Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-w79xw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-20T06:31:09.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Back to Bedrock with U.S. Extraterritoriality? Safeguarding Domestic Rule Integrity as a Touchstone for Judicial Action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Tonya Putnam
Tonya Putnam*
Affiliation:
Columbia University, Department of Political Science
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
New Voices II: Internationalizing and Domesticating Law
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 105 , 2011 , pp. 443 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010).

2 A paradigmatic example in the securities realm is the practice of exercising jurisdiction over extraterritorial acts of improper passing of information in violation of Rule 10(b)(5) where that information is subsequently used in transactions on U.S. exchanges. This aspect of extraterritorial securities enforcement is not affected by the holding in Morrison.

3 Turley, Jonathan, “When in Rome”: Multinational Misconduct and the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality, 84 NW. U. L. Rev. 598 (1990)Google Scholar.

4 Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A Global Community of Courts, 44 Harv. Int’l L.J. 191 (2003)Google Scholar.

5 For a full account of how these arguments are operationalized, see Putnam, Tonya L., Courts without Borders: Domestic Sources of U.S. Extraterritoriality in the Regulatory Sphere, 63 Int’l Org. 459 (2009)Google Scholar, which also tests these arguments on data up to 2003.

6 See, e.g., Kramer, Larry, Extraterritorial Application of American Law After the Insurance Antitrust Case: A Reply to Professors Lowenfeld and Trimble, 89 Am. J. Int’l L. 750, 755 (1995)Google Scholar.

7 Morrison, supra note 1, at 2873.

8 542 U.S. 155 (2004).

9 See, for example, Buxbaum, Hannah, National Courts, Global Cartels: F.-Hoffman La Roche v. Empagran S.A. (U.S. Supreme Court 1984), 5 German L.J. 1095, 1106 (2004)Google Scholar.