Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    U.S.A. Vs Noriega

    Uploaded by

    Mogomogo Vito
    Noriega, the de facto leader of Panama, was indicted in the U.S. on drug trafficking charges. As his defense, Noriega claimed extraterritorial immunity since heads of state are usually exempt from foreign laws. However, the court ruled that Noriega was not entitled to this defense because he was not the recognized leader of Panama. Additionally, the U.S. had jurisdiction over Noriega based on customary international law allowing prosecution for crimes committed abroad that affect a country's national interests, like drug trafficking. The drug laws Noriega was charged under were intended to apply extraterritorially in order to stop drug importation and distribution.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    U.S.A. Vs Noriega

    Uploaded by

    Mogomogo Vito
    39 views1 page
    Noriega, the de facto leader of Panama, was indicted in the U.S. on drug trafficking charges. As his defense, Noriega claimed extraterritorial immunity since heads of state are usually exempt from foreign laws. However, the court ruled that Noriega was not entitled to this defense because he was not the recognized leader of Panama. Additionally, the U.S. had jurisdiction over Noriega based on customary international law allowing prosecution for crimes committed abroad that affect a country's national interests, like drug trafficking. The drug laws Noriega was charged under were intended to apply extraterritorially in order to stop drug importation and distribution.

    Original Title

    PIL 2

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Noriega, the de facto leader of Panama, was indicted in the U.S. on drug trafficking charges. As his defense, Noriega claimed extraterritorial immunity since heads of state are usually exempt from foreign laws. However, the court ruled that Noriega was not entitled to this defense because he was not the recognized leader of Panama. Additionally, the U.S. had jurisdiction over Noriega based on customary international law allowing prosecution for crimes committed abroad that affect a country's national interests, like drug trafficking. The drug laws Noriega was charged under were intended to apply extraterritorially in order to stop drug importation and distribution.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    39 views1 page

    U.S.A. Vs Noriega

    Uploaded by

    Mogomogo Vito
    Noriega, the de facto leader of Panama, was indicted in the U.S. on drug trafficking charges. As his defense, Noriega claimed extraterritorial immunity since heads of state are usually exempt from foreign laws. However, the court ruled that Noriega was not entitled to this defense because he was not the recognized leader of Panama. Additionally, the U.S. had jurisdiction over Noriega based on customary international law allowing prosecution for crimes committed abroad that affect a country's national interests, like drug trafficking. The drug laws Noriega was charged under were intended to apply extraterritorially in order to stop drug importation and distribution.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    U.S.A.

    vs Noriega Extraterritoriality is the state being exempt from the jurisdiction of the local law through diplomatic negotiations. The head of State, ambassadors and certain diplomatic agents are exempted from local jurisdiction. In the case of U.S.A. vs Noriega, federal grand jury sitting in Miami, Florida indicted Noriega and twelve co-conspirators on twelve counts of engaging in a criminal enterprise in violation of U.S. racketeering and drug laws. Extraterritoriality was the defense of Noriega. In this case, Noriega is not entitled to extraterritoriality. He cannot avail the immunity from the jurisdiction of the local law because Noriega was not the recognized leader of Panama. He was a de facto leader of Panama. According to the court to allow immunity regardless of a leaders source of power would allow illegitimate dictators the benefit of protection from their service of power. The United States of America has a jurisdiction over Noriega. Specifically the jurisdiction to prescribe. The United States of America has the ability to make its laws applicable to activities, relations and status of persons as a persons interest in property. In addition based on the customary International law, U.S.A. expands jurisdiction by emphasizing the offense committed outside the territory of a state and allows the exercise of jurisdiction where conduct is deemed harmful to the national interest of the forum. The state may impose liability even among persons who are not nationals for the conduct outside its borders that has effects and consequences within its borders that the state reprehends. In addition the determination whether the crime under which the defendant is charged as intended to have extraterritorial effect, Since the drug statutes applicable were designed to stop the importation and distribution of narcotics, all the crimes charged to him is so intended. The exercise of jurisdiction with the custom and practice of international law, according to the United States of America law, jurisdiction may be exercised over a foreign defendant who merely conspires or intends import narcotics into the nations territory. The INTENT DOCTRINE has resulted in the exercise of jurisdiction over the person who intended, but failed to import narcotics into the U.S..A because of the narcotics law where the purpose of which is to prevent smugglers from succeeding in introducing their illegal imports. VITO, MA. FIONNA B. 2-C

    You might also like