Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
B. Eberlein, Kenneth Abbott, J. Black, E. Meidinger, S. Wood (2014)
Transnational Business Governance Interactions: Conceptualization and Framework for AnalysisRegulation & Governance, 8
J. Resnik (2006)
Law's Migration: American Exceptionalism, Silent Dialogues, and Federalism's Multiple Ports of EntryYale Law School
D. Bodansky (2000)
What's so Bad About Unilateral Action to Protect the Environment?
L. Ankersmit, J. Lawrence, G. Davies (2012)
Diverging EU and WTO Perspectives on Extraterritorial Process RegulationVU University Amsterdam Legal Studies Research Paper Series
R. Ford (1999)
Law's Territory (A History of Jurisdiction)Michigan Law Review, 97
R. Kelemen, D. Vogel (2010)
Trading Places: The Role of the United States and the European Union in International Environmental PoliticsComparative Political Studies, 43
Joanne Scott, L. Rajamani (2011)
EU Climate Change UnilateralismEuropean Public Law: EU eJournal
R. Howse, D. Regan (2000)
The product/process distinction - an illusory basis for disciplining 'unilateralism' in trade policyEuropean Journal of International Law, 11
Hannah Buxbaum (2009)
Territory, Territoriality, and the Resolution of Jurisdictional ConflictAmerican Journal of Comparative Law, 57
V. Lowe (1997)
Us Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The Helms-burton and D'Amato ActsInternational and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46
A. Bradford (2012)
The Brussels EffectNorthwestern University Law Review, 107
Christine Overdevest (2012)
Assembling an Experimentalist Regime: EU FLEGT and Transnational Governance Interactions in the Forest SectorREGULATION & GOVERNANCE, 8
C. Brummer (2010)
Territoriality as a Regulatory Technique: Notes from the Financial CrisisUniversity of Cincinnati Law Review, 79
R. Daniel Keleman (2010)
Trading Places: The US and the EU in International Environmental PoliticsCOMP. POL. STUDIES, 43
AbstractThis paper examines the global reach of EU law in the context of current debates about the rise of the EU as a global regulatory power. Challenging recent claims to the contrary, its findings are that the enactment of extraterritorial legislation by the EU is extremely rare. Nevertheless, the EU makes frequent recourse to a legislative technique that I term territorial extension, in order to gain regulatory traction over activities that take place abroad. This technique not only leads to the EU governing transactions that are not centered upon the territory of the EU, but it also enables the EU to influence the nature and content of third country and international law. Nevertheless, it is inaccurate to say that the EU thereby seeks to export its own norms. EU legislation which engages in territorial extension is generally characterized by an international orientation revealing the EU to be engaged in action-forcing contingent unilateralism rather than the exportation of norms. The EU seeks to galvanize third country or global action to tackle transboundary problems and to pursue objectives that have been internationally agreed upon. The importance to the EU of this international orientation is clear from the criticisms that the EU has made of extraterritoriality and territorial extension in United States law
American Journal of Comparative Law – Oxford University Press
Published: Jan 1, 2014
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.