A Study On The Jurisdictional Basis Of Extraterritoriality In U.S. Unilateral Economic Sanctions

The globalisation of the world economy continues to develop,and both cooperation and competition exist between national economies.In the international arena,when national interests are at odds,certain coercive measures are taken between countries to achieve their objectives,and unilateral economic sanctions are increasingly favoured by more and more countries as a non-violent means of coercion.The United States,as the world’s largest economy,often uses economic sanctions to defend its political or economic objectives,and China,as the largest opponent of the United States in the international community today,is to some extent adversely affected by such economic sanctions.For some time now,in the process of imposing unilateral economic sanctions on a number of countries such as Russia,North Korea and Iran(including foreign companies and individuals in that country),companies or individuals outside the United States and in countries not targeted by the sanctions are also adversely affected by the economic sanctions.As the US unilateral economic sanctions extend the scope of sanctions to "third countries"(i.e.countries that are neither the US nor the target country),it is controversial whether they violate the jurisdictional rules of international law.This article focuses on the following questions: What forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction do US unilateral economic sanctions take? Do they have a corresponding jurisdictional basis? What should be China’s attitude towards unilateral economic sanctions? How can China legitimately adopt economic sanctions to safeguard its economic sovereignty and security? To this end,this article first provides an overview and analysis of the extraterritorial jurisdictional forms of unilateral economic sanctions imposed by the US.The latest US unilateral economic sanctions measures and their effects are used to reasonably classify the forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction of US economic sanctions-extraterritorial jurisdiction based on territorial ties and extraterritorial jurisdiction based on subject-to-subject ties.After classifying the US unilateral economic sanctions,the jurisdictional bases of extraterritorial jurisdiction based on territorial links and extraterritorial jurisdiction based on subjective links are analysed separately.Extraterritorial jurisdiction based on territorial links is analysed in terms of the extension of territorial jurisdiction(import/export boycott),extraterritorial jurisdiction based on territorial links of conduct elements,and extraterritorial jurisdiction over goods originating in the territory of the United States.Next,the jurisdictional basis of extraterritorial jurisdiction based on subject matter links is analysed.The key difference between extraterritorial jurisdiction based on subject matter connection and extraterritorial jurisdiction based on territorial connection is that the former governs extraterritorial subjects that do not have any direct connection with the territory of the United States,while the latter mainly governs subjects or matters on or in connection with the territory of the United States.I analyse this form of extraterritorial jurisdiction over US economic sanctions in terms of the standard jurisdiction over ’persons in the United States’,extraterritorial jurisdiction over entities outside the United States controlled or owned by US nationals,and extraterritorial jurisdiction through the boycott of transactions by US nationals and businesses,to examine whether it has the right of relationship under international law.The basis for this analysis is the followingFinally,in the light of the previous analysis of the jurisdictional basis of US economic sanctions and the legality of economic sanctions imposed by states,the current standards of jurisdictional effectiveness of unilateral economic sanctions are reviewed and the current situation and problems of China in dealing with unilateral economic sanctions are analysed.Finally,new ideas are explored for China’s own adoption of reasonable and lawful economic sanctions.