Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:35:48.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antitrust Jurisdiction under Customary International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2017

Karl M. Meessen
Karl M. Meessen*
Affiliation:
University of Augsburg (Federal Republic of Germany)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When, on October 24, 1983, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California handed down its decision in Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America and denied U.S. jurisdiction out of regard for the Honduran “system of justice,” there may have been some surprise that the case was still pending. The Timberlane decision of 1976 of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which remanded the matter to the district court, had already become a classic, even though it was preceded by the 1968 decision in United States v. First National City Bank on the production of documents located abroad. The Timberlane approach outlined by Judge Choy, under which the exercise of antitrust jurisdiction has to be restrained by a case-by-case analysis of various factors, was widely discussed (and usually praised) in legal writing, and was also followed by federal courts of the Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , October 1984 , pp. 783 - 810
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America, 574 F. Supp. 1453 (N.D. Cal. 1983), appeal pending, No. 83-2008 (9th Cir. Oct. 26, 1983).

2 Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America, 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1976).

3 United States v. First Nat’l City Bank, 396 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1968).

4 See, e.g., Shenefield, John H. (then Associate Attorney General), Extraterritoriality and Antitrust—New Variations on a Familiar Theme, 1981 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ¶50,424, at 55, 961Google Scholar et seq.; Gill, , Two Cheers for Timberlane, 10 Swiss Rev. Int’l Antitrust L. 3 (1980)Google Scholar; Rosenthal, D. & Knighton, W., National Laws and International Commerce 86 et seq. (1982)Google Scholar. For a skeptical view, c.f., e.g., Lowe, , Blocking Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The British Protection of Trading Interests Act, 1980, 75 AJIL 257, 268 et seq. (1981)Google Scholar.

5 For references, see infra notes 73-75.

6 Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

7 Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised) (Tentative Drafts No. 2, 1981, and No. 3, 1982).

8 Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America, 574 F. Supp. 1453, passim (N.D. Cal. 1983).

9 Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America, 549 F.2d 597, passim (9th Cir. 1976).

10 Id. at 611-12.

11 Id. at 613.

12 Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America, 574 F. Supp. at 1466 and passim.

13 Id. at 1472.

14 See Brewster, K., Antitrust and American Business Abroad, especially at 442 et seq. (1958)Google Scholar.

15 Restatement (Second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §40 (1965); for the definition of the term “international law,” see §1.

16 Metzger, , The Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States: Bases and Conflicts of Jurisdiction, 41 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 7, 20 (1966)Google Scholar.

17 See notes 73-75 infra.

18 Restatement (Revised), supra note 7, §403, comment a (Tentative Draft No. 2); for the definition of the term “international law,” see §101 and the Reporters’ Note to that provision in Tentative Draft No. 1, 1980.

19 Lowenfeld, , Public Law in the International Arena, 163 Recueil Des Cours 311, 401 (1979 II)Google Scholar; see also Lowenfeld, , Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, and Reasonableness: A Reply to A. V. Lowe, 75 AJIL 629, 638 (1981)Google Scholar; Lowenfeld, , Book Review, 95 Harv. L. Rev. 1976, 1993 (1982)Google Scholar (reviewing Brewster, K. & Atwood, J., Antitrust and American Business Abroad, 2d ed., 1981 Google Scholar).

20 K. Brewster, supra note 14, at 446.

21 Restatement (Second), supra note 15.

22 Restatement (Revised), supra note 7, §403(2) (Tentative Draft No. 2).

23 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

23a British Airways Bd. v. Laker Airways Ltd., [1984] 3 W.L.R. 413 (H.L.).

24 731 F.2d at 937–38 nn.102–105. See also Maier, , Extraterritorial Jurisdiction at a Crossroads: An Intersection Between Public and Private International Law, 76 AJIL 280, 281 et seq. (1982)Google Scholar. The German locus classicus is: 8 F. C. Von Savigny, System des Heutigen Römischen Rechts 28 et seq. (1849) (of course quoting Joseph Story).

25 731 F.2d at 950.

26 In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Rio Algom Ltd., 617 F.2d 1248, 1256 (7th Cir. 1980). Similarly: Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Rio Algom Ltd., 480 F. Supp. 1138, 1148 (N.D. 111. E.D. 1979). For a skeptical statement on courts’ balancing foreign policy risks in the context of the “unitary business” principle in taxation, see Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board, 103 S. Ct. 2933 (1983), reprinted in 22 ILM 855 (1983).

27 U.S. Dep’t of State, Letter of the Legal Adviser to the U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Mar. 17, 1980, forwarded to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals by a letter of the U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Mar. 18, 1980.

28 Maier, supra note 24, at 281.

29 Maier, , Interest Balancing and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, 31 Am. J. Comp. L. 579 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Id. at 590 and 593.

31 Address of Robinson, Davis R., June 30, 1982, in Contemporary Practice, 76 AJIL 839, 843 el seq. (1982)Google Scholar. Cf. also note 27 supra and accompanying text.

32 Robinson, Conflicting Assertions of National Jurisdiction over Multinational Enterprises, Panel Presentation, Canadian Council on International Law, at 3–4, 10, 11 (Oct. 21, 1983).

33 Meessen, , Völkerrechtliches Minimum und kollisionsrechtliches Optimum, in Festschrift für F. A. Mann 227 (1977)Google Scholar; Meessen, , International Law Limitations on State Jurisdiction, in International Law Association, Extraterritorial Application of Laws and Responses Thereto (Seminar of May 11–12, 1983, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

34 See note 19 supra.

35 See Grundgesetz art. 25 (FRG).

36 Meessen, , The Application of Rules of Public International Law within Community Law, 13 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 485 (1976)Google Scholar; Everling, , Sind die Mitgliedsstaaten der Europäischen Gemeinschaft noch Herren der Verträge?, in Festschrift für H. Mosler 173 (1983)Google Scholar.

37 United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945); as to the foreign response, see, e.g., Henry, , The United States Antitrust Laws: A Canadian Viewpoint, 8 Can. Y.B. Int’l L. 249 (1970)Google Scholar; Blair, , The Canadian Experience, in Perspectives on the Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Antitrust and Other Laws 65 (Griffin, J. P. ed. 1979)Google Scholar.

38 In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum addressed to Canadian Int’l Paper Co., 72 F. Supp. 1013 (S.D.N.Y. 1947); 6 Whiteman, M., Digest of International Law 163 et seq. (1968)Google Scholar.

38 United States v. General Elec. Co., 82 F. Supp. 753 (D.N.J. 1949), 115 F. Supp. 835 (D.N J. 1953).

40 United States v. Imperial Chem. Indus. Ltd., 105 F. Supp. 215 (S.D.N.Y. 1952); British Nylon Spinners v. Imperial Chem. Indus. Ltd., [1953] 1 Ch. 19 (C.A.), [1955] 1 Ch. 37.

41 In re Investigation of World Arrangements with relation to the Production, Transportation, Refining & Distribution of Petroleum, 13 F.R.D. 280 (D.D.C. 1952); see also Subcomm. on Multinational Corporations of the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations, Multinational Oil Corporations and U.S. Foreign Policy, 93D Cong., 2D Sess. (Comm. Print 1975).

42 See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Investigation in the Shipping Industry, 186 F. Supp. 298 (D.D.C. 1960); May, , The Status of Federal Maritime Commission Shipping Regulation under Principles of International Law, 54 Geo. L.J. 794 (1966)Google Scholar; Lowenfeld, , “To Have One’s Cake . . .”—The Federal Maritime Commission and the Conferences, 1 J. Mar. L. & Com. 21 (1969)Google Scholar.

43 See, e.g., United States v. Watchmakers of Switz. Information Center, 133 F. Supp. 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1955), 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) 1170,600 (S.D.N.Y. 1962), 1965 Trade Cas. (CCH) 1171,352 (S.D.N.Y. 1965).

44 See, e.g., United States v. General Elec. Co., 1962 Trade Cas. (CCH) 1170,342 (S.D.N.Y. 1962); Henry, supra note 37, at 263 et seq.; Davidson, , The Canadian Response to the Overseas Reach of United States Antitrust Law, 2 Can.–U.S. L.J. 166, 167 et seq. (1979)Google Scholar.

45 See supra note 26 and: In re Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Uranium Contracts Litigation. In re Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 563 F.2d 992 (10th Cir. 1977); United States v. Gulf Oil Corp., No. 78–123 (W.D. Pa. filed May 9, 1978).

46 See, e.g.. In re Ocean Shipping Antitrust Litigation, 500 F. Supp. 1235 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); Sletmo, G. & Williams, E., Liner Conferences in the Container Age (1981)Google Scholar.

47 Laker, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C Cir. 1984).

48 ICI v. Commission, 1972 ECR 619.

49 For a survey of the facts, see IBM v. Commission, 1981 ECR 2639, dismissing IBM’s complaint against the formal initiation of administrative proceedings as inadmissible. On Aug. 2, 1984, those proceedings were suspended under a settlement whose terms, in the words of IBM’s Chairman, John R. Opel, do not require IBM “to make significant changes in how [it does] business.” Wall St. J. (Eur. ed.), Aug. 3, 1984, at 1.

50 Kammergericht [KG, Berlin Ct. App.], Decisions I and II, Nov. 26, 1980, Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb/Entscheidungssammlung [WUW/E] OLG 2411 (1980) (Bayer/Firestone v. Bundeskartellamt [Federal Cartel Office, FCO]); Gerber, , The Extraterritorial Application of German Antitrust Law, 77 AJIL 756 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 KG, Decision of July 1, 1983 (Morris/Rothmans v. Bundeskartellamt), WuW/E OLG 3051, appeal pending; Gerber, supra note 50.

52 Dow Jones & Co. v. Attorney Gen. of Canada, No. T–l 167–80 (Can. Fed. Ct. June 10, 1980), aff’d by Federal Court of Appeal (Toronto) (Mar. 20, 1981, apparently not published); Rugman, Canada: FIRA Updated, 17 J. World Trade L. 352 (1983).

53 United States v. CIBA Corp., 1970 Trade Cas. (CCH) 1173,269 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); Erni, P., The Basel Marriage: History of The Ciba-Geigy Merger (1979)Google Scholar.

54 Bell, (then U.S. Attorney General), International Comity and the Extraterritorial Application of Antitrust Laws, 51 Austl. L.J. 801 (1977)Google Scholar; J. Davidow (then Director of Policy Planning in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Dep’t of Justice), Address at the Federal Bar Association, at 6 (Aug. 28, 1980).

55 United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106 (1911).

56 Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945); United States v. Timken Roller Bearing Co., 341 U.S. 593 (1951); Industrial Inv. Dev. Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., 671 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Swiss Bank Corp., 1942 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶56,188 (D.NJ. 1941); Murata Mfg. Co., 96 F.T.C. 1116(1980).

57 United States v. Watchmakers of Switz. Information Center, 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) 1170,600, at 77,455 (S.D.N.Y. 1962).

58 BOC Int’l Ltd. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 557 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1977).

59 For a text of the instruments and a survey of practice, see Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD], Competition Law Enforcement (1984).

60 Id. at 69.

61 But see Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., [1978] 1 All E.R. 434 (H.L.); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gulf Canada Ltd., 1980–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 163,285 (Can. Sup. Ct. 1980).

62 Sinclair, Responses to Extraterritorial Exercises of Jurisdiction: The Diplomatic Response, in Extraterritorial Application, supra note

63 M U.S. Dep’t of State, Circular Note to Chiefs of Mission in Washington, D.C., Aug. 17, 1978, Contemporary Practice, 73 AJIL 124 (1979).

64 72 F. Supp. 1013 (S.D.N.Y. 1947).

65 Subcomm. on Multinational Corporations, supra note 41, at 74.

65a Notwithstanding independent grounds of substantive law, the settlement of the European IBM case (see supra note 49) might be seen in parallel to the outcome of the Petroleum case.

66 Conservation Council of W. Australia, Inc. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 518 F. Supp. 270 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

67 National Bank of Canada v. Interbank Card Ass’n, 666F.2d 6 (2d Cir. 1981); see also Crane Fruehauf Ltd. v. Fruehauf Corp., 1977–2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 1F61.708 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).

68 For statements of administrative policy, see, e.g., Shenefield, supra note 4; Markert, , Die Anxuendung des Gesetzes gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen, in Zehn Jahre Bundeskartellamt 205 (1968)Google Scholar; Markert, , Die Anwendung der deutschen Fusionskontrolle (§§23 ff. GWB) auf Zusammenschlüsse mit und zwiscken ausländischen Unternehmen, in Schwerpunkte des Kartellrechts 1980/81, at 91 (1982)Google Scholar.

69 Commission of The European Communities, Eleventh Report on Competition Policy, No. 37 (1982).

70 Haymann, , Extraterritorial Application of Antitrust Law, the Swiss Approach, 12 Swiss Rev. Int’l Antitrust L. 17, 24 et seq. (1981)Google Scholar.

71 Interamerican Ref. Corp. v. Texaco Maracaibo, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 1291, 1298 (D. Del. 1970); United States v. AMAX Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 1161,467, at 71,798 (N.D. 111. E.D. 1977).

72 Interamerican Ref. Corp. v. Texaco Maracaibo, Inc., 307 F. Supp. at 1298 etseq.; Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Buttes Gas & Oil Co., 331 F. Supp. 92, 110 (CD. Cal. 1971); International Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. OPEC, 649 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1981).

73 In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Rio Algom Ltd., 480 F. Supp. 1138 (N.D. III. E.D. 1979), 617 F.2d 1248 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. First Nat’l City Bank, 396 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1968); Joseph Muller Corp. Zurich v. Société Anonyme de Gérance et d’Armement, 451 F.2d 727 (2d Cir. 1971); American Indus. Contracting Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 326 F. Supp. 879 (W.D. Pa. 1971).

74 Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America, 574 F. Supp. 1453 (N.D. Cal. 1983); In re Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Uranium Contracts Litigation. In re Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 563 F.2d 992 (10th Cir. 1977); Montreal Trading Ltd. v. Amax Inc., 661 F.2d 864 (10th Cir. 1981).

75 Dominicus Americana Bohio v. Gulf & W. Indus., Inc., 473 F. Supp. 680 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Ltd., 494 F. Supp. 1161 (E.D. Pa. 1980), 513 F. Supp. 1100 (E.D. Pa. 1981); Industrial Inv. Dev. Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., 671 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1982); Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp., 595 F.2d 1287 (3d Cir. 1979) (developing a balancing test similar to that in Timberlane, settled on remand). For a short obiter dictum, see National Bank of Canada v. Interbank Card Ass’n, 666 F.2d 6 (2d Cir. 1981).

76 United States v. CIBA Corp., 1970 Trade Cas. (CCH) 1173,269 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); cf. §64 et seq. of the British Fair Trading Act 1973, ch. 41; for an interpretation of those provisions, see Korah, V., Competition Law of Britain and the Common Market 63 et seq. (1982)Google Scholar.

77 Nearly undisputed since the New York resolution of the International Law Association; see Report of the 55th Conference, at xix (1972). See also 57 Institut de Droit International, Annuaire 338 (1978). For a differing approach, see Mann, Staatliche Aufklärungsansprüche und Völkerrecht, in Festschrift für H. Mosler, supra note 36, at 529, 533 et seq.

78 For a detailed argument in favor of the effects principle leaving room, however, for future changes, see Meessen, K., Völkerrechtliche Grundsätze Des Internationalen Kartellrechts 108–72, especially at 155 (1975)Google Scholar.

79 GA Res. 35/63 (Dec. 5, 1980), adopting the Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices, UN Doc. TD/RBP/ CONF/10 (May 2, 1980), reprinted in 19 ILM 813 (1980); see especially sec. E(4). Cf. also UNCTAD, Report of the Inter-governmental Group on Restrictive Business Practices on its Second Session, Held at Geneva from 21 to 30 November 1983, UN Doc. TD/B/RBP/16.

80 American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909).

81 K. Meessen, supra note 78, at 171–72 (“wohlverstandenes (Eigen-) Interesse”).

82 KG, Decision of July 1, 1983, supra note 51.

85 Mann, , The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law, 111 Recueil Des Cours 1, 49–50 (1964 I)Google Scholar.

84 Id. at 104 el seq.; and Mann, supra note 77, at 533 et seq.

85 Laker, 731 F.2d at 950.

86 Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), 1982 ICJ Rep. 18, 77 (Judgment of Feb. 24).

87 United States v. First Nat’l City Bank, 396 F.2d 897, 902 (2d Cir. 1968).

88 In re Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Uranium Contracts Litigation. In re Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 563 F.2d 992, 998 (10th Cir. 1977).

89 KG, Decision II of Nov. 26, 1980, WuW/E OLG 2419, 2420 (Bayer/Firestone).

90 FCO, Decision of Feb. 24, 1982, WuW/E BKartA 1943, 1953 (Morris/Rothmans); KG, Decision of July 1, 1983, WuW/E OLG 3051, 3057 (Morris/Rothmans).

91 See cases cited in notes 71 and 72 supra.

92 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada as to Notification, Consultation and Cooperation with respect to the Application of National Antitrust Laws, Mar. 9, 1984, reprinted in 23 ILM 275 (1984).

93 See notes 28–32 supra and accompanying text.

94 For a similar formulation and extensive reasoning, see K. Meessen, supra note 78, at 198– 232.

95 Id.; see also Meessen, , Zusammenschlusskontrolle in auslandsbezogenen Sachverhalten, 143 Zeitschrift Für das Gesamte Handelsrecht und Wirtschaftsrecht 273 (1979)Google Scholar.

96 Kiss, A.-C., L’Abus de Droit en Droit International 195 (1953)Google Scholar; Jennings, , Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the United States Antitrust Laws, 33 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 146, 153 (1957)Google Scholar; Seidl-Hohenveldern, , Kartellbekämpfung im Gemeinsamen Markt und das Völkerrecht, 1960 Aussenwirtschaftsdienst 225, 228;Google Scholar Jaenicke, , Comment, in International Law Association, Report of the 52nd Conference 33 (1966)Google Scholar; Jennings, , General Course on Principles of International Law, 121 Recueil Des Cours 323, 525 (1967 II)Google Scholar.

97 Deringer, , Extraterritorial Application of Antitrust Laws, 1980 Int’l Cont. L. & Fin. Rev. 323, 328 Google Scholar; Hölzler, , Die Wettbewerbsproblematik multinationaler Unternehmen, in Handbuch des Wettbewerbs 457, 463 (Cox, H., Jens, U. & Markert, K., eds. 1981)Google Scholar; Niederleithinger, , Zur Problematik einer Präventivkontrolle bet Auslandszusammenschlüssen, 1981 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb [WUW] 469, 471 Google Scholar; Harms, , Einleitung Zusammenschlusskontrolle, in Gemeinschaftskommentar, GWB, No. 118 (4th ed. 1981)Google Scholar; Turner, , Die Lösung von Zuständigkeitskonftikten bei der Anwendung nationaler Wettbewerbsvorschriften, 1982 WuW 5 Google Scholar; Wagner, B., Die Konzentrationskontrolle in der EWG und Ihre Bedeutung für Zusammenschlüsse Schweizerischer Unternehmen 122 (1982)Google Scholar; Schaub, & Kersten, , Präventivkontrolle gemäss §24 a GWB für ausländische Unternehmenszusammenschlüsse, in Festschrift für A. Sölter 261 et seq. (1982)Google Scholar; Meng, , Vorbem zu Art. 85 bis 89, in Kommentar zum Ewg-Vertrag, NO. 34 (H. v. d. Groeben, H. v. Boeckh, Thiesing, J. & Ehlermann, C. D. 3d ed. 1983)Google Scholar. With some reservations: Markert, Fusionskontrolle, supra note 68, at 119 et seq.; Authenrieth, K., Die Grenzüberschreitende Fusionskontrolle in Theorie und Praxis 56 (1982)Google Scholar. Rejecting the author’s view: Mann, supra note 77, at 542; Huber, , Auswirkungstheorie und extraterritorial Rechtsanwendung im intemationalen Kartellrecht, 1981 Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht 510, 545 Google Scholar et seq.

98 Rehbinder, §98(2), in U. Immenga & E. Mestmäcker, GWB, No. 266; Möschel, W., Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen 85 (1983)Google Scholar.

99 See notes 89 and 90 supra.

100 To compare approaches, see Gerber, supra note 50. For a similar international law approach, cf. Bowett, , Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources, 53 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 1 (1982)Google Scholar.

101 Fisheries Jurisdiction (FRG v. Ice.), 1974 ICJ Rep. 175, 200 (Judgment of July 25).

102 For a more extensive discussion, cf. K. Meessen, supra note 78, at 219 et seq.

103 Cf. note 92 supra.

104 For an interesting conflict-of-laws parallel, see Juenger, , A Critique of Interest Analysis, 32 Am. J. Comp. L. 1, 35–36 (1984)Google Scholar.

105 Cf. K. Meessen, supra note 78, at 229, 264.

106 For a recent account of the history of such instruments and for a reproduction of the text of those currently in force, see OECD, supra note 59.

107 Cf. note 92 supra.

108 Resolution, International Law Association, Report of the 54th Conference, at xiii (1970); Zwarensteyn, H., Some Aspects of the Extraterritorial Reach of the American Antitrust Laws 89 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cutler, Extraterritorial Application of Competition Laws, in Extraterritorial Application, supra note 33.

109 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 17 UST 1270, TIAS No. 6090, 575 UNTS 159.