Part I The Conceptual Framework, 4 Jurisdiction and MNE Regulation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muchlinski Peter T
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
International Law ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Regulatory Standards ◽  
Legal Jurisdiction ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

This chapter investigates the legal basis for exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over multinational enterprises (MNEs). The state’s exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction rests on the international law rules relating to state jurisdiction. A state’s legal jurisdiction can be divided between the jurisdiction to prescribe laws, to adjudicate disputes and to enforce legal orders and judgments. This classification follows the traditional division of governmental authority between legislative, judicial and executive powers, though each branch of government can engage in any of the three. The chapter evaluates the three heads of jurisdiction in turn, relying to a large extent on US practice, which is the most developed in this field. In more recent years, not only the United States, but other global economic powers, have sought to avoid extraterritoriality conflicts though harmonization of regulatory standards and the development of cooperative regulatory structures.

The Practice of Asylum in Legations and Consulates of the United States

1909 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 562-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Unstable Condition

The practice of extending protection, or “ asylum,” within the walls of legations and consulates to refugees and unfortunates, rests upon no very satisfactory legal basis, but rather upon considerations of humanity. Though from time to time certain recognized doctrines of international law and certain doctrines of somewhat more doubtful recognition have been asserted in justification, it will be found that the so-called “ right of asylum ” is no right at all, but only a privilege granted or claimed where its use seems necessary by reason of an unstable condition of society.

scholarly journals Frontiers of International Law: Counteracting the Exercise of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
René Lefeber
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
Joint Action ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

On 22 November 1996, the Council of the European Union adopted a framework regulation and agreed to joint action to ‘protect’ the interests of the European Union and its citizens against the extraterritorial application of legislation by non-member states. These measures were adopted in response to the extraterritorial application of certain measures by the United States, concerning trade with and investment in Cuba, as well as investment in Iran and Libya. These United States measures apply to all natural and legal persons irrespective of their nationality, residency, or place of activity. Thus, even nationals of a member state of the European Union residing and active in the European Union must comply with the United States measures. The enactment of this legislation marks a new episode in the on-going battle between the United States and the European Union over the frontiers of a state's (or an international organization's) jurisdiction to prescribe. This time, however, the European Union counteracted by the adoption of measures which can partly be characterized as retorsion measures and partly as countermeasures. The adoption of these measures by the European Union raises questions with respect to the legitimacy of the retorsion measures and the legality of the countermeasures.

Title III of the Helms-Burton Act Is Consistent with International Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 434-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brice M. Clagett
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Argument ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Title Iii ◽  
Moral High Ground ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, otherwise known as the Helms-Burton Act, became law on March 12, 1996. Title III of the legislation creates a federal cause of action, on behalf of U.S. citizens whose property was confiscated without compensation by Cuba, against those who “traffic” in that property. Several governments—notably Canada, Mexico and those of the European Union, whose corporate citizens are the principal “traffickers”—have denounced the legislation as an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction that violates customary international law. These governments apparently see nothing wrong with permitting—even encouraging—their nationals to use and profit from property that rightfully belongs to others. The United States not only commands the moral high ground on this issue; it also has the better of the legal argument.

The Legality of the Killing of Osama bin Laden

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 47-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cerone
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Major Obstacle ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Osama Bin Laden ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Domestic Law

In assessing the legality of the killing of Osama bin Laden one is reminded of a saying about the situation in Lebanon. If you think you understand it, it has not been properly explained to you.Of course, one major obstacle is that we do not have all the facts. However, we also do not have all the law.The complexity of analyzing the legality of the killing begins with the threshold issue of applicable law. Is the conduct to be analyzed according to domestic law or international law? If domestic law, then which country’s domestic laws are applicable? Certainly that of the United States and Pakistan would be applicable. Saudi law might also apply (e.g., on the basis of nationality), in addition to the laws of those countries that have another basis under their domestic law for exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction (e.g., on the universality principle).

Marine Boundaries: States and the United States

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-171
Author(s):  
Gerard Mangone
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Coastal Area ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Marine Boundaries

AbstractMarine boundaries between states of the United States and between the states and the United States have a long and contentious history. Disputes have arisen between states separated by a river and between states in extending their land boundaries seaward. Especially since the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, disputes between states and the federal United States over title to valuable resources in the three-mile coastal area measured from the shoreline have been sharp and continuous. The legal basis for the delimitation of marine zones, including common law, statutes and international law, has been explored, indicating the reliance of courts on all three sources plus equitable principles.

Conclusion

2020 ◽  
pp. 215-218
Author(s):  
Natsu Taylor Saito
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Racial Disparities ◽  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Colonial Theory ◽  
Infinite Variety

Settler colonial theory provides a conceptual framework for understanding the origins of racial disparities and injustices in the United States. International law supports Indigenous rights, and the rights of all peoples to self-determination. Self-determination can be exercised in an infinite variety of ways, and any action that empowers people can contribute to their decolonization.

scholarly journals Limits on the Extraterritoriality of United States Export Control and Sanctions Legislation

2021 ◽  
pp. 187-217
Author(s):  
Joop Voetelink
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Export Control ◽  
Export Controls ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
The Right ◽  
States Export

AbstractThe sovereignty of states is reflected in the notion of jurisdiction, empowering them to enact and enforce laws and regulations, and to adjudicate disputes in court. The jurisdiction of states and the exercise thereof is primarily territorial, limiting the exercise of state authority to their respective national territories except in specific situations. However, in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, it would be hard to maintain that a state should be denied the right to exercise its sovereign powers beyond national borders when there are reasonable grounds for doing so. Consequently, the exercise of extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction has become more accepted, although it is limited to particular situations and circumstances. These have to do with the exercise of jurisdiction over nationals, vessels and aircraft registered in or pertaining to the legislating state, as well as certain activities aimed at undermining the state’s security or solvency or which constitute crimes under international law. However, in principle it is not allowed to regulate activities of foreign nationals or entities operating wholly outside the legislating state’s territory. One area where this has become increasingly prevalent is through the exercise of export controls over foreign nationals and legal persons. The United States (US) has long been engaged in the exercise of this type of extraterritorial jurisdiction and is, without doubt, the state that is most proactive in doing so. This chapter considers US extraterritorial claims with respect to its export control and sanctions legislation and explores the limits of this practice under public international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document