No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
1 Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised) §403 (Tent. Final Draft 1985) [hereinafter Tent. Final Dr.].
2 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States §403(1) (1987) [hereinafter Restatement (Third)].
3 Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised) §403(3) (Tent. Draft No. 2, 1981).
4 Tent. Final Dr., supra note 1, §403(3) (emphasis added).
5 Restatement (Third), supra note 2, §403(3).
6 63 A.L.I. Proc. 106 (1986). See also statement by Professor Louis Henkin, concluding that evidence of international law was not strong enough to permit the conclusion that conflicts of concurrent jurisdiction were legally required to be resolved on the basis of comparative reason ableness. Id. at 96–97.
7 Cf. Maier, Resolving Extraterritorial Conflicts, or “There and Back Again,” 25 Va. J. Int’l L. 7, 40–41 (1984).
8 See Maier, Interest Balancing and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, 31 Am. J. Comp. L. 579, 587–88, 597 (1983).