR RACQUETEERING.
ARRESTED IN SWITZERLAND.
RACQUETEERING WAS NOT A CRIME IN SWITZERLAND, NOT CORRELATING WITH THE TRADITIONAL TREATY IN PLACE.
WE NEEDED TO FIND A CRIME THAT WAS COMMON TO BOTH. |
|
|
Term
US V ROCHER
1886
US SUPREME COURT |
|
Definition
TREATY IN 1842.
BETWEEN US AND UK. GOVERNS EXTRADITION. WE WANTED ROCHER. WE REQUESTED EXTRADITION, WE SENT THE LIST THEY EXTRADITED HIM.. WE THEN ATTEMPTED TO PROSECUTE HIM FOR CRIMES NOT ON THE LIST.
THERE ARE 2 ASPECTS TO THIS CASE:
1) THE CRIME HE'S BEING PROSECUTED FOR.
2) THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR ADDITIONAL CRIMES.
THE LATTER WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
RULING:
NO.
-GOVERNED BY THE DOCTRINE OF SPECIALTY, WHICH SAYS:
THE DEFENDANT CAN ONLY BE PROSECUTED FOR
ACTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE TREATY FOR EXTRADITION.
YOU'RE NOT LIMITED BY THE REQUEST LIST, ONLY BY THE CRIMES IN THE TREATY. |
|
|
Term
UNITED STATES V. ALVAREZ-MACHAÍN,
504 U.S. 655 (1992) |
|
Definition
UMBERTO MACHAÍN
MEXICAN
A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT OF MEXICO, WAS FORCIBLY KIDNAPPED FROM HIS HOME AND FLOWN BY PRIVATE PLANE TO TEXAS, WHERE HE WAS ARRESTED FOR HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE KIDNAPPING AND MURDER OF A DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (DEA) AGENT AND THE AGENT'S PILOT.
DEA AGENT KIDNAPPED AND TORTURED, HE WOULD GIVE HIM MEDICAL TREATMENT SO HE COULD KEEP BEING TORTURED.
US INDICTED HIM WITH 20 OTHERS
PROBLEM IS A POLITICAL ONE. THE OFFICIALS COULDN'T BE TOLD, OTHERWISE THOSE HOLDING HIM WOULD'VE FOUND OUT.
SO DEA AGENTS HIRED A US CITIZEN TO GO TO MEXICO AND KIDNAP HIM FOR PROSECUTION IN AMERICA.
MACHAIN'S LAWYER WANTED A DISMISSAL FOR THE KIDNAPPING.
THE TREATY AND SOVEREIGNTY OF MEXICO WAS ILLEGAL. INITIAL COURT FELT THE SAME WAY.
THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THESE ARE SEPARATE LEGAL QUESTIONS.
THEY HAVE NO IMPACT ON EACH OTHER. THEY USED THE KERR DOCTRINE.
IN THE DOCTRINE, IT DETERMINED THAT FORCIBLE ABDUCTION DOES NOT STOP PROSECUTION.
US PRESIDENT DISAGREED WITH THE RULING.
FEAR WAS THAT THE MEXICAN GOV'T WOULD NO LONGER COOPERATE WITH DRUG INVESTIGATIONS.
HE WAS ACQUITTED. |
|
|
Term
| Reasons extraditions fail |
|
Definition
1 - Government involvement
(Pan Am 103 and the rainbow warrior case)
2 - Benefits to holding individuals
Nazi rocket scientists for instance
3 - Fear of harming relations between states
Pinochet helped the british with territorial access among other things when the UK was in the Falkland’s war. When Spain asked the UK to send Pinochet for extradition they chose not to so they wouldn't ruin relations.
4 - Decision to shield one's own citizens
Air force pilot in Italian alps case, for instance.
5 - Death Penalty obstacle
US is one of the only countries that has the death penalty
6 - Problems with sending state's domestic law
e.g. Trials in absentia
7 - POE (political offense exception)
In most extradition treaties there is a POE. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
BORN IN THAILAND TO DIPLOMAT
LIVED IN US SINCE 11, GERMAN CITIZEN
11-18 LIVED IN VIRGINIA
FELL IN LOVE WITH CANADIAN, MURDERED HER PARENTS
THEY FLED TO UK
CAUGHT, INTERPOL FINDS THEM.
US IS INFORMED, THE BRITISH WANTED ASSURANCES THERE WOULD NOT BE A DEATH PENALTY.
GF WENT RIGHT AWAY, GOT 90YRS.
SOERING APPEALED THE WHOLE PROCESS, FINALLY WENT TO UCHR. UCHR DOES NOT LIST DEATH PENALTY AS A BLOCK TO EXTRADITION. THEY USED DEATH ROW SYNDROME AS A DEFENSE.
23-0, THEY RULED IN HIS FAVOR, SAYING HE COULD NOT BE EXTRADITED TO US WITHOUT VIOLATING UCHR.
BRITS IGNORED THEM AND EXTRADITED HIM ANYWAY. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
SAMUEL SHINBEIN
UPON INDICTMENT, HE FLED TO ISRAEL
USED THE LAW OF RETURN
US REQUESTED EXTRADITION, NETANYAHU SAID ABSOLUTELY
THE ISRAELI COURT SAID NO.
UNDER DOMESTIC LAW THAT SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT EXTRADITE ISRAELI CITIZENS.
EXTRADITION WAS DENIED, PROSECUTED IN ISRAEL.
GOT MAXIMUM OF 20YRS. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) Act was in the open
2) Act was in support of political uprising
3) Uprising was connect to a struggle between 2 groups to control the government. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
SWISS CITIZEN WHO PARTICIPATED IN AN UPRISING.
ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHERS, THEY USED WEAPONS AND OVERTHREW THE LOCAL POLICE.
CAPTURED AND BOUND UP LOCAL OFFICIALS, THEN MARCHED TO THE PALACE.
PEOPLE IN THE PALACE SAW THEM COMING AND LOCKED DOWN. CASTIONI'S GROUP BROKE DOWN THE DOORS AND SHOT A MAN NAMED ROSSI IN THE HEAD.
HE FLED TO THE UK
SWISS REQUESTED EXTRADITION.
POE USED AS A DEFENSE.
QUESTION WAS: WAS IT A POE?
YES. IT WAS IN THE OPEN, THEY DIDN'T KNOW EACH OTHER AND WAS CLEARLY A POLITICAL OFFENSE.
EXTRADITION DENIED. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
FRENCH CITIZEN, ANARCHIST.
BLEW UP A BOMB AT A CAFE AND A MILITARY BARRACKS.
FLED TO THE UK.
FRANCE REQUESTED EXTRADITION. HAD TRIED HIM IN ABSENTIA (IT WAS OKAY BACK THEN)
RULING:
ACTIONS WERE COVERT, THE TARGETS WERE SOCIETY NOT GOVERNMENT AND THERE WAS NO MEANINGFUL OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT... HE WAS SIMPLY TRYING TO TEAR IT DOWN.
EXTRADITION GRANTED. |
|
|
Term
SCHOONER EXCHANGE V. MCFADDEN
1812 |
|
Definition
MCFADDEN OWNS THE SCHOONER.
THE SHIP SETS SAIL TO EUROPE, IS INTERCEPTED AND TAKEN BY FRANCE.
NAPOLEON CHANGES THE NAME AND USES IT FOR THE ARMY OF FRANCE.
THE SHIP LATER DOCKS IN THE US.
MCFADDEN WANTS THE SHIP BACK.
DEFENSE ARGUES THAT THE SHIP IS TITLED TO FRANCE AND THAT FRANCE IS IMMUNE FROM ANY PROSECUTION.
CAN AN AMERICAN ASSERT TITLE TO AN ARMED PUBLIC VESSEL OF A FOREIGN NATION?
NO. CASE WAS DISMISSED. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
JAPAN WAS IN THE PROCESS OF MODERNIZING ITS NAVY.
ORDERED 3 SHIPS FROM THE UK.
THE SHELLS THAT WOULD BE USED ON THE SHIP WOULD BE IMPORTED FROM GERMANY.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT AN ENGLISH CITIZEN HAD A PATENT ON THAT SHELL DESIGN.
HE SUED, THE UK COURT DISMISSED THE CASE BECAUSE THE SHELLS WERE ALREADY PLACED ON THE WARSHIP AND THEREFORE, OWNED BY JAPAN AND UK HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER JAPAN. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(ARGENTINA V. HESS)
THEY TRANSPORT CRUDE OIL FROM ALASKA TO THE BAHAMAS FOR PROCESSING.
IN 1982 THE FALKLANDS WAR BROKE OUT BETWEEN THE UK AND ARGENTINA.
HESS SHIPPING TOOK PRECAUTIONS AND RADIOED IN ALL IT'S IMPORTANT INFORMATION WHEN IT WENT THROUGH THE WAR ZONE; THE PURPOSE, THE CAPTAIN, COORDINATES, SPEED ETC.
AS THE SHIP PROGRESSED NEAR THE WAR ZONE, THE SHIP RELAYED THE INFO AGAIN.
LESS THAN AN HR LATER, ARGENTINEAN PLANES ATTACKED.
THEY BOMBED THE SHIP 3 TIMES.
THE DAMAGED SHIP WAS TOWED INTO RIO DE JANIRO
HESS FILED SUIT IN NY, CLAIMING MILLIONS IN DAMAGES AND LOSS PROFITS.
COURT COULD NOT CLAIM JURISDICTION. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
WAS A US PRIVATE VESSEL.
DAMAGED WHILE BEING TOWED BY A MEXICAN SHIP.
OWNERS SUED.
DEFENSE SAID THAT THE TOWING COMPANY IS PARTIALLY OWNED BY THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT ERGO, IT'S ACTIONS
CONSTITUTE AN ACT OF STATE, WHICH LEADS TO STATE IMMUNITY.
US COURT DISAGREED.
IT SAID THAT SINCE THE OPERATION WAS PRIVATE, IT WAS NOT COVERED BY STATE IMMUNITY. |
|
|
Term
CHEMICAL INC. V. VENEZUELA
1966 |
|
Definition
MORE DIRECT STATE PARTICIPATION.
ENERGY COMPANY CONTRACTED BY VENEZUELA TO BUILD A POWER FACILITY.
ONCE THE BUILDING WAS COMPLETE, THEY CANCELLED THE CONTRACT.
SOMETIME LATER, A VENEZUELAN OWNED SHIP MADE PORT IN THE US.
CHEM INC. ASKED THE JUDGE TO SEIZE THE SHIP TO PAY THEM BACK.
US COURTS RULED THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE BUSINESS DEALINGS, THEY ARE NOT COVERED BY STATE IMMUNITY. |
|
|
Term
TEXAS TRADING V. NIGERIA
1982 |
|
Definition
NIGERIA CAPITALIZED ON OIL PRICES IN THE EARLY 1980'S.
THEY NEEDED BRIDGES, ROADS ETC.
THEY'RE EXTREMELY CORRUPT. THEY GROSSLY OVER ORDERED THE AMOUNT OF CEMENT THEY NEEDED.
THEY ALL SHOW UP AT THE SAME TIME. NIGERIA JUST CANCEL IT ALL AND SAY, "NEVER MIND, GO HOME".
THEY SUE. NIGERIA CLAIMED ACT OF STATE. COURT RULED OTHERWISE. THE PURCHASE OF CEMENT WAS COMMERCIAL.
WHEN A COUNTRY ENTERS THE MARKET PLACE, THEY ARE GOVERNED BY THE RULES OF THAT MARKETPLACE. THE CONTRACTS WERE VALID AND MUST BE RESPECTED. |
|
|
Term
MIGUEL V. SULTAN OF JOHOR
1894 |
|
Definition
SULTAN VISITS ENGLAND AND GETS ENGAGED. CANCELS THE WEDDING, AND GETS SUED FOR DAMAGES. HE INFORMED THE COURT HE WAS THE SOVEREIGN OF A NATION STATE.
STATE IMMUNITY APPLIED. NO JURISDICTION. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
RELATES TO THE BOMBINGS OF PAN-AM 103. INVESTIGATION FOUND 6 LIBYANS GUILTY. TRIED THEM IN ABSENTIA.
FRENCH COURT. VICTIMS ASKED FRENCH COURT TO SUE KADDAFI.
LACK OF JURISDICTION. |
|
|
Term
EURODIA
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO V. BELGIUM
2002 ICJ |
|
Definition
BELGIUM HAD ISSUED AN ARREST WARRANT FOR MR. EURODIA.
HE WAS THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. CHARGED WITH CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
INCITED VIOLENCE THAT LED TO GENOCIDE.
THE ACTIONS OCCURRED BEFORE HE WAS MINISTER. DRC SUED IN THE WORLD COURT. DRC SAID THAT AS A MINISTER HE ENJOYED IMMUNITY. COURT AGREED AND ASKED BELGIUM TO RESCIND THE WARRANT.
SO IN THIS CASE, HE COMMITTED THE CRIMES WHEN HE WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, THEN BECAME MINISTER. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
CAME TO POWER IN CHILE IN 1973.
HIS OPPOSITION 'DISAPPEARED'.
1973-1990 HEAD OF STATE
1990 STEPPED DOWN, BUT RETAINED 'COMMANDER IN CHIEF' TITLE.
1990-1998 QUESTIONABLE IMMUNITY, BASED ON EURODIA, PROBABLY HAD IMMUNITY.
1998 RETIRES, BUT GETS TITLE OF 'SENATOR FOR LIFE' - ENJOYS DOMESTIC IMMUNITY.
GOES TO UK FOR BACK SURGERY, WHILE THERE, SPAIN REQUEST THAT HE BE EXTRADITED TO SPAIN FOR PROSECUTION OF 30 CRIMES. GENOCIDE ETC.
ARGUED HE ENJOYS IMMUNITY, AND THAT THE CRIMES HAD OCCURRED DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1973-1990 WHEN HE WAS HEAD OF STATE. COURT AGREED.
CASE DISMISSED AND ORDER BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO PAY COURT FEES AS PUNISHMENT.
THEY APPEALED, IN APPEALS IT WAS RULED THAT THE CASE CAN BE VIEWED. 6-1 IN FAVOR OF EXTRADITION.
REDUCED THE CRIMES FROM 30 TO 3, ALL HAPPENED AFTER 1988.
1988 WAS THE DATE WHEN THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE WAS RATIFIED BY THE UK.
CAT SPECIFICALLY DENIES HEAD OF STATE IMMUNITY.
BRITS DECIDED TO QUASH THE EXTRADITION BECAUSE HE'S AN OLD MAN AND HE'S SICK.
PINOCHET, ONCE IN CHILE, JUMPS UP AND THROWS HIS ARMS IN THE AIR DELIGHTING THE CHILEANS.
THE BRITS ARE PISSED. IN CHILE, MOMENTUM BUILT TO PROSECUTE HIM.
THE FIRST STEP WOULD BE TO STRIP HIM OF HIS TITLE.
CHARGED AND THEN HIS LAWYERS CONVINCED THE JUDGE THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA.
CASE DISMISSED.
SOMETIME LATER, HE GAVE A LUCID INTERVIEW TO A MIAMI BASED TV STATION.
COURT THEN REVERSED ITSELF AND PROSECUTED HIM. HE WAS FOUND GUILTY AND RECEIVED A LIFE SENTENCE. THE SENTENCE WAS THEN COMMUTED BECAUSE HE'S A "POOR OLD MAN". |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
THE PRINCESS HAS BEEN LIVING IN ORLANDO WHILE STUDYING ENGLISH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA. ARRESTED FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AGAINST HER SERVANTS.
THE SAUDI EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON SAID THE PRINCESS HAD DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY. BUT THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SAID AL-SAUD FAILED TO FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURES BY NOT NOTIFYING THEM OF HER ITINERARY IN AMERICA, THEREBY LEAVING HER WITHOUT IMMUNITY.
SHE LEFT AND NEVER CAME BACK. |
|
|
Term
FLORIDA V. PALM BEACH PRINCESS
(2002) |
|
Definition
GAMBLING SHIP
BASEBALL GAMBLING, DOESN'T GET TO THE HIGH SEAS UNTIL AFTER FIRST PITCH.
SO THEY ALLOWED 'INTENDED BETS'.
FLORIDIAN AUTHORITIES ARRESTED THE OWNER. FLORIDA'S COURT DETERMINED THAT INTENDED BETS ARE NOT REAL BETS AND THE CASE WAS DISMISSED. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Flag state + Territorial state share jurisdiction.
ANDERSON WAS AN AMERICAN ON UK FLAGGED VESSEL IN FRENCH TERRITORIAL WATERS. KILLED ANOTHER PASSENGER. DETAINED AND SENT TO ENGLAND FOR TRIAL. DEFENSE, FORUM NON CONVIENIEN.
"WE SHOULD BE IN FRENCH COURT" -RULING WAS THAT CORRECT, BUT SO DO WE, US FR AND UK GET JURISDICTION |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
BELGIAN SHIP. OFF THE COAST OF NJ, BELGIAN KILLED A BELGIAN. US AUTHORITIES ARRESTED THE INDIVIDUAL AND DETAINED THE WITNESSES. BELGIAN SAID THEY WOULD TAKE THE CASE THEMSELVES.
COURT SAID NO, CONCURRENT JURISDICTION APPLIES. THE ACT VIOLATED THE CIVILITY OF NJ. |
|
|
Term
| Limitations to MARE LIBERUM |
|
Definition
1-Fishing Nets (1.5miles long)
2-Piracy
----------------->Victim has jurisdiction
3-Slave Trade
4-Broadcasting
5-Blockade
6-No transportation of Rebels
7-Nuclear Weapons
8-Hot Pursuit Exception |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
CANADIAN LIQUOR SMUGGLING SHIP DURING PROHIBITION. SEEN IN US WATERS. PURSUIT BEGAN, THE WOLCOTT PURSUED. THE WOLCOTT HAD ENGINE TROUBLE AND LOST THE I'M ALONE.
IT THEN FOUND IT AGAIN LATER AND BOARDED IT. CANADA FILED CASE AGAINST THE US.
CLAIM WAS THAT ONCE HOT PURSUIT GOES COLD, YOU CAN NO LONGER PURSUE IT.
COURT RULED IN THEIR FAVOR. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
LESLIE WAS THE CAPTAIN. BRITISH MERCHANT SHIP.
CHILEAN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTED LESLIE TO TAKE PEOPLE TO LIVERPOOL. THEY REQUESTED OFF AT EACH PORT ON THE WAY. LESLIE REFUSED SAYING HE'S BOUND BY CONTRACT. EVEN THOUGH THE CONTRACT IS OKAY IN CHILE, HE WAS convicted for holding people against their will. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
TURK SHIP + FR SHIP
COLLIDE ON HIGH SEAS.. TURKS KILLED, DAMAGE DONE. TURK AUTHORITIES PULLED FR SHIP FROM HIGH SEAS FOR PROSECUTION. PCIJ RULED IN FAVOR OF TURKEY, SAYING TURKEYS ACTIONS DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. THEY POINTED TO MISSING INT'L LAW. BUT THERE WAS NOTHING IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT STOPPED THE TURKS FROM DOING WHAT THEY DID. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| If it doesn’t exist, it's not banned. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
----> We enjoy a 200mi Territorial sea.
----> Chile wanted it too, he said no, just us. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
One of the more controversial aspects of UNCLOS
Determined rights to mining manganese nodules. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Territorial sea - 0-12mi
----> Concurrent Juris
Contiguous zone - 12-24mi
----> Area of limited state Juris
EEC - 0-200mi
----> Fishing, etc.
Continental Shelf Zone - Up to 200mi
----> Can be extended with exception (north pole) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
DOCTOR IN PARAGUAY
SOLD ART IN LA
SON TORTURED AND MURDERED BY POLICE INSPECTOR
NO MEANS OF ACTION WITHIN THE COUNTRY
LEFT AND MOVED TO LA, DAUGHTER FINDS OUT THE POLICE INSPECTOR IS IN THE US, TELLS INS.
INS DETAINS HIM. SHE SUED HIM FOR $10M
3 DEFENSES:
I HAVE IMMUNITY ------
FORUM NON CONVENIENS------
FOUND JURISDICTION IN
1789 - FIRST AMERICAN CONGRESS - "ALIEN TORT STATUTE"
IT WAS AN ACT OF STATE ------
AFTER FILARTUGA, EVERYONE STARTED TO SUE EVERYONE, ISRAELIS, PALESTINIANS, IRAQIS ETC.
FOUND GUILTY.. STILL HASN'T PAID |
|
|
Term
| These four documents are considered the foundation of human rights. |
|
Definition
|
|
