U.S. Secondary Sanctions: The U.K. and EU Response
![handle is hein.journals/stet27 and id is 1441 raw text is: U.S. SECONDARY SANCTIONS: THE U.K AND
EU RESPONSE
Nicholas Davidson*
INTRODUCTION
U.S. assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction over the activities
of companies incorporated and doing business in the U.K. have long
been a source of tension in U.SJU.K. relations.' The extraterritori-
al jurisdiction claimed for U.S. antitrust law has given rise to dis-
putes since the 1950s,2 and prompted passage of the Protection of
Trading Interests Act (PTIA) by the British Parliament in 1980.'
U.S. claims to regulate the re-export of U.S.-origin goods and tech-
nology by imposing licensing requirements on non-U.S. firms oper-
ating wholly outside U.S. territory have caused similar problems.4
Most recently, passage of the Helms-Burton Act and the Iran and
Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (ILSA), directed at the activities of
non-U.S. companies in third countries, has provoked a prolonged
dispute with the European Union (EU) and with several other U.S.
allies and led to the making of a new European Community (EC)
Regulation7 designed to protect European businesses from their
effects.
This Article examines these responses and the reasons for
them.'
* First Secretary (Trade Policy), British Embassy, Washington, D.C.
1. See FA. Mann, Anglo-American Conflict of International Jurisdiction, 13 INTL
& COMP. L.Q. 1460, 1460 (1964).
2. See, e.g., Shipping Contracts and Commercial Documents Act 1964 c87, § 2(IXa)
& (b); In re Grand Jury Investigation of the Shipping Indus., 186 F. Supp. 298, 317-18
(D.D.C. 1960); United States v. Imperial Chem. Indus., 105 F. Supp. 215, 220 (S.D.N.Y.
1952); British Nylon Spinners Ltd. v. Imperial Chem. Indus., [1953] 1 Ch. 19 (CA
1952); Mann, supra note 1, at 1462 (noting that the United States antitrust legislation
allows Americans to exceed extraterritorial boundaries).
3. See Protection of Trading Interests Act, 1980, ch. 11 (Eng.).
4. See Tom Harris, The Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Export Controls: A
British Perspective, 19 N.Y.U. J. INVL L. & POL. 959, 959-60 (1987).
5. Cuban Liberty And Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, 22 U.S.CA
§§ 6021-6091 (West Supp. 1997).
6. Iran & Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-172, § 1, 110 Stat. 1541,
1541 (1996), 50 U.S.CA § 1701 Historical and Statutory Notes (West Supp. 1997).
7. Council Regulation 2271196, 1996 O.J. (L 309) 1.
8. This Article does not consider the economic sanctions imposed by a number of
U.S. state and city governments, particularly directed at Burma. While the secondary
effect of these laws is significant, and has led both the EU and Japan to seek consulta-](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/stet27&div=53&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
U.S. Secondary Sanctions: The U.K. and EU Response
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most