Research on the Improper Extraterritorial Application of Law Enforcement Jurisdiction in the "Long Arm Jurisdiction" of the United States
In the face of the current unilateralism, protectionism prevailing international environment, individual countries in the interests of the state, using the "long arm jurisdiction", constantly expand the connotation and extension of domestic law, and improper unlimited extension to the local defendant exercise jurisdiction, through export control "entity list", SDN list, withholding and other administrative means and means, interference in the normal business activities of other countries, enterprises and individuals. Especially since the trade war between China and the United States, the United States, based on its power politics and strategic needs to contain China, has frequently used domestic laws to exercise "long-arm jurisdiction" over Chinese enterprises, individuals and other entities, seriously endangering China's national and economic sovereignty, and has attracted wide attention from the academic field and government departments.
References
- Liao, S. P. (2024). An outline of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Wuhan University International Law Review, 8(2), 23 - 44.
- Jiang, Z. X. (2023). Building an offensive - and - defensive counter - mechanism against the long - arm jurisdiction of the United States. Chongqing Social Sciences, 10, 121 - 138.
- Gu, L. (2023). The abuse of long - arm jurisdiction in international financial sanctions and countermeasures. Hebei Finance, 8, 43 - 48.
- Tian, J. (2023). The extraterritorial application mechanism of US public law and China's countermeasures. Journal of Hainan University (Humanities & Social Sciences), 43(1), 195 - 206.
- Zhang, J. (2023). The judicial path of the extraterritorial application of US public law. Nanjing University Law Review, 3, 133 - 152.
- Zou, L. (2023). EU economic and trade legislation: Trends, characteristics and impacts on China. International Studies, 3, 97 - 116, 141 - 142
- Bao, K. Y. (2023). The US model of cross - border anti - money - laundering supervision, its backlash crisis and China's plan. Financial Regulation Research, 4, 1 - 21.
- Guo, Z. Y. (2023). The institutional mirror of the extraterritorial application of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law, 38(2), 91 - 103
- Mu, S. S., & Zhang, G. (2023). Financial sanctions and counter - sanctions in long - arm jurisdiction and their implications. Hebei Finance, 2, 13 - 16, 51.
- He, Z. P. (2022). Offensive and defensive jurisdiction in foreign - related rule of law. Wuhan University Journal (Philosophy & Social Sciences), 75(6), 133 - 143.
- Qi, K. (2022). US “long - arm jurisdiction” and global economic governance. Northeast Asia Forum, 31(4), 64 - 78, 127 - 128.
- Yang, Y. G. (2022). The origin, expansion and countermeasures of US long - arm jurisdiction. Law Science Magazine, 43(4), 73 - 92.
- Rao, X. C., & Xu, D. F. (2023). Institutional causes, legal responses and global governance of technology control issues under “long - arm jurisdiction”. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 40(9), 104 - 111
- Dong, Y. (2021). The political ecology behind the US “long - arm jurisdiction” policy. People's Tribune, 35, 36 - 39
- Bai, X., & Zou, G. Y. (2021). The EU's response to the US “long - arm jurisdiction”: Measures, effects and implications. Wuhan University International Law Review, 5(5), 53 - 76.
- Xu, Q. K. (2021). A multi - dimensional examination of US long - arm jurisdiction and China's countermeasures. Global Law Review, 43(6), 172 - 186
- Huo, D. (2021). The construction and implications of the international anti - sanctions institutional system. People's Tribune, 31, 88 - 92.