How are EU member states, and entities under them, legally forced to apply EU imposed sanctions? Typically how is SWIFT the global payment network, which is under Belgian law, required legally to implement the EU sanctions?
Typically, nobody has to force it. Somebody in the SWIFT organization, calls and holds a meeting of the board of directors, everyone on the board of directors votes as they are supposed to vote, and it happens, with implementation by the SWIFT organization's officers. It is very unusual for a country with a say in the process to deviate from a direction to do so. Ultimately, if necessary, a lawsuit to compel action could be brought in an appropriate court, possibly a Belgian court, possibly an E.U. court, or possibly a court in the country of a recalcitrant delegate. But it is rare that this is necessary.
This is a hard question, but a good question. The following relates to the issue from the perspective of the USA. You ask "...if the US wants to invade France, can they officially declare war by...", You have to make clear what you mean by "can". If you mean whether or not the US has the physical ability to do this, then of course they do. If you mean whether they are allowed, then this is another question. When you ask whether something is allowed, then you have to make reference to a moral code or a law that determines what is and what isn't allowed (legal). Normally each country will have laws that govern what is and what isn't legal for it's citizens to do. That hard part is how this applies to nations. There are two sides to the question. (1) What are the leaders allowed to do under their own laws, (the domestic laws) (2) what are countries as entities allowed to do? (the international laws) It sounds a bit like you are asking about the second thing. Here treaties govern what is and what isn't "legal". However, usually when someone breaks a law, other entities have the power to enforce that law and decide (judge) whether the person has broken the law. The question is: who decides whether a country has broken a treaty or an international law? And if a law is broken, what exactly can be done about it? This is hard to answer. Consider for example the conflict in Ukraine. Here many will argue that Russia has piratically invaded Ukraine. There should be war between the nations. But Russia denies this and other world powers have done little beyond imposing sanctions. This illustrates how hard it is to deal with this question. One question that comes up is what the purpose of international treaties are if a country can just violate them without much consequence. Pointing out two points about this. (1) If, for example, a president wants to convince his/her own congress that the country should engage in war, then it makes a stronger point if you can show how the country you want to engage has violated international trities. (2) After you have won a war, you might want to prosecute the leaders of the loosing power. Here you will stand stronger if you can make references to some international law that existed before the conflict started. This second point is illustrated in the Nuremberg principles. Here it was exactly stated that "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment." According to the US constitution "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". That means that historically Congress has the power to decide where to wage war. The War Powers Resolution says, for example, that "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities ...". Note that this doesn't mean that the US has do formally declare war before going to war. Example: The Iraq War was authorized by Congress, but there never was a formal declaration of war. It is interesting that you ask about the timing for when the declaration should be given. The Japanese wanted to deliver their declaration of war just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. But because of issues with decrypting the message from Japan to the Japanese Embassy, the declaration wasn't delivered until after the attack. Remember also in all of this that the winning party to a conflict, usually decides what was and wasn't legal! One good reference for more on all of this is the report by the Congressional Research Service called "Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications". Here you can see more on what I have tried (and failed?) to say above.
The short answer is generally yes, but also.... it depends. The long answer is also... it depends. The first question is what (or who) is actually being sanctioned, second who is impacted by the sanction, third what is the specific sanction? There are a variety of different types of sanctions, sanctions against the state, businesses, people, etc. Most sanctions for example are against specific people, or conduct like investment or movement of capital, not necessarily the purchase of goods. I go into further discussion below, but for the quicker answer to your specific question, unless the person you are buying from is directly sanctioned or the subject of sanctions, or the entities specifically involved in the sale of goods (export company, vessel, etc) are directly sanctioned (or Russian companies operated in Crimea), yes it would be legal to purchase. So yes, unless the specific item you are buying/ entity you are buying it from is specifically sanctioned it would be legal, it is not particularly common for sanctions to prohibit the purchase of goods by consumers, unless there is a unique circumstance. Here is the 2-3 page overview of U.S. sanctions on Russia: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/IF10779.pdf As to the further discussion. For example see below, many current sanctions are against government officials; Or in the case of EO 13685 from 2014 concerning the occupation of Crimea many of the sanctions imposed aren't strictly against Russia, but instead prohibits U.S. business, trade, or investment in occupied Crimea. EO 13685 excerpt: Section 1. (a) The following are prohibited:(i) new investment in the Crimea region of Ukraine by a United States person, wherever located; (ii) the importation into the United States, directly or indirectly, of any goods, services, or technology from the Crimea region of Ukraine; (iii) the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, services, or technology to the Crimea region of Ukraine; and (iv) any approval, financing, facilitation, or guarantee by a United States person, wherever located, of a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited by this section if performed by a United States person or within the United States. (b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order. (And even then sanctions may apply, unless they don't...) CRS Report: The United States has imposed sanctions related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on at least 735 individuals, entities, vessels, and aircraft that OFAC has placed on its Specially Designated Nationals List (SDN) or Sectoral Sanctions Identification List (SSI) (see Table 1 and Table B-1). The basis for most of these sanctions is a series of four executive orders (E.O.s 13660, 13661, 13662, and 13685) that President Obama issued in 2014.15 In addition, the Department of Commerce’s BIS denies export licenses for military, dual-use, or energy-related goods to designated end users, most of which also are subject to Treasury-administered sanctions. Two of President Obama’s Ukraine-related E.O.s target specific objectionable behavior. E.O. 13660 provides for sanctions against those the President determines have undermined democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine; undermined Ukraine’s peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity; misappropriated Ukrainian state assets; or illegally asserted governmental authority over any part of Ukraine. E.O. 13685 prohibits U.S. business, trade, or investment in occupied Crimea and provides for sanctions against those the President determines have operated in, or been the leader of an entity operating in, occupied Crimea. The other two E.O.s provide for sanctions against a broader range of targets. E.O. 13661 provides for sanctions against Russian government officials, those who offer them support, and those operating in the Russian arms sector. E.O. 13662 provides for sanctions against individuals and entities that operate in key sectors of the Russian economy, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/R45415.pdf https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/russia-sanctions See further references below: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/12/24/2014-30323/blocking-property-of-certain-persons-and-prohibiting-certain-transactions-with-respect-to-the-crimea https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/topic/1576 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/ukraine-russia-related-sanctions https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/ukraine_overview_of_sanctions.pdf
I know the OP is asking about America, but its also worth knowing about other countries. This is legal if both subscriber and subscription are within the EU. There was also a court case about this. In another case in 2014 the pub lost, but that seems to have been because the decoder was only licensed for domestic use. These cases were for satellite decoders rather than Internet streaming, but the legal issues would be the same. Both these cases involved British pubs, so obviously this law doesn't apply to them since Brexit.
I think you vastly exaggerate the difficulty. Basically: when a user registers, ask for their address, including country, as well as a phone number (including country code, which you may validate via SMS for instance). This should give you the 2 pieces of information that help you determine the country In the case of the UK, HMRC says: Support for MOSS registered micro-businesses UK micro-businesses, that are below the current UK VAT registration threshold and are registered for the VAT Mini One Stop Shop (VAT MOSS), may use best judgment and base their ‘customer location’ VAT taxation and accounting decisions on a single piece of information, such as the billing address provided by the customer or information provided to them by their payment service provider. based on the country, use the standard VAT rate for that country. The difficulty here is to track when those rates change, but your accountant should be able to keep up with that. There is very little chance any special reduced rate would apply to such services, and in any case, no tax authority will complain if you apply the standard rate instead of the reduced one! then declare everything online to your local MOSS (you don't need to register with each tax authority! You can, but you don't need to). In the case of a micro-business, this should be more than enough to comply with the rules.
IANAL, but a EULA is a Contract of Adhesion https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_contract_of_adhesion and restrictions against publishing benchmarking data about products is fairly common https://www.eff.org/wp/dangerous-terms-users-guide-eulas A contract is a contract, even a click-through, and is legally binding; there is plenty supporting case law. You sign when you click: http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-operations/contracts-and-electronic-signatures.html Basically, VMware has lots more money than you do. If they are annoyed at your posting of benchmarks that don't make their products look as good as they feel they should, they can at very least send a DMCA to the site that posts the benchmarks. Whether that works could depend on where the website is hosted. At most, they could take you to civil court, if you are in their jurisdiction. What happens, if you refuse to take your unapproved benchmark down? Can they sue you? Yes. (In civil, not criminal court). How much leg does a clause like this stand on the courts? In the United States? A contract is a contract. And VMware and you (I assume) are in the US, so the contract is enforceable. In the rest of the world? Outside of the US, enforceability is variable; that is searchable in law databases for each country and agreements between countries. Consider your motives for posting benchmarks against VMware's EULA. Do you have good points to make? Or are you simply complaining about the product? Who has more money to spend defending or fighting the EULA? You or them? If you're seriously concerned about this, talk to a lawyer and don't take legal advice from the general public.
The answer to this question would also heavily depend on which country the transaction is occurring. Supreme court of South Korea ruled in July 2009 that exchanging virtual currency for real world currency is legal, even though doing so was against the game's terms of service. Consequently, players cannot be held legally liable for trading their virtual currency into real money if the game is being serviced in South Korea. This however, does not mean the company cannot suspend your account for doing so. Likely, other countries have different laws about this type of transaction, which you should look into. Source: Official ruling of the case (in Korean)
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.