Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Extraterritorial jurisdiction plays a significant role in regulation of transnational anti-competitive practices. In the U.S., extraterritorial impacts in this field first arose from Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, [7] where Imperial Oil in Canada was ordered to be divested from Standard Oil.
The two main courts judging extraterritorial cases were the Shanghai Mixed Court and the British Supreme Court for China. [32] Similar courts were established for treaty countries, e.g. the United States Court for China. [33] These had jurisdiction over the concession areas, which formally remained under Qing sovereignty. [34]
An extraterritorial operation in international law is a law enforcement or military operation that takes place outside the territory or jurisdiction of the state whose forces are conducting the operation, generally within the territory of another sovereign state.
The court found that all of the following acts, in combination, were sufficient contacts to create personal jurisdiction over the French organizations: sending letters to Yahoo!, suing Yahoo! and serving Yahoo! in California, and the suit resulting in orders that Yahoo!'s officers in California comply with French law.
In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.
Territorial jurisdiction in United States law refers to a court's power over events and persons within the bounds of a particular geographic territory. If a court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the events or persons within it, then the court cannot bind the defendant to an obligation or adjudicate any rights involving them.
On November 2, 2017, a California district court granted an injunction against the enforcement of the order of the Supreme Court of Canada on the grounds that the order undermines the US law and threatens freedom of speech. [2] However, The Court of British Columbia dismissed Google's application (2018 BCSC 610) to respect the US judgment saying
The obligation arises regardless of the extraterritorial nature of the crime and regardless of the fact that the perpetrator and victim may be of alien nationality. [1] It is generally included as part of international treaties dealing with an array of transnational crimes to facilitate bringing perpetrators to justice.