Counteracting the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction through Refusing Recognition and Enforcement
- 1 Faculty of Law, University of Macau, Macau, China
Abstract
In China’s development in foreign business, companies are suffering losses which British and European companies have experienced as well decades ago from the United States extraterritorial jurisdiction, effective countermeasures are needed badly. UK and EU respectively adopted blocking statutes to counteract in last century. Though both are blocking statutes, they have different aims and targets, they’re respectively against two kinds of extraterritorial laws. Countermeasures set therein can be concluded to three: refusing the effects of foreign judgments and orders from foreign authority, recovering the damages from specific awards and prohibiting the providing of information to foreign authority. This article mainly discusses the first countermeasures through comparing existing Chinese one with EU and UK. The adoption of “the Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extraterritorial Application of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures” is China’s first try in blocking statute, which absorbs some experience therefrom but also leaves some gaps. Through comparative analysis this article aims to provide for advice on this matter.
- Bloch, H. (1968). Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of US Courts in Sherman Act Cases. American Bar Association Journal, 54, 781-784.
- Brook, N., Hill, C., & Murphy, P. (2022). European Court Interprets EU Blocking Regulation For First Time. Clyde & Co LLP. https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2022/01/european-court-interprets-eu-blocking-regulation-f
- Browne, O., & Watret, T. (2020). Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2021. Law Business Research. https://www.pirilides.com/assets/modules/ppp/publications/219/docs/2021_enforcement_of_foreign_judgments_cyprus.pdf
- Byron, J. (2000). Square Dance Diplomacy: Cuba and CARIFORUM, the European Union and the United States. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y Del Caribe/European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 68, 23-45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25675864
- Carroll, A. J. (2020). The Extraterritorial Enforcement of US Antitrust Laws and Retaliatory Legislation in the United Kingdom and Australia. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, 13, Article 13.
- Conklin, D., & Cadieux, D. (2006). Trade and Investment Sanctions: Sherritt International, the United States and Cuba. Ivey Publishing. https://www.thecasecentre.org/products/view?id=70853
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 Protecting against the Effects of the Extra-Territorial Application of Legislation Adopted by a Third Country, and Actions Based Thereon or Resulting Therefrom [1996], OJ L 309/1 (1996).
- de Vries, A. (1998). Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (the EU Blocking Regulation). International Business Lawyer, 26, 345-353.
- Dupont, P. E. (2018). Dealing with Conflicting Sanctions Compliance Obligations in Financial Transactions. Journal of International Banking and Financial Law, 10, 642.
- Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act 1985 (1985).
- Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Act 1984 (1984).
- Geranmayeh, E. (2019). Meeting the Challenge of Secondary Sanctions. European Council on Foreign Relations.
- Hoda, M. J. (2018). The Aérospatiale Dilemma: Why US Courts Ignore Blocking Statutes and What Foreign States Can Do about It. California Law Review, 106, 231-261.
- Kahn, T. J. (1980). The Protection of Trading Interests Act of 1980: Britain’s Response to US Extraterritorial Antitrust Enforcement. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 2, 476-516.