A/HRC/36/44 the country’s sanctions regimes, and has tried to regulate foreign exchange transactions. 4 It has been recently reported that the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is in the process of introducing new legislation displaying the same features, albeit in a more limited form.5 By contrast, the European Union is understood to refrain generally from applying any restrictive measures having extraterritorial reach. 6 The European Union adopted in 1996 instruments of European Union law which are still in force, designed to counter the purported extraterritorial effects of United States sanctions regimes, which the European Union sees as unlawful. The provisions state: “A third country has enacted certain laws, regulations, and other legislative instruments which purport to regulate activities of natural and legal persons under the jurisdiction of the [European Union] Member State; … by their extra-territorial application such laws, regulations and other legislative instruments violate international law”.7 22. There is a general understanding that extraterritorial sanctions disregard commonly accepted rules governing the jurisdiction of States under international law. 8 The concept of State jurisdiction describes the limits of the legal competence of a State to make, apply, and enforce rules of conduct upon persons. It concerns essentially the extent of each State’s right to regulate conduct or the consequences of events. 9 In other words, jurisdiction concerns the power of the State under international law to regulate or otherwise impact upon people, property and circumstances and reflects the basic principles of State sovereignty, equality of States and non-interference in domestic affairs. 10 23. International law relating to jurisdiction generally relies on a distinction between prescriptive jurisdiction (i.e. the law-making capacity) and enforcement jurisdiction (i.e. the capacity to ensure compliance with the law). Prescriptive jurisdiction must be based upon certain recognized criteria to avoid conflicts of sovereignty among States. These criteria are generally described as follows: • The territoriality principle, according to which a State may pass laws governing people and property in its own territory • The nationality principle, according to which a State may regulate the conduct of its citizens in any part of the world • The effects doctrine, according to which a State may regulate conduct that has a direct, foreseeable and substantial effect within its territory, even though the acts giving rise to the effects are undertaken abroad; this principle can be seen as an extension of the territoriality principle • The passive personality principle, according to which a State has jurisdiction over conduct directed against the welfare of its own citizens 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 See, for instance, M. Cosnard, “Les lois Helms-Burton et d’Amato-Kennedy, interdiction de commercer avec et d’investir dans certains pays”, Annuaire français de droit international, vol. 42 (1996), pp. 33-61. See United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office and HM Treasury Department for International Trade, “Public consultation on the United Kingdom’s future legal framework for imposing and implementing sanctions”, presented to Parliament in April 2017, p. 16. According to this document, a “UK nexus” (enabling the Government to enforce sanctions) might be created by such things as a sterling transaction overseas that clears in the United Kingdom, action by a local subsidiary of a United Kingdom parent company (depending on the structure of governance), action taking place overseas but directed from within the United Kingdom, or financial products or insurance bought on United Kingdom markets but held or used overseas. See, for instance, J. Scott, “Extraterritoriality and territorial extension in EU law” American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 62 (2014), pp. 87-126; J. Scott, “The new EU ‘extraterritoriality’ “, Common Market Law Review, vol. 51 (2014), pp. 1343-1380. Council of the European Union, “Council Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom”, Official Journal of the European Union, L 309 (29 November 1996), preamble. See M. Cosnard, “Les lois Helms-Burton et d’Amato-Kennedy”, pp. 36-50. R. Jennings and A. Watts, eds., Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th ed. (1992), p. 456. M.N. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 469.