Views
How to Criticize U.S. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (Part II)
Written by Bill Dodge, the John D. Ayer Chair in Business Law and Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at UC Davis School of Law.
There are better and worse ways to criticize U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. In Part I of this post, I discussed some shortcomings of a February 2023 report by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “The U.S. Willful Practice of Long-arm Jurisdiction and its Perils.” I pointed out that the report’s use of the phrase “long-arm jurisdiction” confuses extraterritorial jurisdiction with personal jurisdiction. I noted that China applies its own laws extraterritorially on the same bases that it criticizes the United States for using. I argued that the report ignores significant constraints that U.S. courts impose on the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws. And I suggested that China had chosen to emphasize weak examples of U.S. extraterritoriality, such as the bribery prosecution of Frédéric Pierucci, which was not even extraterritorial.
In this post, I suggest some better ways of criticizing U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. Specifically, I discuss three cases in which the extraterritorial application of U.S. law appears to violate customary international law rules on jurisdiction to prescribe: (1) the indictment of Huawei executive Wanzhou Meng; (2) the application of U.S. sanctions based solely on clearing dollar transactions through U.S. banks; and (3) the application of U.S. export controls to foreign companies abroad based on “Foreign Direct Product” Rules. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs report complains a lot about U.S. sanctions, but not about the kind of sanctions that most clearly violates international law. The report says much less about export controls and nothing about Meng’s indictment, which is odd given the tensions that both have caused between China and the United States. Read more
How to Criticize U.S. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (Part I)
Written by Bill Dodge, the John D. Ayer Chair in Business Law and Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at UC Davis School of Law.
China has been critical of U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. In February, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a report entitled “The U.S. Willful Practice of Long-arm Jurisdiction and its Perils.” In the report, the Ministry complained about U.S. secondary sanctions, the discovery of evidence abroad, the Helms-Burton Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, and the use of extraterritorial jurisdiction in criminal cases. The report claimed that U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction has caused “severe harm … to the international political and economic order and the international rule of law.”
There are better and worse ways to criticize U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs report pursues some of the worse ways and neglects some better ones. In this post, I discuss a few of the report’s shortcoming. In a second post, I discuss stronger arguments that one could make against U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. Read more
International child abduction: navigating between private international law and children’s rights law
In the summer of 2023 Tine Van Hof defended her PhD on this topic at the University of Antwerp. The thesis will be published by Hart Publishing in the Studies in Private International Law series (expected in 2025). She has provided this short summary of her research.
When a child is abducted by one of their parents, the courts dealing with a return application must consider several legal instruments. First, they must take into account private international law instruments, specifically, the Hague Child Abduction Convention (1980) and the Brussels IIb Regulation (2019/1111). Second, they have to take into account children’s rights law instruments, including mainly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
News
The Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed)
On 30 May 2025, the signing of the Convention on the Establishment of the International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) in Hong Kong marked an advancement in the field of international dispute resolution. Attended by representatives from over 85 countries and 20 international organisations – including the United Nations – the event introduced a treaty-based institutional framework dedicated specifically to mediation.
The IOMed Convention – with equally authentic texts in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish – outlines a structured, treaty-based model of mediation whose scope is deliberately broad, encompassing disputes between States, between a State and nationals of other States, as well as disputes between private parties involved in international commercial relationships (Article 24).
A defining feature of the IOMed Convention is its treatment of the legal effect and enforceability of mediated outcomes. Articles 40 and 41 affirm both the binding nature of settlement agreements resulting from IOMed-facilitated mediation and their enforceability within the domestic legal systems of contracting States. This model of consensual yet normatively binding dispute resolution finds a compelling parallel in – and complements – the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the Singapore Convention). The Singapore Convention – which, as of 3 July 2025, counts 58 signatories and 18 parties – reinforces party autonomy while requiring the good faith implementation of mediated settlements. Particularly significant is Article 3 of the Convention, which obliges courts in contracting States to recognise international commercial settlement agreements and to enforce them in accordance with domestic procedures, provided the agreement satisfies the Convention’s requirements. While the Singapore Convention offers a uniform and efficient framework for the enforcement and “invocation” (see Art. 3(2)) of international settlement agreements resulting from mediation, the IOMed Convention contributes by establishing the institutional and procedural framework necessary for the conduct of mediation itself. Together, these instruments enhance both the normative foundation and the practical viability of cross-border mediation, thereby reinforcing its legitimacy in complex international commercial contexts.
Beyond its dispute resolution functions, IOMed also assumes a broader mandate to promote mediation (Art. 5). This includes fostering best practices (Art. 5(b)), organising conferences and training initiatives (Art. 5(c)), and implementing targeted capacity-building programmes (Art. 5(d)). A dedicated Mediation Fund (Art. 44), financed through voluntary contributions, is intended to promote equitable access to services, while a Capacity Building Committee (Art. 43) provides strategic oversight in this domain.
Ultimately, the IOMed Convention does not seek to alter the fundamental character of mediation. Rather, it aims to provide a coherent legal and institutional foundation at the international level. By anchoring mediation within a treaty-based framework, the IOMed Convention offers States and other actors a structured yet flexible environment in which to pursue dialogue-based resolution, with greater predictability, neutrality, and institutional support – while preserving the essential consensual nature that distinguishes mediation from adjudication. While its practical impact will depend on how States and other actors engage with its mechanisms over time, the Convention offers a new platform for exploring the potential of mediation in a variety of international contexts.
The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention enters into force for the United Kingdom
Today the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention entered into force for the United Kingdom. The UK signed this Convention on 12 January 2024 and filed its instrument of ratification on 27 June 2024.
On 26 March 2025, the UK extended the 2019 Judgments Convention to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Initially, the UK had extended this Convention to England and Wales only. These declarations will take effect on the day the Convention enters into force for the UK in accordance with Articles 25 & 30(3)(4) of the said Convention. For more information, click here. Read more
Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 4/2025: Abstracts
The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts“ (IPRax) features the following articles: