If a nation rejects jurisdiction of international law, can it demand other to comply with international law? In 2020 Putin signed a law that on Russian territory Russian law supersedes international agreements. The actual wording nullifies international agreements that contradict the Constitution of Russian Federation, but, given that Putin can change the Russian Constitution at will, with pro forma referendum, of course, he can nullify anything he wills. Now the question: does the rejection of the priority of international agreements over domestic law nullifies Russia's ability to demand that other countries fulfill (different) international agreements? Can Russia say &quot;I am not bound by agreement A because it violates the Russian Constitution I just amended to contradict A, but I demand you to comply with a different agreement B?&quot;
International law is always subordinate to domestic law. In the Westphalian world we live in, all power rests with each and every Sovereign nation. International law is a creation of those nations and only has force where the affected nation acquiesces to it. For example, the US and Russia have refused to sign up to the International Criminal Court so that court has no jurisdiction in their territory or over their citizens. North Korea has refused to sign the Berne convention so there is no protection of foreign copyright there. Similarly, a nation, having entered a treaty, can revoke that treaty. There would be consequences but these would be geo-political, not legal. Of course nations can and do behave hypocritically - insisting that others follow the law they ignore.
Yes. The leading case relevant to the question is Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a self-executing bird migration treaty could override state law. It is also well established that a treaty may override a previously enacted federal statute. While there might be a requirement that the treaty not be a sham that really doesn't involve another county, or otherwise have an international component, as a practical matter, meeting this requirement is something that would almost always be possible. So, the President and a two-thirds majority of the Senate, in cooperation with a foreign country, by treaty, can accomplish legislative ends with which the House would not agree. As a practical matter, however, the two-thirds majority requirement for passage of a treaty in the Senate, the partisan organization of politics in the U.S., and the correlation of the partisan makeup of the Senate and the House, means that this observation is basically an irrelevant footnote. No treaty that could secure bipartisan support by two-thirds of U.S. Senators, and also be signed by the President, would not be able to be passed in the House. There has never been a time in U.S. history where one political faction has a two-thirds majority in the Senate and another political faction had a majority in the House. As a practical matter, it is almost always easier to pass ordinary legislation approved by majorities in the House and Senate, than it is to pass a self-executing treaty. The only scenario I could image where this might happen would be one in which an &quot;old guard&quot; President and Senate are in place, and then one election, some new political movement suddenly nearly sweeps the House and the U.S. Senate seats that are open due to some pivotal historic event, but there hasn't been more than a single Senate election or a Presidential election since that sea change in public opinion, something that very rarely has happened in other countries.
You might be misreading the extradition criterion The UK–USA extradition treaty has an example of the clause you're asking about: An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty. Similar wording is used in all other treaties that I have reviewed: UK–Algeria (&quot;offences which are punishable under the laws of both Parties by imprisonment or other deprivation of liberty for at least a period of one year&quot;) UK–Argentina (no extradition when &quot;the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for less than one year&quot;) UK–Bolivia (same as Argentina) UK–Chile (same as Argentina) ... UK–U.A.E. (&quot;offence is based is punishable under the laws of both Parties by deprivation of liberty for a period of at least one year&quot;) If there is a treaty that requires there to be a mandatory minimum punishment of at least one year, I have not found it. While you say that &quot;[u]sually, the minimum sentence for a crime has to be 12 months for an extradition to be allowed&quot; and &quot;[e]xtraditions are based on minimum sentence in the UK,&quot; my review of the treaties makes me doubt that. The rest of this answer explains how to interpret the clauses quoted above. It is enough that the offence gives rise to the &quot;possibility of a term of imprisonment or other form of detention of more than one year.&quot; The inquiry is focused on the offence that the conduct is alleged to give rise to and the range of punishment available for that offence generally. E.g. an offence with a minimum punishment of a fine and a maximum punishment of 16 years in prison is an offence that is &quot;punishable... by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more.&quot; Said another way: it is not necessary that the offence have a mandatory minimum of one year imprisonment. It is enough that the offence gives rise to the &quot;possibility of a term of imprisonment or other form of detention of more than one year.&quot; See Canada v. Barrientos, 1995 ABCA 468 (CanLII) at para 103, Hetherington J., dissenting; but appeal allowed, for the reasons of Hetherington J. by the SCC in Canada v. Barrientos, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 531. In Barrientos, the courts were interpretating Article 2 of the Canada–U.S. extradition treaty, with wording substantially similar to the UK extradition treaties I reviewed above: &quot;provided these offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.&quot; One remaining question is whether the decision-maker needs to consider the specific facts of defendant's conduct and make a preliminary estimation as to whether in fact a term of imprisonment more than one year is likely. This position has not been adopted in Canada. At the stage where a judge or Minister of Justice is determining the authority to proceed, this is not to become a &quot;sort of sentencing hearing.&quot; See USA v. English, 2002 BCSC 1902 at para 23.
First off, the people of Finland say that Santa lives in Korvatunturi, which would mean he is subject to Finnish jurisdiction. But if he were born, resided and worked at the North Pole, as the original question states, this spot is in international waters, and under the Convention on the High Seas that would be terra nullius. Therefore no nation can claim sovereignty over his home (we must also assume he is not on a plane or ship flying the flag of some nation: article 11 allows the detention of a ship on the high seas only under order of authorities of the flag state). That might immunize him from civil forfeiture of his home, but there is more to jurisdiction than where your home is. Under Article 14, all states "shall co-operate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State". Article 15 says what "piracy" is, which could be interpreted as referring to crimes against persons and property (but not possession of marijuana). Eritrea is not a signatory to this treaty, so they might claim legal jurisdiction, though enforcement of the claim could be challenging. The US has technically not ratified this treaty either, but we mostly observe it. Klaus could also be subject to US law (for example) in specific cases. The high seas are in the "special maritime jurisdiction" and the US can claim jurisdiction for offenses against a national of the US. Other states may have similar laws. A person whose IP had been copied can sue in their home country, so the lack of a North Pole jurisdiction would not protect Claus. B&amp;E is prosecuted where the offense happens; he would be free of business license laws; when he enters US airspace, he is subject to FAA regulations, and would be required to have a visa and passport to enter the US. In fact, most of the alleged crimes take place within the jurisdiction of a state.
it's not illegal to sign a contract that demands illegal things, however, such a contract, in general, is called an illegal contract. Illegal contracts are null and void. Contracts that violate public policy never have force in the first place. A contract can't force people to declare lies under oath or demand them to murder someone. Thus, a contract demanding such is illegal. As a result, such a clause would not just be unenforceable, it might void the entire contract wholesale if it is not severable. In the least, any clause demanding illegal acts was null and void ab initio, and never was valid. void contracts in law germany explicitly makes contracts void that are &quot;Sittenwidrig&quot; in § 138 BGB and also illegal ones in § 134 BGB Declarations to the Agentur für Arbeit are made under threat of perjury, and thus lying is illegal. It is also Sittenwidrig. This makes the provision void. Murder is illegal, inciting to murder someone is illegal, and so a contract to murder someone for pay is void. Such a contract also is Sittenwidrig. Selling the right to ask to marry your daughter per see isn't illegal, but it is Sittenwidrig and as such the contract is void. california judges refer to such contracts as illegal contracts, defining this as a test where making non-enforcement of such a contract something of public interest: It is in the public interest that people tell the truth to the unemployment office, so a contract demanding you to lie is illegal. It is illegal to lie on the stand (perjury), and thus the contract is illegal. Conspiracy However, the contract can also be evidence of criminal activity in itself: It manifests the will of two parties to commit an illegal act. That is the core of a conspiracy charge. Conspiracy is illegal and usually a felony. germany: Conspiracy to commit a crime is §30 STGB
Could the US extradite the Russian Hackers who started the cyber attack against the US private sector and US government agencies and departments? No. The United States and Russia do not have an extradition treaty. See Russian Indictment and Extradition | American Constitution Society. And within Russia, extradition is constitutionally prohibited; see Chapter 2. Rights and Freedoms of Man And Citizen | The Constitution of the Russian Federation. Is there forced extradition? Maybe. Either country could use covert action or even start a war to "force" extradition, or use a form of covert or overt rendition to bring the individuals to a country to face trial.
There is a potentially infinite regress of questions regarding the constitutionality of restrictions imposed under these "emergency" circumstances. The basic legal principle is clearly established: laws restricting fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny. The specific details of a particular law and surrounding circumstances have yet to be discovered by the courts. If it is necessary to the purpose of saving lives that meetings of more than 10 people be prohibited, then the "compelling interest" test probably has been satisfied. That is basically a medical question, and the courts have a limited interest in scientific controversies, instead they are interested in whether people who make legal decisions do so rationally (is it reasonable to think that such limits would accomplish that compelling government end). Is it reasonable to think that restrictions lasting two months are necessary? The Black Death lasted at least 4 years. In the current circumstances (very limited hard knowledge this disease), it's hard to say what government actions could not be excused based on necessity. Summary execution is, at least in the current knowledge context, probably not going to pass strict scrutiny. As already explained in other thread on the topic, there is no "churches are above the law" constitutional provision. The appropriate question in the Florida case is not about the First Amendment, it is about the Due Process clauses – is the arrest lawful? We will, no doubt, see. On the face of it, he violated the law, so he can be arrested. I understand that there is a team poking holes in the order.
It depends. International aviation law is tricky. One effort to set some standards down was the Tokyo Convention, also known as the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft. Here are some excerpts: ARTICLE 3 The State of registration of the aircraft is competent to exercise jurisdiction over offences and acts committed on board. . . . ARTICLE 4 A Contracting State which is not the State of registration may not interfere with an aircraft in flight in order to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over an offence committed on board except in the following cases: a) the offence has effect on the territory of such State; b) the offence has been committed by or against a national or permanent resident of such State; c) the offence is against the security of such State; d) the offence consists of a breach of any rules or regulations relating to the flight or manoeuvre of aircraft in force in such State; e) the exercise of jurisdiction is necessary to ensure the observance of any obligation of such State under a multilateral international agreement. The commander of the aircraft is also given some powers to restrain the perpetrator or any other person that poses a danger to the aircraft and/or its occupants. S/he is given some other options, such as the choice of where to deliver the offender (though this by no means implies that the person will be prosecuted by that State). The Convention (and related documents) was ratified by numerous nations. As for the bonus question, there doesn't appear to be any special EU law regarding this. The EASA does not cover these sort of offenses, though it would be the closest to a Europe-wide regulatory body that would be relevant here.