Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:56:30.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grunenthal GmbH v. Hotz, et al.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Monroe Leigh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 75 , Issue 4 , October 1981 , pp. 960 - 962
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1981

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 Restatement §17 provides:

A state has jurisdiction to prescribe a rule of law

  • (a)

    (a) attaching legal consequences to conduct that occurs within its territory, whether or not such consequences are determined by the effects of the conduct outside the territory, and

  • (b)

    (b) relating to a thing located, or a status or other interest localized, in its territory.

Restatement §18 provides:

A state has jurisdiction to prescribe a rule of law attaching legal consequences to conduct that occurs outside its territory and causes an effect within its territory, if either

  • (a)

    (a) the conduct and its effect are generally recognized as constituent elements of a crime or tort under the law of states that have reasonably developed legal systems, or

  • (b)

    (b) (i) the conduct and its effect are constituent elements of activity to which the rule applies; (ii) the effect within the territory is substantial; (iii) it occurs as a direct and foreseeable result of the conduct outside the territory; and (iv) the rule is not inconsistent with the principles of justice generally recognized by states that have reasonably developed legal systems.

A different approach, subjecting exercises of jurisdiction to a principle of “reasonableness,” is taken in Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised), Tent. Draft No. 2, §§403, 416 (1981), published after Grunenthal was decided, but it would probably lead to the same result in this case.

2 519 F.2d 974 (2d Cir.), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 1018 (1975).

3 405 F.2d 200 (2d Cir.), rev’d on other grounds, 405 F.2d 215 (2d Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 395 U.S. 906(1969).

4 405 F.2d at 206.

5 Id. at 208.