Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 8
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Escresa, Laarni and Picci, Lucio 2015. A New Cross-National Measure of Corruption. The World Bank Economic Review, p. lhv031.


    Kelley, Judith G. and Pevehouse, Jon C.W. 2015. An Opportunity Cost Theory of US Treaty Behavior. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 59, Issue. 3, p. 531.


    Bach, David and Newman, Abraham 2014. Domestic drivers of transgovernmental regulatory cooperation. Regulation & Governance, Vol. 8, Issue. 4, p. 395.


    Choi, Stephen J. and Davis, Kevin E. 2014. Foreign Affairs and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 11, Issue. 3, p. 409.


    Newman, Abraham and Bach, David 2014. The European Union as hardening agent: soft law and the diffusion of global financial regulation. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 21, Issue. 3, p. 430.


    Suda, Yuko 2013. Transatlantic Politics of Data Transfer: Extraterritoriality, Counter-Extraterritoriality and Counter-Terrorism. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 51, Issue. 4, p. 772.


    Fariss, Christopher J. 2010. The Strategic Substitution of United States Foreign Aid. Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 6, Issue. 2, p. 107.


    Gibbs, Carole McGarrell, Edmund F. and Axelrod, Mark 2010. Transnational white-collar crime and risk. Criminology & Public Policy, Vol. 9, Issue. 3, p. 543.


    ×

Courts Without Borders: Domestic Sources of U.S. Extraterritoriality in the Regulatory Sphere

  • Tonya L. Putnam (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S002081830909016X
  • Published online: 01 July 2009
Abstract
Abstract

Regulating private transactions across international boundaries has long posed a challenge to states. Extraterritoriality—the direct regulation of persons and conduct outside a state's borders—is an increasingly common mechanism by which strong states attempt to manage problems associated with transnational activities. This article seeks to account for variation across issues in the willingness of U.S. courts to regulate extraterritorially by focusing on the potential for external conduct to undermine domestic legal rules. It suggests further how attention to domestic-level regulatory processes, with particular focus on the role of private actors, can shed new light on transnational rulemaking and enforcement.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Kenneth W. Abbott , and Duncan Snidal . 2002. Values and Interests: International Legalization in the Fight Against Corruption. Journal of Legal Studies 31 (1):S141–78.

Michael Bailey , Judith Goldstein , and Barry R. Weingast . 1997. The Institutional Roots of American Trade Policy: Politics, Coalitions, and International Trade. World Politics 49 (3):309–38.

David P. Baron 2001. Private Politics, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Integrated Strategy. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 10 (1):745.

Lawrence Baum . 1994. What Judges Want: Judges' Goals and Judicial Behavior. Political Research Quarterly 47: 749758.

Curtis A. Bradley 2000. ‘Chevron’ Deference and Foreign Affairs. Virginia Law Review 86:649726.

Jonathan I. Charney 1989. Judicial Deference in International Relations. American Journal of International Law 83 (4):805–13.

Daniel W. Drezner 2001. Globalization and Policy Convergence. International Studies Review 3 (1):5378.

John A. Ferejohn , and Barry R. Weingast . 1992a. A Positive Theory of Statutory Interpretation. International Review of Law and Economics 12 (2):263–79.

David J. Gerber 1983. The Extraterritorial Application of the German Antitrust Laws. American Journal of International Law 77:756–83.

Michael J. Glennon 1989. Foreign Affairs and the Political Question Doctrine. American Journal of International Law 83:814–21.

Jack Goldsmith . 1998. Against Cyberanarchy. University of Chicago Law Review 65:11991250.

Robert O. Keohane 2002. Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World. New York: Routledge.

Kimi Lynn King , and James Meernik . 1999. The Supreme Court and the Powers of the Executive: The Adjudication of Foreign Policy. Political Research Quarterly 52 (4):801–24.

Christoph Knill . 2005. Introduction: Cross-national Policy Convergence: Concepts, Approaches and Explanatory Factors. Journal of European Public Policy 12 (5):764–74.

Walter Mattli . 2001. The Politics and Economics of International Standards Setting: An Introduction. Journal of European Public Policy 8 (3):328–44.

George L. Priest , and Benjamin Klein . 1984. The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 13:155.

Anne E. Sartori 2003. An Estimator for Some Binary-Outcome Selection Models Without Exclusion Restrictions. Political Analysis 11 (2):111–38.

Jeffrey A. Segal 1988. Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General During the Burger and Warren Courts: A Research Note. The Western Political Quarterly 41 (1):135–44.

Beth A. Simmons 1998. Compliance with International Agreements. Annual Review of Political Science 1:7593.

Alan O. Sykes 1999. The (Limited) Role of Regulatory Harmonization in International Markets for Goods and Services. Journal of International Economic Law 2 (1):4970.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Organization
  • ISSN: 0020-8183
  • EISSN: 1531-5088
  • URL: /core/journals/international-organization
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×