A/HRC/29/39 terrorism, money-laundering, corruption, grave human rights abuses and sexual offences against children. Looking at these different areas, certain patterns can be identified in relation to the uses of and reactions to extraterritorial jurisdiction and domestic measures with extraterritorial implications. For instance, these measures are more likely to be viewed by affected States as reasonable if the regulation is authorized under a bilateral or multilateral regime, is designed to deal with an issue of international concern (rather than primarily domestic interests), has been developed in consultation with and takes account of the interests of other States and includes procedures for the resolution of competing jurisdictional claims. 30. This research has also highlighted the various options that may be open to States to help overcome the practical problems that are commonly encountered in cross-border cases. In relation to bribery and corruption, for instance, law enforcement bodies of different States have carried out joint investigations and have entered into case-specific agreements as to appropriate enforcement strategies and the sharing of financial penalties. 31. Following up on the recommendations emerging from the initial study commissioned by OHCHR in 2013 into the effectiveness of domestic judicial mechanisms, project component 2 will consider the extent to which models of international cooperation and lessons on the use of extraterritorial jurisdiction from other regulatory areas can be applied to help overcome challenges in relation to cross-border cases concerning severe business-related human rights abuses. 32. At the time of submitting the present report, two separate preliminary studies for project component 2 had been completed. While they dealt with very different subject matters, they had a common underlying aim, namely to gather empirical evidence with the potential to shed light on State practice and attitudes with respect to the appropriate use of extraterritorial jurisdiction and domestic measures with extraterritorial implications. B. Review of State interventions in respect of assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction by United States courts in alien tort statute cases 33. The alien tort statute (United States Code, Title 28, sect. 1350) grants jurisdiction to United States federal district courts in respect of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. In recent decades, plaintiffs have sought to use the statute to bring claims in United States courts for violations of human rights committed overseas, including in cases alleging abuses by business enterprises domiciled outside the United States. While the number of successful cases is small, victims and their representatives have seen the statute as an important means for redress where claimants are not able to obtain remedy through the courts of the State in which the alleged abuse occurred. By their nature, these cases invoke questions about the appropriate assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction. In a number of cases involving the statute, States and State agencies have intervened in the litigation by way of letter, declaration or (most commonly) amicus curiae briefs expressing views about the appropriate limits of jurisdiction in the particular case or, more generally, as a matter of policy. The aim of this study was to review as many of these State interventions as possible and to consider what they might reveal about past and current State practices and views with respect to the use of extraterritorial jurisdiction in cases involving allegations of business involvement in serious human rights abuses. In particular: (a) What are the main arguments used for and against the use of extraterritorial jurisdiction in human rights cases? (b) How do these arguments differ from arguments for and against extraterritorial jurisdiction in other regulatory areas? 10