Extraterritoriality and National Security: Protective Jurisdiction as a Circumstance Precluding Wrongfulness

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Noah Bialostozky
{"title":"Extraterritoriality and National Security: Protective Jurisdiction as a Circumstance Precluding Wrongfulness","authors":"Noah Bialostozky","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2143686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article posits that the present conception of protective jurisdiction — whereby states may assert jurisdiction over extraterritorial conduct that endangers certain national security interests — fails to delimit state conduct in a manner reconcilable with general principles of international law. Protective jurisdiction’s vague formulation has enabled states to use the concept as a pretext for legislating conduct in foreign territory that bears no meaningful connection to their national security. Take the example of a recent United States material support of terrorism law, which asserts protective jurisdiction over a broad range of foreign conduct in support of the Basque Fatherland and Liberty organization (“ETA”), even though the ETA arguably does not pose a meaningful threat of harm to U.S. national security. Under the prevailing international conception of protective jurisdiction, the U.S. statute is reviewed for “reasonableness” based on comity considerations and comparative state interests. Yet, without the consent of Spain and other affected states, such cross-border regulation should be subject to a rule of international law that requires a juridical link between the extraterritorial conduct and national security. This Article proposes to standardize such a link by reformulating protective jurisdiction as a circumstance precluding wrongfulness under international law. Just as the state of necessity and self-defense doctrines indicate circumstances where otherwise internationally wrongful conduct is exceptionally permitted for the purpose of national security, this Article argues that protective, cross-border regulation should be limited to those exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to protect the regulating state from harm to an essential security interest. Only in those circumstances would a state be sufficiently connected to extraterritorial conduct to warrant interference in the domestic affairs of another state.","PeriodicalId":45475,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Transnational Law","volume":"52 1","pages":"617-686"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2012-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Transnational Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2143686","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This Article posits that the present conception of protective jurisdiction — whereby states may assert jurisdiction over extraterritorial conduct that endangers certain national security interests — fails to delimit state conduct in a manner reconcilable with general principles of international law. Protective jurisdiction’s vague formulation has enabled states to use the concept as a pretext for legislating conduct in foreign territory that bears no meaningful connection to their national security. Take the example of a recent United States material support of terrorism law, which asserts protective jurisdiction over a broad range of foreign conduct in support of the Basque Fatherland and Liberty organization (“ETA”), even though the ETA arguably does not pose a meaningful threat of harm to U.S. national security. Under the prevailing international conception of protective jurisdiction, the U.S. statute is reviewed for “reasonableness” based on comity considerations and comparative state interests. Yet, without the consent of Spain and other affected states, such cross-border regulation should be subject to a rule of international law that requires a juridical link between the extraterritorial conduct and national security. This Article proposes to standardize such a link by reformulating protective jurisdiction as a circumstance precluding wrongfulness under international law. Just as the state of necessity and self-defense doctrines indicate circumstances where otherwise internationally wrongful conduct is exceptionally permitted for the purpose of national security, this Article argues that protective, cross-border regulation should be limited to those exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to protect the regulating state from harm to an essential security interest. Only in those circumstances would a state be sufficiently connected to extraterritorial conduct to warrant interference in the domestic affairs of another state.
治外法权与国家安全:保护性管辖权作为排除不法行为的一种情况
本文认为,目前的保护性管辖权概念——即国家可以对危及某些国家安全利益的治外法权行为主张管辖权——未能以与国际法一般原则相协调的方式界定国家行为。保护性管辖权的模糊表述使各国能够以这一概念为借口,在外国领土上对与其国家安全没有任何实质联系的行为进行立法。以美国最近的一项物质支持恐怖主义法为例,该法律主张对支持巴斯克祖国和自由组织(“ETA”)的广泛外国行为具有保护管辖权,尽管ETA可能不会对美国国家安全构成重大威胁。在国际上普遍存在的保护性管辖权概念下,美国法规是基于礼让考虑和比较国家利益来审查其“合理性”的。然而,在没有西班牙和其他受影响国家同意的情况下,这种跨境监管应受国际法规则的约束,该规则要求在治外法权行为和国家安全之间建立司法联系。本文建议通过将保护管辖权重新定义为国际法上排除不法行为的一种情况来规范这一联系。正如必要状态和自卫原则指出了出于国家安全的目的而例外允许国际不法行为的情况一样,本条认为,保护性的跨境监管应限于那些有必要保护监管国免受基本安全利益损害的例外情况。只有在这种情况下,一个国家才与治外法权行为有充分的联系,才有理由干涉另一个国家的内政。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: Over forty years] ago, under the guidance of the late Professor Wolfgang Friedmann, a group of Columbia law students belonging to the Columbia Society of International Law founded the Bulletin of the Columbia Society of International Law. The Bulletin’s first volume, containing two issues, was a forum for the informal discussion of international legal questions; the second volume, published in 1963 under the title International Law Bulletin, aspired more to the tradition of the scholarly law review. Today’s Columbia Journal of Transnational Law is heir to those early efforts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信