Jordan J. Paust

Document Type



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.

Included in

Law Commons