46 U.S.C. § 70505
Failure to comply with international law as a defense
A person charged with violating section 70503 of this title, or against whom a civil enforcement proceeding is brought under section 70508, does not have standing to raise a claim of failure to comply with international law as a basis for a defense. A claim of failure to comply with international law in the enforcement of this chapter may be made only by a foreign nation. A failure to comply with international law does not divest a court of jurisdiction and is not a defense to a proceeding under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: United States v. Matos-Luchi, 627 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010).
United States v. Matos-Luchi, 627 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010). “§ 1138(a)(4) (now codified at 46 U.S.C. § 70505 ). [4] Against this background, the district court's determination that the defendants' yola was "a vessel without nationality" within the meaning of the MDLEA was correct.”
United States v. Prado, 933 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2019). “" 46 U.S.C. § 70505 . 15 It is very difficult to reconcile the intentions Miranda attributes to Congress with the provisions Congress enacted.”
United States v. Yimmi Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2012). “See 46 U.S.C. § 70505 (“A claim of failure to comply with international law does not divest a court of jurisdiction and is not a defense to a proceeding under this chapter.”
United States v. Cardales-Luna, 632 F.3d 731 (1st Cir. 2011). “") ( superseded by statute, 46 U.S.C. § 70505 (2007)). Although the exact contours of what crimes come within UJ are not established with precision, there is a general consensus that to qualify for UJ the crime involve egregious, violent human rights abuses.”
United States v. Elder Nehemias Lopez Hernandez, 864 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2017). “” 46 U.S.C. § 70505 (emphasis added). Savala Cisneros may also be arguing that even if the certification conclusively proves the Guatemalan government’s response, i.”
United States v. Carlos Daniel Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025). “” 46 U.S.C. § 70505 . Accordingly, “any battle over the United States’[s] compliance with international law in obtaining MDLEA jurisdiction should be re- solved nation-to-nation in the international arena, not between criminal defendants and the United States in the U.”
United States v. Reyes-Valdivia, 23 F.4th 153 (1st Cir. 2022). “" 46 U.S.C. § 70505 . The provision further states that "only .”
United States v. Luis Munoz Miranda, 780 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “” 46 U.S.C. § 70505 . Under § 70504(a), similarly, a foreign nation’s stake in the application of the MDLEA in cases involving a non-United States vessel asserted to be subject to United States jurisdiction means that a defendant effectively lacks *1195 “standing” to waive or…”
United States v. Nueci-Pena, 711 F.3d 191 (1st Cir. 2013). “See 46 U.S.C. § 70505 . The district judge approved and adopted the report and recommendation in full in an order issued on April 9, 2008.”
United States v. Rosario, 17 F. Supp. 3d 144 (D.P.R. 2014). “§ 70504 (a)), and that a defendant had no standing to claim that enforcement violated “international law”-reserving such objections only to foreign nations, id.”
United States v. Martinez, 640 F. App'x 18 (1st Cir. 2016). “46 U.S.C. § 70505 ; see also Mitchell-Hunter, 663 F.”
United States v. Nixon Javier Bautista Ortiz (11th Cir. 2020). “(discussing 46 U.S.C. § 70505 ). A defendant charged with a MDLEA violation “does not have standing to raise a claim of failure to comply with international law as a basis for a defense.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.