The Ontology of Blocking Law: From Regulatory History to Conceptual Return
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70088/5hxfbz40Keywords:
extraterritorial jurisdiction, blocking law, national interests, private-law order, corrective realignmentAbstract
Against the background of the expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction, this paper points out that blocking law should not be reduced solely to the binary narrative of "extraterritorial foreign legislation infringing national interests – domestic defense of national interests." Its institutional evolution has progressed from blocking evidence discovery and the enforcement of foreign judgments in the competition-law context to a comprehensive framework under restrictive measures law encompassing "prohibition of compliance – shielding against foreign judgments – damages relief – reporting and exemption." At the level of international law, extraterritorial legislation merely extends the scope of application of the norm and does not necessarily project state power; the legitimacy of blocking law is therefore better explained as the use of domestic private international law tools to uphold reasonable nexus, international comity, and the avoidance of inconsistent obligations. At the level of domestic law, restrictive measures law pierces foreign property rights, corporate governance, and freedom of contract by relying on financial infrastructure and compliance deterrence; blocking law, by amending choice-of-law references, restricting the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, and supplementing these with prohibition of compliance and civil relief, achieves a "corrective realignment" of the domestic private-law order. Blocking law is thus an instrument combining unilateral countermeasure and order-repair: it denies the effect of foreign public law within the forum state, while returning private-law relations to domestic law.References
Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, §§ 402, 403, 415, American Law Institute, 1987.
The Apollon, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 362, 370, 1824.
Am. Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356–357, 1909.
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 444–445, 2d Cir., 1945.
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 2d Cir., 1945.
Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7; Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 8–11; Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12–27, 52–53; Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 1–39; Export Administration Act of 1979, 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401–2420; Foreign Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. §§ 500.101–.809.
D. L. Flexner, “Foreign Discovery and U.S. Antitrust Policy—The Conflict Resolving Mechanisms,” Vanderbilt Law Review, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 315, 1979. [Online]. Available: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol12/iss2/5
J. A. Jolowicz, “Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure,” International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 52, p. 281, 2003.
V. G. Curran, “United States Discovery and Foreign Blocking Statutes,” Louisiana Law Review, vol. 76, p. 1141, 2016.
*In re Investigation of World Arrangements with Relation to the Production, Transportation, Refining and Distribution of Petroleum*, 13 F.R.D. 280, D.D.C., 1952; In re Grand Jury Investigation of the Shipping Industry, 186 F. Supp. 298, D.D.C., 1960.
A. Parrish, “The Effects Test: Extraterritoriality's Fifth Business,” Vanderbilt Law Review, vol. 61, p. 1455, 2008.
Huntington v. Attrill, [1893] A.C. 150, 156, Privy Council.
L. Von Kalinowski, Antitrust Laws & Trade Regulation, § 99.02 n.2, 1982.
Shipping Contracts and Commercial Documents Act 1964 (c. 87), s. 1.
In re Uranium Antitrust Litig., 473 F. Supp. 382, N.D. Ill., 1979, aff'd in part, 617 F.2d 1248, 7th Cir., 1980.
T. J. Kahn, “The Protection of Trading Interests Act of 1980: Britain's Response to U.S. Extraterritorial Antitrust Enforcement,” Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, vol. 2, p. 476, 1980.
Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (c. 11), s. 1(1).
Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 5th ser., vol. 976, col. 1046, 1979; House of Lords, 5th ser., vol. 404, col. 565, 1980.
J. Danaher, “Anti-Antitrust Law: The Clawback and Other Features of the United Kingdom Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980,” Law and Policy in International Business, vol. 12, p. 947, 1980.
“Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980,” Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 41, p. 45, 1981.
Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976 (Austl.), No. 121 of 1976, as amended by No. 202 of 1976.
Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act 1979 (Austl.), No. 13 of 1979.
D. A. Sabalot, “Shortening the Long Arm of American Antitrust Jurisdiction: Extraterritoriality and the Foreign Blocking Statutes,” Loyola Law Review, vol. 28, p. 213, 1982.
United Kingdom, Diplomatic Note No. 225 to the United States, Nov. 27, 1979.
C. Botticelli, “Recent Canadian Blocking Legislation: A Vehicle to Foster Extraterritorial Discovery Cooperation Between the United States and Canada?,” Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 10, p. 671, 1986.
V. Lowe, “The Problems of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Economic Sovereignty and the Search for a Solution,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 34, p. 724, 1985.
W. Pengilley, “United States Trade and Antitrust Laws: A Study of International Legal Imperialism from Sherman to Helms-Burton,” Competition and Consumer Law Journal, vol. 6, p. 190, 1998.
“Predictability and Comity: Toward Common Principles of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction,” Harvard Law Review, vol. 98, p. 1310, 1985.
U.S.C. § 2401 (1991); current authority now rests on International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1707.
N. Davidson, “U.S. Secondary Sanctions: The U.K. and EU Response,” Stetson Law Review, vol. 27, p. 1425, 1998.
T. Ruys and C. Ryngaert, “Secondary Sanctions: A Weapon out of Control?,” British Yearbook of International Law, 2020.
Y. Yonghong, “Secondary Sanctions and Countermeasures — From the Legislation and Practice of U.S. Secondary Sanctions,” Fa Shang Yan Jiu, no. 3, 2019.
E. J. Krauland and A. Rapa, “Between Scylla and Charybdis: Identifying and Managing Secondary Sanctions Risks,” Business Law International, vol. 15, p. 3, 2014.
E. Moret, Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions in Crisis, p. 22, 2021.
D. Franchini, “When Finance Becomes a Weapon: The Challenge of Central Bank Sanctions under International Law,” Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, vol. 24, p. 28, 2025.
Y. Kerbrat, “Unilateral/Extraterritorial Sanctions as a Challenge to the Theory of Jurisdiction,” in C. Beaucillon, Ed., Research Handbook on Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2021, pp. 165–185.
J. Schmidt, “The Legality of Unilateral Extra-territorial Sanctions under International Law,” Journal of Conflict and Security Law, vol. 27, p. 53, 2022.
P. Abel and C. Bormann, “Countering Extraterritorial Sanctions,” Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, vol. 24, p. 57, 2025.
M. Brzoska, International Sanctions before and beyond UN Sanctions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 1339–1349.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96, *Protecting Against the Effects of the Extra-territorial Application of Legislation Adopted by a Third Country*, 36 I.L.M. 125, 1997.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1101.
S. S. Rosdeitcher, “Foreign Blocking Statutes and U.S. Discovery: A Conflict of National Policies,” NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, vol. 16, p. 1061, 1983; D. Ventura, in C. Beaucillon, Ed., Research Handbook on Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions, 2021, p. 222.
A. Hemler, “Deconstructing Blocking Statutes: Why Extraterritorial Legislation Cannot Violate the Sovereignty of Other States,” Journal of Private International Law, vol. 21, p. 115, 2025.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96, Arts. 4, 5, 6.
Y. Yonghong, “The EU Blocking Statute and the Legal Game against U.S. Extraterritorial Sanctions,” European Studies, no. 1, 2022.
WTO Doc. WT/DS38/6, Apr. 24, 1998; J. Roy, Cuba, the United States, and the Helms-Burton Doctrine. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2000, p. 76.
European Commission, *The European Economic and Financial System: Fostering Openness, Strength and Resilience*, COM(2021) 32 final.
L. Gross, “The Peace of Westphalia, 1648–1948,” American Journal of International Law, vol. 42, p. 20, 1948.
S. Besson, “Sovereignty,” in A. Peters, Ed., Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008.
W. Meng, “Völkerrechtliche Zulässigkeit und Grenzen wirtschaftsverwaltungsrechtlicher Hoheitsakte mit Auslandswirkung,” Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, vol. 44, p. 675, 1984.
American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Fourth: Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 401, 2018.
Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands v. United States), 2 U.N.R.I.A.A. 829, 838, 1928; Besson, “Sovereignty,” supra note 49.
W. S. Dodge, “Breaking the Public Law Taboo,” Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 43, p. 161, 2002.
C. Ohler, “Internationales Verwaltungsrecht – ein Kollisionsrecht eigener Art?,” in S. Leible and M. Ruffert, Eds., Internationales Verwaltungsrecht, 2006, p. 148.
F. A. Mann, Further Studies in International Law. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1990, p. 15.
C. Beaucillon, “Practice Makes Perfect, Eventually? Unilateral State Sanctions and the Extraterritorial Effects of National Legislation,” in G. Ronzitti, Ed., Coercive Diplomacy, Sanctions and International Law. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Nijhoff, 2016, p. 109.
M. Akehurst, “Jurisdiction in International Law,” British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 46, p. 139, 1978.
P. Bonfante, Corso di Diritto Romano, trans. H. Feng. Beijing, China: China University of Political Science and Law Press, 1992.
R. Magalhaes, “Power and Authority: Weber's Typology of Legitimate Domination,” Daily Sociology Wiki, 2024.
U.S.C. § 1705(b)–(c).
U.S. Department of the Treasury, A Framework for OFAC Compliance Commitments. [Online]. Available: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/framework_ofac_cc.pdf
BGB § 903; Code civil art. 544.
Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.
C.F.R. pt. 583 (Global Magnitsky Sanctions Regulations).
UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, art. 7.1.7, 2010.
J. Basedow, “Blocking Statutes,” in Encyclopedia of Private International Law, vol. 1. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2017, p. 212.
Siemens v. Venezuela, [2023] UKSC 17.
Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-124/20 (Bank Melli Iran).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yuhan Zhou (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
