Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Extraterritoriality in the application of economic sanctions

View through CrossRef
The article covers the issue of extraterritoriality in the application of unilateral economic sanctions. The article considers the relationship between the theoretical principles of state jurisdiction and legal acts and practice of states in respect of imposing economic sanctions. The jurisdiction of the state imposing sanctions may be territorial, i.e. extend to its territory and to persons who are in it, or extraterritorial, i.e. extend beyond its territory. In the field of economic sanctions, extraterritorial jurisdiction can be exercised on the active nationality, protective, and universality principles. The active nationality principle, i.e. regulation by the state of the conduct of its citizens and legal entities registered in it, is generally accepted and does not cause any objections. The protective principle, based on the need to protect national interests, is actively used by the United States, which provokes criticism. Recently, the universality principle, the imposition of sanctions on persons violating human rights, has become important. The lawful exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction requires a link between the state and the object of its jurisdiction. In the EU, there is a concept of the “links existing with the EU”, and in the US, there is a concept of the “American element”. The US greatly expands its jurisdiction in respect of economic sanctions by insisting on the existence of the “American element” in cases of foreign legal entities owned or controlled by US persons, using the US financial system, and possessing goods, technologies, or services originating from the US. In the sanctions issue, the EU bases itself solely on the territoriality and active nationality principles and has consistently rejected the US position on the extraterritorial expansion of US sanctions. It is concluded that despite the opposition, in fact, the United States expands the scope of extraterritorial jurisdiction by national legislation and national practice of its application in the field of economic sanctions. 
Title: Extraterritoriality in the application of economic sanctions
Description:
The article covers the issue of extraterritoriality in the application of unilateral economic sanctions.
The article considers the relationship between the theoretical principles of state jurisdiction and legal acts and practice of states in respect of imposing economic sanctions.
The jurisdiction of the state imposing sanctions may be territorial, i.
e.
extend to its territory and to persons who are in it, or extraterritorial, i.
e.
extend beyond its territory.
In the field of economic sanctions, extraterritorial jurisdiction can be exercised on the active nationality, protective, and universality principles.
The active nationality principle, i.
e.
regulation by the state of the conduct of its citizens and legal entities registered in it, is generally accepted and does not cause any objections.
The protective principle, based on the need to protect national interests, is actively used by the United States, which provokes criticism.
Recently, the universality principle, the imposition of sanctions on persons violating human rights, has become important.
The lawful exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction requires a link between the state and the object of its jurisdiction.
In the EU, there is a concept of the “links existing with the EU”, and in the US, there is a concept of the “American element”.
The US greatly expands its jurisdiction in respect of economic sanctions by insisting on the existence of the “American element” in cases of foreign legal entities owned or controlled by US persons, using the US financial system, and possessing goods, technologies, or services originating from the US.
In the sanctions issue, the EU bases itself solely on the territoriality and active nationality principles and has consistently rejected the US position on the extraterritorial expansion of US sanctions.
It is concluded that despite the opposition, in fact, the United States expands the scope of extraterritorial jurisdiction by national legislation and national practice of its application in the field of economic sanctions.
 .

Related Results

Extraterritorialities in Occupied Worlds
Extraterritorialities in Occupied Worlds
The concept of extraterritoriality designates certain relationships between space, law, and representation. This collection of essays explores contemporary manifestations of extrat...
Researching Modern Economic Sanctions
Researching Modern Economic Sanctions
Economic sanctions are an integral part of states’ foreign policy repertoire. Increasingly, major powers and international organizations rely on sanctions to address an incredibly ...
European Extraterritoriality in Semicolonial Ethiopia
European Extraterritoriality in Semicolonial Ethiopia
Scholarly discussions regarding European legal imperialism in semicolonial nations of the modern era have not considered Ethiopia. China, Japan and other Middle and Far Eastern nat...
International Sanctions
International Sanctions
No authoritative definition of a “sanction” exists in international law, yet the term is frequently used to describe unfriendly measures short of war, particularly those of economi...
Economic sanctions and human security : overstated backfire
Economic sanctions and human security : overstated backfire
[ACCESS RESTRICTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT AUTHOR'S REQUEST.] A large body of scholarship have shown that economic sanctions cause human suffering in target states. This u...
Economic Coercion and Sanctions
Economic Coercion and Sanctions
Since at least the Athenian trade ban on Megara, in the run-up to the Peloponnesian War, states have used economic sanctions to pursue their foreign policy goals. Using a definitio...
Unilateral Sanctions in the Context of Modern International Law
Unilateral Sanctions in the Context of Modern International Law
The author discusses the modern international legal framework governing the application of sanctions. The author focuses on the following issues: international and regional sanctio...
Energy Sanctions Hegemony
Energy Sanctions Hegemony
<p><i>While the United States leverages its global financial dominance to deploy unilateral energy sanctions as a primary economic tool, these sanctions create an impos...

Back to Top