Preview

Russian Law Journal

Advanced search

Jurisdictional Countermeasures Versus Extraterritoriality in International Law

https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2016-4-4-27-45

Full Text:

Abstract

Sovereignty is the reason why States seek to apply their jurisdictions. All States like to extend their jurisdictions as far as they can, so some of them have adopted extraterritorial policies in exercising their jurisdictions. In this manner the United States has approved several extraterritorial Laws in respect of competition law and sanctions, causing some coercion to non-target states. In response to this long-arm jurisdiction by the U.S., some countries, such as the U.K., Canada, Australia, Mexico etc., as well as the E.U., took actions of their own in order to nullify these extraterritorial laws. These measures, which are mostly applied to the jurisdictional field, could be described as jurisdictional countermeasures. They can be divided into prescriptive, adjudicative and executive measures, which include blocking statutes, claw-back statutes, non-recognition, procedural restrictions, non-execution and retaliatory measures. Not all of these measures are prohibited by international law and some can be viewed as a just retorsion against that State. However, where the application of these measures is prohibited by international law – in cases such as the non-recognition of foreign judgments and other jurisdictional regulations in international treaties like mutual judicial assistance agreements – they are countermeasures. If these actions are in response to an illegal extraterritorial law, they should comply with the conditions for countermeasures as cited in the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 as approved by the International Law Commission.

About the Author

Seyed Yaser Ziaee
University of Qom
Iran, Islamic Republic of

Assistant Professor of the International Law Group;

Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, 3716146611, Iran



References

1. Akehurst M. Jurisdiction in International Law, 46 British Yearbook of International Law 145 (1974).

2. Borchard E. Confiscations: Extraterritorial and Domestic, 31(4) The American Journal of International Law 675 (1937).

3. Borchard E. Extraterritorial Confiscations, 36(2) The American Journal of International Law 275 (1942).

4. Clark H.L. Dealing with U.S. Extraterritorial Sanctions and Foreign Countermeasures, 25(1) The University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 455 (2004).

5. Clark H.L., Wang L.W. Foreign Sanctions Countermeasures and Other Responses to U.S. Extraterritorial Sanctions, Report of National Foreign Trade Council, August 2007.

6. Coughlan S. et al. Global Reach, Local Grasp: Constructing Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in the Age of Globalization, 6 Canadian Journal of Law and Technology 26 (2007).

7. Coughlan S. et al. Law Beyond Borders: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in an Age of Globalization (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2014).

8. Curotto D.J. Extraterritorial Application of the Antitrust Laws and Retaliatory Legislation by Foreign Countries, 11(2) Golden Gate University Law Review 577 (1981).

9. Dugard J. & Van den Wyngaert C. Reconciling Extradition with Human Rights, 92(2) American Journal of International Law 187 (1998).

10. Gelb L. U.S. Hardens Curbs on Soviet Gas Line, N.Y. Times, June 19, 1982, at A-1.

11. Giumelli F. The Success of Sanctions Lessons Learned from the EU Experience (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013).

12. Janis M.W. The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Law: The Antelope’s Penal Law Exception, 20(1) International Lawyer 303 (1986).

13. Layton A. & Parry A.M. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: European Responses, 26(2) Houston Journal of International Law 309 (2004).

14. Lowe A.V. Blocking Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The British Protection of Trading Interests Act, 1980, 75(2) The American Journal of International Law 257 (1981).

15. Lowe A.V. The Problems of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Economic Sovereignty and the Search for a Solution, 34(4) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 724 (1985).

16. Lowe A.V. US Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The Helms-Burton and D’Amato Acts, 46(2) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 378 (1997).

17. Mann F.A. The International Enforcement of Public Rights, 19(3) New York International Journal Law in Politics 603 (1987).

18. Mullenix L.S. Another Choice of Forum, Another Choice of Law: Consensual Adjudicatory Procedure in Federal Court, 57(3) Fordham Law Review 291 (1988).

19. Price R.E. Foreign Blocking Statutes and the GATT: State Sovereignty and the Enforcement of U.S. Economic Laws Abroad, 28 George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics 315 (1995).

20. Ryngaert C. Jurisdiction in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

21. Seidl-Hohenvelden I. Extraterritorial Effects of Confiscations and Expropriations, 49(6) Michigan Law Review 851 (1951).

22. Solis A.M. The Long Arm of U.S. Law: The Helms-Burton Act, 19(3) Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal 709 (1997).

23. Strong S.I. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in U.S. Courts: Problems and Possibilities, 33 Review of Litigation 45 (2014).

24. Yntema H.E. The Comity Doctrine, 65(1) Michigan Law Review 9 (1966).


For citation:


Yaser Ziaee S. Jurisdictional Countermeasures Versus Extraterritoriality in International Law. Russian Law Journal. 2016;4(4):27-45. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2016-4-4-27-45

Views: 814


ISSN 2309-8678 (Print)
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)