Can a nation A stop nation B from issuing visas to citizens of nation A? How would it legally work? For example, could India force U.S. consulates to stop issuing H-1B visas, or other specialized visas, by claiming it amounts to poaching of important human resources? Edit: I used 'brain drain' as just an example. What I wished to know was how much control can a country exert on other countries' consulates on its land. Barring shutting down a consulate, what can a country do to prevent issuance of visas?
I assume the goal here is for nation A to prevent citizen A1 from travelling/emigrating to nation B. It can be done, but not in the way you're suggesting. It can be achieved by instituting exit visas. Wikipedia reference: Nepal requires citizens emigrating to the United States on an H-1B visa to present an exit permit issued by the Ministry of Labour. This document is called a work permit and needs to be presented to immigration to leave the country. Which is essentially what you're after, if I understand your question correctly. In short, nation A cannot tell nation B to not grant a particular visa. But nation A can require citizen A1 to get nation A's explicit permission to travel to nation B. However, as you can see in the list of examples on the Wikipedia page, exit visas are not all that common and are often linked to fascist or authoritarian regimes (which means that imposing an exit visa is liably going to raise a few eyebrows in western society, to say the least). I was genuinely surprised that Nepal still has an exit visa; I initially wrote my answer under the assumption that I would only find historical occurrences.
Not necessarily The laws of each country will apply to the assets held in that country. In some jurisdictions, inheritance is mandated by law and there is no freedom for a testator to determine who inherits what: Pakistan is one such jurisdiction. In Pakistan, if the deceased is a Muslim, then inheritance proceeds according to Islamic law and the will is irrelevant. If they are not a Muslim, then the law of their domicile jurisdiction applies - so for a resident of say, California, Californian succession law applies including following a will if one exists. South African law recognises freedom of testation (subject to certain limits) so a foreign will will generally be followed.
The example that you have given in your question regarding the travel ban does not actually constitute contradiction since one federal judge chose to issue an order but the other does not, thus the actions taken does not contradict. However, what you described actually happened before with the first travel ban (EO 13769). A federal judge in Boston, Judge Nathaniel Gorton, refused to extend a temporary injunction against the travel ban. However, another federal judge in Seattle then granted a temporary restraining order Friday that’s effective nationwide. As this CBS article states: Meanwhile, in a seemingly contradictory ruling, a federal judge in Boston refused to extend a temporary injunction against Mr. Trump’s travel ban. U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton late Friday declined to renew an order prohibiting the detention or removal of persons as part of Trump’s executive order on refugees and immigrants. In this case, Judge Gorton declined to extend a temporary injunction against the travel ban. So, legally, nothing changes since he did not issue any new order or temporary injunction; the EO (travel ban) will stay as it is and when the existing temporary injunction expires, the EO will be back in force. Even yesterday, the federal judge in Hawaii issued a temporary restraining order which blocked the travel ban from being enforced. However, the federal judge in Maryland only blocked part of the travel ban, ruling that the most important section — banning travel from half a dozen countries — could not be enforced. The Hawaii court ruling would still &quot;take precedence&quot; since the temporary restraining order blocked the whole EO. Thus, it can be seen that there are mainly three ways for federal judges to rule: Grant a temporary restraining order for the travel ban. Block part of the order. Decline to issue any order; the travel ban will remain as is. To conclude, whenever a federal judge issues a temporary restraining order, it will always be in force as it would &quot;overwrite&quot; the other federal rulings in which the judges blocks part of the order or do not issue any order.
Child custody (and alimony) are determined by state courts, so the exact details are state-dependent. There is no legal basis for a person preventing thrie former spouse from moving (assuming the host country doesn't deny a visa), but the courts would be involved in determining whether the child can be taken along: parent A cannot legally just pack up the kids and bolt. When parents don't agree, then the court must determine what outcome is in the best interest of the child. If the children want to move, that counts in favor of them moving ("counts in favor" does not mean "decides the matter"). If the moving parent doesn't have viable employment prospects abroad, that counts against them moving. The amount of time each parent spends with the children also matters, not to mention the laws of your state (here is what the California courts say: "Move-Away" Situations). Generally speaking, the moving parent has to provide notice, then the non-moving parent has to file a legal action to block the move. Your attorney will discuss all of the relevant considerations with you. The fact of a parent moving to another country does not per se invalidate court-ordered support, but the court can modify an order if circumstances warrant (there's no obvious reason why moving to France would result in modification of such an order).
What does it accomplish? It guarantees that all corporations doing business in New York can be served. (A company's having an agent for the service of process does not prohibit people from serving the corporation directly. The secretary may be "the agent upon which process may be served" but is not "the sole agent upon which process must be served." And besides, process need not be served on an agent; it can be served on the company itself, at its office or on one of its officers.) With this requirement, New York makes it impossible for a company to avoid service of process by closing or moving its offices, by sending its officers and employees out of state, or by making itself unavailable by any means. No matter what steps a company might take to avoid service of process, the process server can always resort to serving the company's agent: the Secretary of State.
I don't know about that particular case, but you are basically right: In Switzerland, if you want to apply for citizenship, you apply for it in the municipality first. Everybody having the citizenship of the municipality has the swiss citizenship as well. In theory, the canton and the state also have something to say, but that's irrelevant for most applications. This has historic reasons, but going into the details is beyond the scope of this question. Fact is, that every municipality has its own rules, about when and how applications are handled. This has been unified a bit in recent years, but some things still differ. That is for instance, how many years you need to have lived there or who decides your application. There were municipalities (actually most) where the final decision was made using a public vote. This practice was declared illegal by the federal court some years ago, because becoming a citizen is a formal governmental act, and as such a reason needs to be given for turning an application down. This is inherently impossible with a vote. Since that law decision, most municipalities have shifted the responsibility to a committee for citizenship applications. The public can still bring in arguments, but they need to be justified (ie. if somebody knows about the applicant being a wanted criminal somewhere). Consequently, you can now call for a court to check whether the given reasoning is correct and just, if you are turned down.
The private organizations, in difference to international organizations (the organizations, members thereof are the countries) or the countries are not subjects of international law. They are also not a subject of criminal laws, so they technically can't break the law. The people can. If the actions of such organizations will break some laws, the people staying behind that organization will be made responsible. Either it will be single individuals, or the whole organization might be declared criminal (such as mafia or a gang) and there everyone, including stakeholders or casual employees/contractors might be subjects to interrogation, arrest and sentence. As for the problem you describe, when the organization made something illegal under one jurisdiction, and the stakeholders are sitting in other country, where such actions are not illegal, they might only partially be safe. They might be arrested not only in the country where the legal actions are taken, but also in third countries, that have extradition agreements with that country.
There are two major relevant judicial decisions: the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on whether Kosovo's unilateral declaration was in accordance with international law, and the Supreme Court of Canada's opinion on whether Quebec had the right under international law to unilaterally secede. Judicial opinions aren't terribly common, because questions of secession are usually handled through force of arms. Although the Canadian decision was made by a national court, it's considered a significant work of reasoning and is often cited on this issue (for instance, it was heavily cited in briefs before the ICJ). The ICJ held that Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence was in accordance with international law. However, this did not mean that Kosovo could unilaterally secede. As the ICJ noted, they were not asked what the legal consequences of the declaration were and they were not asked whether Kosovo was independent. They were only asked whether making the declaration violated international law. The ICJ found that in general international law does not prohibit unilateral declarations of independence. In particular situations they might violate other rules of international law (e.g. if they're tied to an unlawful use of force or violation of peremptory norms), but in general a unilateral declaration of independence is not illegal. Again, though, the ICJ took pains to emphasize that they were not making any decisions about the right to secede. The case was only about announcing that a country was seceding. The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling, in contrast, was about whether actual secession was allowed. The court found that it was not, under either Canadian or international law. While international law creates a right to self-determination, that right typically only justifies secession in colonial empires. In general, a people is meant to achieve self-determination in the state they reside in. When a people is fully integrated into the life and governance of their state, they are not being denied self-determination. They might not always get what they want, but if two people disagree then someone is always going to be disappointed. The court held that A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self‑determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity recognized by other states.