Extraterritoriality of Internal Laws: some Procedural Questions

Although not all extraterritorial norms are contrary to international law, the extraterritorial application of internal rules (with a few well-defined exceptions) attacks the principles and the practice of healthy coexistence between the States. The Helms-Burton Act, whose main objective is the imposition of restrictions on trade with Cuba to achieve a change of government in that country, has been harshly criticized by the international community because it tries to apply internal rules outside of the territory. In this essay, the author analyzes the legal exceptions to the principle of territoriality and states that none of them sustains the extraterritoriality of the Helms-Burton Act. According to him, although this is not the first American extraterritorial legislation, this law is novel in that it affects procedural aspects that have usually been reserved for the territorial sphere of each State. The author analyzes the effects that would be created if Title III comes into effect, based on which American judges could improperly hear suits against individuals or companies of other countries for acts not committed in American territory, and over which they have no jurisdiction. It also describes some “antidote laws” adopted by Canada, Mexico and the European Union with the intention of inhibiting the effects of extraterritorial laws that, like Helms-Burton, contravene international law.