Center for Law and Economic Studies
Center for Contract and Economic Organization
This Essay begins with a deliberately off-putting title: extraterritorial financial regulation. Old-time "conflict of laws" scholars would call this an oxymoron, pointing to recent Supreme Court decisions-- most notably, Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.1 and Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.2 -that have applied a strong presumption against extraterritoriality to curb the reach of U.S. law. Even those international law scholars who are sympathetic to the regulation of multinational financial institutions might prefer to avoid this term and talk instead of "global financial regulation" because they conceptualize international financial regulation as implemented through networks of cooperating multinational institutions applying broad principles of "soft law" on a consensual basis.3 Both perspectives, however, miss much, and the unfashionable word-"extraterritorial"- cannot be avoided.4
John C. Coffee Jr.,
Extraterritorial Financial Regulation: Why E.T. Can't Come Home,
Cornell L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/516