Jurisdiction

Part IV, "Jurisdiction and Judgments," of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States is by far the longest part and, during the lengthy consideration and formulation of the Restatement, proved to be by far the most controversial. The sheer comprehensiveness of Part IV at least partially explains both the controversy and the length of time consumed in its consideration. Moreover, the novelty of the Restatement's conceptual approach to jurisdiction and the lingering question as to whether the work is truly a restatement in all respects has engendered, and will continue to raise, dispute.' The conceptual approach to jurisdiction is troika-like. Thus, the Restatement suggests three jurisdictional categories: (1) jurisdiction to prescribe; (2) jurisdiction to adjudicate; and (3) jurisdiction to enforce.2 The first category is described as making a state's law applicable to persons, things or activities;3 the second, the subjecting of particular persons or things to a state's judicial process; 4 the third, inducing or compelling compliance with a state's law.5 The Restatement differs fundamentally from the previous Restatement in its conceptual approach to jurisdiction. The Second Restatement adopted a dual approach: jurisdiction to prescribe and jurisdiction to