About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

24 Austl. Int'l L.J. 15 (2018)
Outdated and Unhelpful: The Problem with the Comity Principle and Act of State Doctrine

handle is hein.journals/austintlj2018 and id is 21 raw text is: 15 OUTDATED AND UNHELPFUL:THE PROBLEM WITH THE COMITY PRINCIPLE AND ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE DANIELLE IRELAND-PIPER* Abstract The temptation in troubled times is to stretch the reach of power and authority. While this may, in some circumstances, be a reasonable response to issues with global and transnational dimensions, exercises of extraterritorial jurisdiction can provide the means by which such power becomes unchecked. This can be seen in the decision of the High Court of Australia in PlaintiffM68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the effect of which was that the Commonwealth's extraterritorial conduct was not subject to the same checks and balances as would its domestic conduct. For this reason, the way in which courts adjudicate on extraterritoriality is important. Declining to adjudicate exercises of State power on the basis of comity and the act of state doctrine is an outdated and unhelpful response to the interconnectedness of legal regulation in the 21st century. In that context, I make three arguments: First, the comity principle and act of state doctrine are both unsatisfactory tools in the adjudication of extraterritoriality and ought to be abandoned. Second, the abuse of rights doctrine as it is understood in international law and the principles of State responsibility may be usefully 'transplanted' into the domestic domain when adjudicating on exercises of extraterritorial power by the state. And, third, the integration of international law doctrine into domestic public law contexts with dualist approaches can be characterised as a type of legal transplant. In so doing, I propose an additional formulation of the abuse of rights doctrine as it relates to the adjudication of extraterritorial jurisdiction. I INTRODUCTION In troubled times, governments may seek to control actions occurring outside the nation State. This may be in response to treaty obligations obliging or permitting extraterritorial regulation, such as many treaties relating to transnational crime do. It may also be an attempt to unilaterally impose foreign policy objectives. In any event, the principles of jurisdiction are generally permissive at customary international law, and some treaties permit, even oblige, the assertion of extraterritorial authority.' It often falls, then, to domestic courts to Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Bond University. See for example, Convention on Combating the Bribery ofForeign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, OECD (21 November 1997); United Nations Convention Against Corruption, UNCAC (31 October 2003); In- ter-American Convention Against Corruption, opened for signature 29 March 1996, Organization of American States (entered into force 6 March 1997); Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and Additional Protocol, opened for sig-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most