Is something located outside of territorial waters protected by an international law? When reading about the Republic of Rose Island (a micronation implanted in 1968, 500m outside Italian territorial waters), I learned that it was attacked, then destroyed by the Italian police forces. Isn't this an act of piracy? I was expecting that entities that are on international waters are protected by some international law, and that it is not expected that a country would freely attack them. Or is it just that Italy could not care less about possible retorsions? This question is at the edge of SE Law and SE Politics but I am interested in the legal aspects of such coercive actions, more that the political ones.
Whatever else it may be, it isn't piracy. Piracy is covered by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part VII, and Article 101 defines it: Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b). Note the clause I've bolded. The raid on Rose Island was carried out by Italian government forces, not by &quot;the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft&quot;, and for purposes of enforcing government policy, not &quot;for private ends&quot;.
Maybe, but probably not The geographic location of the organisation is immaterial: under Article 3.2: This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: ... (b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union. Posts anyone (not just EU citizens) make to Reddit (or anywhere else) while they are physically located in the EU or UK engage the GDPR. Pushift.io is therefore captured by the GDPR and any denial of that is just plain wrong. Given the denial, it is likely right out of the gate that they are non-complient. For example, they are unlikely to provided the required information under Article 14. More importantly, it seems that they have not determined the lawful basis for processing the data under Article 6 - they can possibly rely on the public interest basis (preserving deleted publication is arguably a public interest) or a legitimate interest but that requires a balancing of their interest against the data subject's. That said, the right to be forgotten is not absolute, the reasons that might be applicable here are: The data is being used to exercise the right of freedom of expression and information. The data is being used to perform a task that is being carried out in the public interest or when exercising an organization’s official authority. The data represents important information that serves the public interest, scientific research, historical research, or statistical purposes and where erasure of the data would likely to impair or halt progress towards the achievement that was the goal of the processing.
EU Member State Data Protection Authorities (&quot;DPAs&quot;) have fined foreign legal entities (pursuant to Articles 58(2)(i) and 83 GDPR and further national provisions), however it is not publicly documented whether the specific situation you described has occured. Even if such situation would arise, I would think that it is unlikely that DPAs imposing administrative fines could enforce their (fine imposing) decisions outside the EU, even if the decision in question was confirmed by a court. For instance, in the Netherlands there is not a strong legal basis for the (mutual) recognition and enforcement of foreign administrative decisions. I could imagine that the same applies to other EU Member States. However, please note (possible) civil liability Your question seems to refer to enforcement of the GDPR under instruments of administrative / public law. Please note however that the GDPR can also be enforced by private individuals and organizations, e.g. through tortious liability claims. See for example Amsterdam District Court 2 september 2019, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:6490 for a situation (albeit purely national), in which the Court awarded damages for a GDPR breach to a data subject. Possibly, a similar case could be brought against an entity outside the EU that processes data of EU data subjects, contingent upon the outcome of certain questions of International Private Law. With regard to civil damages, there is an extensive international legal framework that covers the cross-border enforcement of rewards for civil damages. Likely, such rewards for damages could more easily be enforced outside the EU. However, I must note that such (private) cross-border enforcement of the GDPR has not happened in practice (yet) either (as far as I know). (Please note that this answer assumes (per the question) that the GDPR is applicable and only deals with the question of the territorial aspects of subsequent enforcement. See about the territorial scope of the GDPR: What is the legal mechanism by which the GDPR might apply to a business with no presence in the EU?).
I can't comment on what the legal situation would be in your home country, but as a matter of U.S. law, the hypothetical scenario you've described is not illegal. First, because you aren't a U.S. citizen and because you aren't operating in the United States, the U.S. government probably has no jurisdiction over you, your website, or your conduct. Even if it did, the most relevant statute, 18 U.S. Code § 1017, would not apply. The statute prohibits the &quot;fraudulent or wrongful&quot; use of the FBI's seal. But &quot;fraudulent&quot; and &quot;wrongful&quot; generally refer only to conduct where one uses deception or other means to obtain money, property, etc. to which they have no lawful entitlement. United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 399 (1973). Because you aren't using the seal to obtain anyone's property through deception, this use would not fall within the statute's proscriptions. Even if the government sought to prosecute you, you would have a valid First Amendment defense. The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, and it does not allow statements to be criminalized merely because they are false. United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012). This outcome should be unsurprising to most U.S. observers. I think most people would agree that the U.S. obviously cannot prosecute a Hollywood producer for making a movie dramatizing the FBI's efforts to shut down the Pirate Bay, even if it displayed the FBI's seizure message on a monitor in the course of the movie, and even if it showed the seal being used on a completely fictional website. The hypothetical you're describing is not materially different. In both cases, the seal is being used to falsely create the impression -- for entertainment purposes -- that the FBI has shut down a website. Saying false things for entertainment purposes is not a crime in the United States.
Countries can, and do, extradite accused criminals even in the absence of an extradition treaty. There is always some political context to any extradition decision. In particular the sending country's judgement of the fairness of the requesting country's system of courts will be a factor. As to the practicalities, the requesting country will often supply hearing transcripts with its request. In some cases witness may travel to the potential sending country to testify at a hearing there. Some countries will prosecute a person found in their jurisdiction for crimes allegedly committed elsewhere. Others will not, or only in limited circumstnces. Some treaties, such as the treaty on air piracy, require a county to either extradite or prosecute an accused. There is no one answer to what happens in such circumstances.
The sea area in question is a Marine Protected Area, which is referred to in the united-kingdom as a Marine Conservation Zone (as per No17 on the 2016 linked list) and lies within the UK's territorial waters. What UK law prohibits this? I have discounted my initial thoughts about s.58(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 as I strongly suspect the Greenpeace vessel is neither UK registered nor proceeding to/from a UK port. I have also considered the Criminal Damage Act 1971 which, although potentially viable* and has off-shore jurisdiction, I have discounted in favour of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 which creates the offence of depositing objects in the UK's territorial waters without a licence: s.65 Requirement for a Licence (1) No person may - (a) carry on a licensable marine activity ... except in accordance with a marine licence granted by the appropriate licensing authority. s.66(1) Licensable Marine Activity includes: 1.(a) To deposit any substance or object within the UK marine licensing area, either in the sea or on or under the sea bed, from ... any ... vessel ... s.66(4) states the &quot;UK marine licensing area” consists of the UK Marine Area which is defined by s.42 to include: the area of sea within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom What is the penalty? s.85(4) states anyone guilty of a s.65(1) offence is liable: (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £50,000, (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both. *relating to the seabed as well as the bottom trawlers.
Extradition treaties/agreements The general principle of international law is that all countries are sovereign and have jurisdiction over all people within their borders; in this regard they are not required to render any persons within their borders to another country, not even to be prosecuted for a crime. However, if the country the person is in has an extradition treaty or agreement with the country seeking to extradite them (in your case India) then the government may, in some circumstances, apprehend and render the person. Bars to extradition Commonly, the crime for which the person is to be extradited may be a bar to extradition, either because it is not illegal in the country that would surrender the person, or because it is of certain natures (usually political crimes), or because of the penalty the crime attracts (death penalty, for instance). As for this particular case, if I've read the news article correctly and that Mallya now resides in the UK, then there are extradition treaties between the UK and India and the subject could be extradited.
Yes. It is a crime almost everywhere to throw something at someone, even if it causes little or no injury. Usually it would be classified as "assault and battery" although if it damages clothing or other property, it could also be called, for example, "criminal mischief" which is intentional damage to property. It would also be a tort that could be enforced with civil damages in most places, although only nominal damages would be awarded and there would be no award for attorneys' fees. In practice, however, few people would press charges or turn to the police in such an incident, few police would take action based on the complaint because it is so trivial, and few people would sue in such a case. For what it is worth, the "living law" in Japan recognizes that someone has a duty to pay to clean your clothes or replace them if they can't be cleaned in such circumstances and most people appear to comply with that obligation without court involvement if the victim insists. Also, pie throwing as a political protest in Europe is also almost surely illegal under European law, although, again, this is rarely enforced by common political culture and tradition.