THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF US EXTRA-TERRITORIAL COUNTER-PROLIFERATION ENFORCEMENT

An article in the Contemporary Security Policy journal published on 25th March poses the question: how can a multilateral, norms-based international regime like UN SCR 540 contend with extraterritorial enforcement based on national interests?   The article argues that increased US extraterritorial counter-proliferation policies are a consequence of the inconsistent implementation of UN SCR 1540, adaptive and resilient proliferation networks, and a history of expanding legal interpretations of jurisdiction.  It finds that while US extra-territorial enforcement can effectively disrupt networks hiding in overseas jurisdictions, doing so creates disincentives for states to implement UN SCR 1540 obligations and undermines broader non-proliferation objectives.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13523260.2019.1595882?journalCode=fcsp20

Author: raytodd2017

Chartered Legal Executive and former senior manager with Isle of Man Customs and Excise, where I was (amongst other things) Sanctions Officer (for UN/EU sanctions), Export Licensing Officer and Manager of the Legal-Library & Collectorate Support Section

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s