Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. American Journal of International Law
  4. Volume 98
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 98 - January 2004

Contents

Page 3 of 8

Current Developments

  • Restrictions on U.S. Attorneys Practicing Before International Criminal Tribunals

  • Jonathan G. Cedarbaum
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 February 2017, pp. 141-149

  • On May 28, 2003, President Bush issued Executive Order No. 13,304 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), thereby “blocking” the property of individuals who, he determined, threatened efforts to bring stability to the Balkans. The blocking order prohibited U.S. citizens from, among other things, “making or receiving… any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of” any of die targeted individuals unless the U.S. citizen received a license from the U.S. government. Included in the list of targeted persons were more than eighty individuals indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). EO 13,304's sweeping prohibition on U.S. citizens’ economic relations with die targeted persons consequently appeared to ban U.S. lawyers from representing virtually any defendants being prosecuted at the ICTY—a ban mat would have required the twenty or so U.S. lawyers widi such clients to break off their representation immediately, regardless of die stage that their cases had reached. Indeed, the U.S. Treasury Department office that administers IEEPA blocking orders informed three U.S. attorneys representing a client in a complex, lengthy appeal that, without a license, dieir continued representation of that client constituted a “prohibited exportation of legal services” and thus violated the order and its accompanying regulations.

International Decisions

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

International Decisions

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

International Decisions

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

International Decisions

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

International Decisions

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

International Decisions

Page 3 of 8