Chinese Journal of International Law Advance Access originally published online on August 27, 2008
Chinese Journal of International Law 2008 7(3):625-658; doi:10.1093/chinesejil/jmn032
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved
Extraterritorial Export Controls (Secondary Boycotts)
Correspondence: * Lecturer in International Law, Law Faculty, Utrecht University and Leuven University (email: c.ryngaert{at}law.uu.nl; cedric.ryngaert{at}law.kuleuven.be). This paper was completed in July 2008. For a general study of the law of jurisdiction, see C. Ryngaert, Jurisdiction in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2008).
Some States, the United States in particular, have given their export controls and economic boycotts extraterritorial application. As a result, persons and companies in other States have been prevented from exporting to or investing in the States that are actually the targets of the boycott. It is argued that extraterritorial export controls are unlawful under international law, unless they can be justified by accepted principles of jurisdiction (territoriality, national security, nationality), or if other States acquiesce. Permissive principles should not be construed too broadly, however: jurisdiction solely based on national control of foreign corporations does not seem to be lawful, nor does jurisdiction based on perceived but largely unsubstantiated security threats.