Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Under the Third Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States

This Note argues that the Restatement Third provisions fail to provide a precise outline of jurisdictional boundaries as generally accepted by the international community. Part I analyzes the jurisdictional provisions in the Restatement Second and contrasts them with corresponding sections in the Restatement Third. Part II examines issues that have arisen under the Restatement Second jurisdictional scheme. Part III examines those same issues in light of the Restatement Third modifications. This Note concludes that the Restatement Third provisions limiting extraterritorial prescriptions function as abstention principles developed by the U.S. judiciary, and that in order to determine the outermost limits of U.S. jurisdiction under international law, the executive and legislative branches should be guided by principles commonly understood by a consensus of the international community as acceptable extraterritorial prescriptions