Reconceiving Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: From Formality to Function

本书反映了规范性国家管辖权的国际法制度的功能失调。它通过对美国和欧洲国家实践的比较分析，解构了国际法承认的行使域外管辖权原则的合法性。在此基础上，本书提出了域外管辖权的新概念，主张从域外管辖权行使公权力的功能来确定域外管辖权的有效范围。关于规范管辖权的习惯国际法规则被恰当地描述为“关于法律的法律”，因为它们为国家立法提供了外部界限。传统上，这些规则与领土主权原则密切相关，然而，强国越来越多地诉诸域外管辖权来管理也与或主要与其他国家利益相关的情况：美国针对诺德溪2号管道的经济制裁就是这方面的一个主要例子。然而，这种行动不再局限于美国：例如，联合王国严重欺诈办公室最近对一家加拿大飞机制造商涉嫌在印度尼西亚行贿展开调查。在这种背景下，出现了国际法中确定的管辖权分配与实际行使管辖权之间是否存在差异的问题。本研究报告通过对与企业监管有关的四个参考领域的国家实践进行比较分析，探讨了理论抱负与实际现状之间的差距。本书认为，虽然以属地为基础的管辖权制度似乎是在国家之间分配监管权限的一种直观方式，但它现在无法解释日益复杂的国际关系现实。事实上，领土管辖权发挥作用的基本要求之一已不复存在，因为越来越难以区分明显的领土措施和明显的域外措施。此外，属地管辖权和其他公认的管辖权依据在规范上也不具有说服力。具体而言，它们将国家主权利益提升为唯一相关的考虑因素，而排除其他同样重要的考虑因素，以证明域外管辖权的合理性。这本书提出的新方法试图克服实践和规范的挑战。为此，它主张，域外管辖权的合法性不仅应取决于属地性的形式标准，而且还应取决于职能方面，特别是行使公共权力的合法性和限制。

This book is a reflection on the dysfunction of the international law system of prescriptive State jurisdiction. It deconstructs, through a comparative analysis of US and European State practice, the legitimacy of the principles recognized under international law for the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, this book proposes a new conception and advocates to determine the valid reach of extraterritorial jurisdiction from its function as an exercise of public authority. The customary international law rules on prescriptive jurisdiction have aptly been described as “the law on laws” as they provide the outer limits for national law-making. Traditionally, these rules have been intimately connected to the principle of territorial sovereignty, Nonetheless, powerful States are increasingly resorting to extraterritorial jurisdiction to regulate circumstances which are also or predominantly connected to the interests of other States: The US economic sanctions targeting the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline are a prime example in this regard. However, such action is no longer limited to the United States: For instance, the Serious Fraud Office of the United Kingdom has most recently launched investigations into a Canadian aircraft maker for alleged bribery in Indonesia. Against this background, the question arises whether a discrepancy exists between the settled allocation of jurisdiction in international law and its exercise in practice. Through a comparative analysis of State practice in four reference areas related to business regulation, this study explores this gap between the theoretical ambitions and the practical status quo. This book argues that although the territoriality-based system of jurisdiction seems to be an intuitive way of allocating regulatory competence between States, it now fails to account for the ever more complex reality of international relations. In fact, one of the basic requirements for territoriality to function is not given anymore, as it is becoming increasingly more difficult to distinguish between clearly territorial and clearly extraterritorial measures. Moreover, territoriality and the other recognized jurisdictional bases are also not normatively convincing. Specifically, they elevate interests of State sovereignty to be the only relevant consideration, while barring other, equally essential considerations for justifying extraterritorial jurisdiction. The book’s proposed new approach seeks to overcome both the practical and the normative challenge. For that, it advocates that the legality of extraterritorial jurisdiction should not only depend on the formal criterion of territoriality, but also on functional aspects, in particular the legitimation and limitation of the exercise of public authority.