FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W52547132> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W52547132 endingPage "50" @default.
• W52547132 startingPage "1" @default.
• W52547132 abstract "Recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court as to the international reach of American antitrust and securities statutes have engendered significant debate about the appropriate extraterritorial application of federal law. Such debates have also slowly come to include some mention of the right application of state law beyond U.S. boundaries through long-arm statutes. The arguments of different commentators and jurists universally support careful consideration of the implications of prescribing rule of U.S. law to foreign conduct, absent an appropriate basis in international law and practice. The time is now right, therefore, to consider how these debates affect statute that combines federal and state law and potentially prescribes both of those sources of law abroad in the same action: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). This Article discusses the provision under FSIA's commercial activities exception. It argues that the jurisprudence interpreting the appropriate reach of that provision has become confusing and unworkable, and advocates reinterpretation in light of the ongoing larger discussion about extraterritoriality in the federal and state law contexts. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. RELEVANT ASPECTS OF FSIA II. THE DEBATE OVER EXTRATERRITORIALITY A. General Principles under International Law B. The Debate in the Supreme Court C. Scholarly Debate on Determining the Prescriptive Reach of Statutes Generally D. Scholarship on FSIA's Direct Effect Provision III. PHASES OF FSIA-EFFECTS LITIGATION IN THE U.S. COURTS IV. RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF FSIA'S PRESCRIPTIVE REACH AND A PROPOSAL FOR INTEGRATION A. Prescription of Foreign Conduct by U.S. Federal Foreign Sovereign Immunity Standards B. Prescription of Foreign Conduct by Federal or State Law CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION The extraterritorial application of U.S. law and regulation to conduct in another nation is neither new (1) nor simple matter. (2) The regulatory state and its influence over sensitive matters, such as personal finance, food and drugs, and Internet communications, coupled with the continued transnationalization of business and human relations, mean that countries must always be concerned with what goes on abroad and how it will affect the state and society in the United States. (3) Where and according to what law we will hold accountable those across sovereign boundaries who poison our food, (4) crash and spy on our computers, (5) steal our hard-earned savings, (6) and even break our hearts (7) are by no means insignificant questions. Nor, for that matter, are they questions that our legal system is close to answering. For these reasons, debates over the extraterritorial application of statutes and extension of court jurisdiction (8) have been very significant over the last several years, particularly in the areas of federal employment law, (9) antitrust, (10) and securities statutes. (11) These federal statutes are not the only ones to engender such controversy. The extraterritorial provision of the commercial activities exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) (12) has also led to hundreds of judicial opinions over the last thirty-six years and great deal of confusion and debate. Specifically, the provision (hereinafter the effect provision), which allows for jurisdiction and suit over foreign sovereign or related entity when commercial activity abroad causes a direct effect in the United States, has led courts to struggle with related larger issues, such as those of extraterritoriality, under both international and U.S. law and the procedural due process concerns of reaching beyond sovereign borders without the defendant having relevant and reasonable connection to the forum in which the litigation is brought. (13) Federal Courts of Appeals have tried numerous methods to add meaning to the direct effect provision in FSIA, provision which is textually rather bare-bones. …" @default.
• W52547132 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W52547132 creator A5050545034 @default.
• W52547132 date "2013-09-22" @default.
• W52547132 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W52547132 title "Direct Effect Jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: Searching for an Integrated Approach" @default.
• W52547132 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W52547132 type Work @default.
• W52547132 sameAs 52547132 @default.
• W52547132 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W52547132 countsByYear W525471322014 @default.
• W52547132 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W52547132 hasAuthorship W52547132A5050545034 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C129161804 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C170706310 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C2776210200 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C2780031015 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C2781319278 @default.
• W52547132 hasConcept C55447825 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C129161804 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C170706310 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C17319257 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C17744445 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C199539241 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C200635333 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C2776210200 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C2776949292 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C2777834853 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C2778272461 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C2780031015 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C2781319278 @default.
• W52547132 hasConceptScore W52547132C55447825 @default.
• W52547132 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W52547132 hasLocation W525471321 @default.
• W52547132 hasOpenAccess W52547132 @default.
• W52547132 hasPrimaryLocation W525471321 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W135232794 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W1493151388 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W1515936902 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W1532067112 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W1539541184 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W1557784316 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W2149387023 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W2270842732 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W234924935 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W280711973 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W2963705775 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W297977456 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W3025009521 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W3121263639 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W3121860245 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W3124708903 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W3125594674 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W3202517827 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W1962049104 @default.
• W52547132 hasRelatedWork W3122625191 @default.
• W52547132 hasVolume "24" @default.
• W52547132 isParatext "false" @default.
• W52547132 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W52547132 magId "52547132" @default.
• W52547132 workType "article" @default.