This Comment will address issues concerning relevant jurisdiction under international law, the tests concerning extraterritoriality of U.S. statutes, correct application of the tests with respect to 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), the errors of Erdos and the need to reject its holding and rationale, and the actual effect of relevant U.S.-Japan agreements considered in one of the recent cases. This Comment demonstrates that it is not possible for 18 U.S.C. § 7(3)-which is expressly related to the "territorial jurisdiction of the United States" if "maritime" jurisdiction does not pertain-to meet tests adopted by the Supreme Court to determine the extraterritorial reach of a U.S. statute. As explained in Part II of the Comment, several factors compel recognition of the non-extraterritoriality of § 7(3): the plain meaning of § 7(3), the express focus on "territorial jurisdiction of the United States," legislative history of § 7(3)'s precursor addressing territorially and geographically limited jurisdiction, several failed legislative efforts to modify the statute, and a recent government study of jurisdictional gaps.
Jordan J. Paust,
Non-Extraterritoriality of "Special Territorial Jurisdiction" of the United States: Forgotten History and the Errors of Erdos,
Yale J. Int'l L.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjil/vol24/iss1/7