Extraterritorial Application Research Articles

RETURN OF THE CULTURAL OBJECTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, EUROPEAN UNION LAW, AND LITHUANIAN LAW

The article examines the legal problems associated with the return of cultural objects in International, European Union, and Lithuanian Laws, as well as the extraterritorial application of mandatory norms. Particular importance is given to the influence of the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects and the Directive 2014/60/EC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. Attention is paid to the correlation of civil law doctrines with the protection of the owner’s rights and the bona fide purchaser of a cultural object on the one hand, and International and European Laws about the return to the owner and compensation to the owner of a cultural object on the other hand, because Lithuanian legislation and case law do not apply the vindication doctrine to protect owner’s rights of cultural objects and thus differs from the traditional approach to solving the problems of returning cultural objects within the civil law framework. The article deals with the related problems of recognition of the owner’s rights and changes in the evidence presumptions. The issue of restoring the owner’s rights to illegally confiscated cultural objects during the existence of the USSR was decided in the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. Courts of general jurisdiction considered claims for the return of cultural objects belonging to foreign entities - the Federal Republic of Germany and the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation. Particular importance was the question of the application of International and European Laws in judicial practice. According to the results of the study of the practice of the Republic of Lithuania, it is proposed to regard the return of cultural objects as an independent way of protecting the owner’s rights, which makes secondary the bona fide purchaser doctrine in relation of a cultural object.

Extraterritorial Implications of Turkish Legislation

Prescriptive jurisdiction of states is based on principles such as territoriality, nationality, passive nationality, universality, and protection. Although jurisdiction to prescribe is limited to the territory of the relevant State, geographic scope of application of any legislation can be determined in an extraterritorial manner. Regardless of the intense discussions on this issue, extraterritorial prescriptive jurisdiction is not considered a violation of international law. Decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice which was rendered in the SS Lotus case was accepted as the basis for objective territoriality principle and effect doctrine. In other words, States can exercise prescriptive jurisdiction for acts and conducts committed abroad that have an impact on their countries. Principle of objective nationality and effect doctrine are not the only basis for the application of legislation of a state to the conducts taking place abroad or persons living in another country. A state can also exercise extraterritorial prescriptive jurisdiction relying on the principle of passive nationality, protection principle or another basis. In Turkish law, geographic scope of application of an act and other legislation are rarely determined expressly on an extraterritorial basis. The extraterritoriality of any rule is defined by interpretation taking into account the purpose of the relevant rule. Extraterritorial application or implication of Turkish law can be seen in various areas such as legislation on anti-trust, personal data protection, anti-corruption, and securities. In addition to legislations regarding these issues, other legislations that have extraterritorial scope of application in Turkish law are discussed in this study.

Extraterritorial application of the right to life on the high sea . Commentary to the Views adopted by the Human Rights Committee of 27 January 2021, A.S., D.I., O.I. and G.D. against Italy, Communication No. 3042/2017

The subject matter of this commentary, which instigates the Views of the Human Rights Committee of 27 January 2021, is the protection of one of the fundamental human rights – the right to life. The Committee, as an authority appointed to oversee compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, had to decide on the issue of Italy’s responsibility for failing to provide assistance to a boat in distress, even if the area in which the vessel was located was not within the territory of this state and other acts of international law attribute the responsibility for executing the rescue operation to a third country. According to the Committee’s views, which applied extraterritorial approach to the protection of the right to life, whenever states have the opportunity to take action for the protection of human rights they should do everything possible in a given situation to help people in need.

‘Extraterritoriality’ in European Law: Airfreight and Beyond

Air carriers operate, almost by definition, in an international environment. Under air services agreements (ASAs) concluded by European Union (EU) Member States with third countries, with or without the involvement of European institutions, many non-EU airlines offer flights to or from the Union. However, the correlative increase in competition has not only positive effects, e.g., a wider offer and more advantageous flight rates. The fact that the obligations imposed on – and, in general, the conditions applicable to – non-European carriers in their respective countries of origin are different from those that weigh on European airlines leads to situations in which EU and non-EU carriers do not compete on equivalent terms. Furthermore, anticompetitive behaviour on the part of the airlines cannot be ruled out. The question then is whether and to which extent European legislation is applicable to non-EU carriers, both in terms of competition law and sector-specific regulations. The present article aims at reviewing the current state of ‘extraterritorial’ application of European law, mainly from an antitrust perspective, and it does so on the basis of a thorough analysis of a case currently pending before the General Court (GC), where the jurisdiction of the Commission has been challenged precisely for sanctioning non-EU carriers for acts performed outside the Common Market. Carriage by Air, Competition law, Jurisdiction, Extraterritorial Application of European Law, Air Services Agreements

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Claims Against U.S. Corporations for Aiding and Abetting Child Slavery Impermissibly Extraterritorial, Declines to Resolve Domestic Corporate Liability

In Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, et al., former child slaves who were trafficked into Côte d'Ivoire to work on cocoa farms filed suit under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) against U.S.-based companies that purchase cocoa from and provide other support to the farms, alleging that the companies aided and abetted child slavery. By an 8–1 vote, the Supreme Court held that the case involved an impermissible extraterritorial application of the ATS under the Court's precedent in Kiobel. The Court declined to resolve whether domestic corporations may be held liable under the ATS, although five justices across several opinions expressed the view that such corporations are not immune from ATS suits. The question of whether the Court should ever create new causes of action under the ATS prompted significant debate, with three justices suggesting that they would overrule Sosa v. Álvarez-Machain and a fourth indicating that there are strong arguments to reject judicial creation of any new ATS causes of action.

China’s Anti- Monopoly Law and Its Rules Relating to Foreign Entities: Reflecting on the Implications of Japan's Monopoly Case of Hard Drive Parts

China is building a foreign-related legal system. The theory of extraterritorial application in the field of anti-monopoly law has been studied for a long time, but China has not yet made relevant explanations regarding the extraterritorial application of Article 2 of the anti-monopoly law. From the judicial practice in the field of anti-monopoly law, it can be seen that there are many relevant cases of extraterritorial application, but few specifically raise the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction and relevant interpretations of extraterritorial application. Therefore, through the research of various countries on the judgment process and analysis method of the Japanese HDD parts monopoly case, this article puts forward opinions on the problems existing in the practice of the anti-monopoly law applied outside the territory of China.

Extraterritorial application of the GDPR: promoting European values or power?

This article examines whether the territorial scope of the EU General Data Protection Regulation promotes European values. While the regulation received international attention, it remains questionable whether provisions with extraterritorial effect support a power-based approach or a value-driven strategy. Developments around the enforceability of a ‘right to be forgotten’, or the difficulties in regulating transatlantic data flows, raise doubts as to whether unilateral standard setting does justice to the plurality and complexity of the digital sphere. We conclude that extraterritorial application of EU data protection law currently adopts a power-based approach which does not promote European values sustainably. Rather, it evokes wrong expectations about the universality of individual rights.

THE JURISDICTION OF THE LABOUR COURT IN INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS IN RESPECT OF WORKPLACES OUTSIDE SOUTH AFRICA

Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between a South African employer and a South African employee where the employee performs work for the employer in a foreign country? This is a question that should be considered, as one effect of globalisation is that South African employees are increasingly working for South African employers outside of South Africa. The difficulty is that the answer to the question is to be found in the area of private international law (conflict of laws) and that very few labour disputes involving private international law have been decided by South African courts. In 2002 in Kleynhans v Parmalat SA (Pty) Ltd (2002 9 BLLR 879 (LC)) and in 2005 in Parry v Astral Operations Ltd (supra) the Labour Court held that it did have the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes where the workplace was outside South Africa, provided that certain requirements are met. However, in Astral Operations Limited v Parry (2008 29 ILJ 2668 (LAC)) the Labour Appeal Court overturned the decision of the Labour Court. Zondo J reasoned that both the Labour Relations Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act do not have extra-territorial application in terms of the presumption against extra-territoriality and that, as the workplace was outside South Africa, the Labour Court, which was created by these two acts, did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In this article I shall briefly discuss the four-stage private international law process of adjudication that should be followed in disputes where international employment contracts are involved. After that I shall discuss the judgments in Parry v Astral in the Labour Court and the decision in AstralOperations v Parry in the Labour Appeal Court as well as the effect of this decision. This will be followed by a discussion of the position regarding the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals adjudicating international employment disputes in the European Union, the United Kingdom and in Ontario, Canada. In conclusion, the judgment of the Labour Appeal Court in Astral Operations v Parry will be examined in the light of the constitutional right to fair labour practices and the necessity for employees to be protected in a globalised employment context in which multi-national enterprises operate across borders.

States’ Obligation of Non-refoulement of Refugees under International Law

This article does not aim to provide a full analysis of the obligation of non-refoulment of refugees under international law. Rather, it mainly focuses on the extra-territorial application of the obligation. That is, whether the obligation is only applied to the refugees that have already crossed the State of refuge’s borders or it is also applied to those who are still outside the concerned State’s borders. It also discusses the feasibility of applying the human rights’ principle of effective control to identify the state’s responsibility for the refoulment policies that take place beyond the state’s borders and when these policies could be attributed to a certain state. The article attempts to answer the question of whether the obligation of non-refoulment, with its extraterritoriality, has acquired the customary international law status or not. It emphasizes the implications of the inconsistent practices of the states with regards to the non-refoulment obligation on the customary international law status of the obligation. To that end, it analyses the US different Administrations inconsistent practices towards the Haitian refugees’ claims. By doing so, the article aims to answer whether these inconsistent practices create varying norms or that they rather establish a certain rule to which any subsequent inconsistent practice should be considered as a violation of the precedent rule not a creation of a new one. This article’s thesis is that every state in the world shall refrain from returning refugees to the countries where they would face prosecution whether or not these refugees have crossed its borders and whether or not this state is party to the Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol as the obligation of non-refoulment has crystalized into a customary international law norm.

To What Extent are Consumers Harmed in the Digital Market from the Perspective of the GDPR?

The European Union has recently enacted a new law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),1 which is designed to strengthen existing data protection legislation in the EU. The selection of Regulation itself as a legal instrument makes the GDPR stronger than Directive as it ensures a uniform and consistent implementation of rules thereby, consolidating the EU digital single market. The GDPR reforms existing data protection policy by imposing more stringent obligations on not only data controllers but also on data processors relating to obtaining a valid consent,2 ensuring transparency of automated decision making3 and security of data processing,4 and by providing new rights for data subjects. Data subjects are entitled to withdraw their consent,5 request their data to be transferred to another data controller6 or to be deleted.7 Also, the GDPR includes certain principles aimed at regulating its cross border transfers of the EU citizens’ personal data to ensure a high level of protection outside the EU.8 Taking into account the above mentioned policies along with others, some scholars describe the GDPR as ‘the most consequential regulatory development in information policy in generation’ that has teeth.9 However, the GDPR cannot be claimed as a legal instrument that effectively deals with all threats of the digital market to consumers. This paper argues that although the GDPR has considerably expanded the rights of consumers thereby, enabling them to regain control over their personal data to certain extent, the effectiveness of its principles is limited and cannot ensure full security of data processing. Firstly, it examines the effectiveness of consent principle of the GDPR in empowering consumers to control over their data and make a genuine choice. Secondly, it analyzes “data control-rights” of consumers. Finally, it comprehensively discusses extraterritorial application of the GDPR and regulation of international transfers of data.

Illiberal Media in a Liberal Democracy: Examining Identity in Australia’s Mandarin Language News

The regime of censorship in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) extends beyond its borders through the extraterritorial application of its media regulations to popular social media platforms like WeChat. This research investigates the effects of the PRC’s extraterritorial control of online content on the identity narratives and norms communicated by comparing Australia’s Special Broadcast Service (SBS) Mandarin language news and the news targeting Australian audiences published on popular WeChat Official Accounts (OAs). We find significant differences in the news content between these two platforms: SBS provides more political content and a focus on political and cultural integration, while WeChat pages tend to avoid political topics that are not otherwise press releases from the PRC and they encourage strong cultural ties with Mainland China. Finally, SBS tends to both inform and cultivate democratic political identities and identification with the Australian political system, whereas WeChat tends to differentiate the Chinese diaspora from the wider Australian community. We situate these findings within a wider understanding of PRC’s national security strategies and doctrine. Whether by requirement or practice, not only the WeChat OAs in Australia implement PRC’s communication controls, but the content on these pages also challenges the liberal democratic practices and norms and supports foreign influence and espionage in Australia.

Should 'Torture' be Legalised?

International law defines torture as severe pain and suffering, generally used as an interrogation device or as a punitive measure. The utilization of the barbaric method of torture has been designated as illegal under the international law of human rights. Throughout the history of the world, there has been recorded evidence that torture was used as a primary weapon to punish prisoners and to procure information. The most noticeable event of torture in recorded history is the Holocaust, committed by Germany under the rule of the infamous dictator, Adolf Hitler, on the Jewish race. The Jewish populace in the genocide bore the brunt of extremism of the Nazis who committed the gory act of torture on innocent men, women and children. It is not a secret that torture is still used as one of the main interrogation techniques to procure information from the prisoners captured during war. World leaders and activists believe that usage of torture is a crime against humanity and it is necessary to put a blanket ban on usage of torture. However, many believe that it is within national security interest of many states to keep the world safe of attacks from foreign powers. In order to fulfil that duty, it is necessary to use any means necessary. This paper, within its ambit would try to provide logical reasoning as to why torture should be legalized and be used by states as an interrogation device which can be used to prevent significant harm to others and how it can be brought within the scope of extra-territorial application of European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

"국제적 영업비밀 침해소송에서의 국내법의 일반적 역외적용 가능성* — 국제관습법의 형성원리를 통한 전망 —"

최근 기업의 영업비밀 및 중요 산업기술이 침해되는 모습을 보면 많은 경우 해외의 경쟁사에 의한 기술전문인력의 부정스카우트 등 국경을 초월한 형태로 나타나고 있다. 하지만 이에 대한 법적 대응 시 각국의 영업비밀보호법 등 관련 보호법제가 정비되어 있음에도 국외에서의 행위에 대한 재판관할 확대의 한계로 인해 이를 적절하게 규율하지 못할 위험이 존재한다. 즉, 기존의 국제재판관할 및 준거법 결정에 대한 이론은 원칙적으로 개별 국가의 영토 경계를 국가주권의 행사를 위한 재판관할 및 입법관할의 범위로 파악하였기에 세계화·국제화된 오늘날의 상황에 부합하는 적절한 법리라고 할 수 없으며, 국외의 영업비밀에 대한악의의 침해자가 이러한 구조적 한계를 악용할 소지도 다분하다. 그러므로 현시점에서 국제재판관할 확대의 법리 및 그 궁극적 귀결로서 국내법인 영업비밀보호법의 역외적용 법리에 대한 재검토가 필요하며, 이는 미래적 관점에서 국제사회를 단일의 경제공동체로 파악하거나 최소한 세계화로 인한 초밀접사회의 현실에 기반한 것이어야 할 것이다. 이러한 시각에서 본 논문은 영업비밀 및 산업기술 보호를 위한 국제적 차원의 재판관할 및 입법관할 법리에 대한 변화의 필요성을 인식하고, ‘국내법으로서의 영업비밀보호법의 역외적용’이 국제질서 하에서 일반적으로 이루어질 수 있을지에 대하여 검토하여 보았다. 하지만 이 문제는 현실적 필요성이 있다고 하여 바로 실행될 수 있는 것이 아니고, 기존의 재판관할에 대한 법리에 부합하여야 할 것인데, 그 기준이 되는 법리는 현재의 이에 관한 국제법이 될 것이다. 그러므로 국제법의 대표적 법원(法源)은 조약 및 국제관습법이기에 그것이 이미 존재하는 경우에는 그 내용을 절차법적·실체법적 차원으로 구분하여 검토하여 보았고, 존재하지 않거나 명확하지 않은 경우에는 기존의 다른 규정 및 법리들로부터 그 내용을 추측해 보았다. 또한 국제관습법이라는 것은 국제사회에서의 국제정치질서의 반영이라고도 볼 수 있기에 앞서의 법리적 검토와는 다른 차원에서 미래의 관련 국제법의 변화모습을 검토해보고자 국제정치학적 관점에서 향후 영업비밀보호법의 역외적용에 대한 현실적 가능성을 전망해 보았는데, 이를 위하여 과거 경쟁법의 역외적용 사례를 분석하여 보았으며 그 결과 국내법의 역외적용이 국제적 차원에서 보편화되기 위해서는 3가지 조건이 충족되어야 함을 알았다. 분석결과 결론적으로 기존의 주권국가의 영토를 경계로 하는 재판관할 및 준거법의 결정법리는 극복되고 있으며, 각국의 영업비밀보호 관련 입법관할 및 재판관할 범위는 좀 더 유연하게 해석할 수 있어야 함을 파악하였다. 그리고 이와 같은 방향성 하에 국내법으로서의 영업비밀보호법의 역외적용이 일반적으로 가능해지는 모습이 미래의 국제재판관할 및 준거법 결정에 대한 국제관습법이 될 수 있음을 예측해볼 수 있었다. 이는 과거 경쟁법의 역외적용이 세계적으로 일반화 되어가던 모습과 유사하며, 또한 이러한 해석이 현재의 영업비밀보호를 위한 관련 국내법 및 국제법 규정과 배치되지 않음도 확인하였다.

A Turn of the Tide in the Extraterritorial Application of Child Rights: On the French Approach towards ISIS’ Child Returnees

There are hundreds of children of French jihadists detained in northeast Syrian camps, being in direct danger of irreparable damage to their physical and psychological development. France has been denying the existence of any competence in Syria that could impose international obligations regarding these children. However, in November 2020, the Committee on the Rights of the Child decided in an individual communication procedure that the French State has jurisdiction over these children, marking a significant development in the extraterritorial application of human rights that is not immune to severe criticism. The Committee established that competence is found entirely upon a factual assessment and used the nationality of the children as a central criterion, posing arbitrariness concerns. The decision is nevertheless a decisive basis to uphold the positive obligation to protect child nationals, making the refusal of the State to systematically repatriate them less and less defensible. Finally, an understanding of security concerns was found to be crucial in a policy change. Any future decisions should therefore strike a better balance between public security and the rights of the child.

Extraterritorial Bulk Surveillance after the German BND Act Judgment

Foreign surveillance as a means of circumventing existing legal safeguards – Different perspectives on the problem of the extraterritorial application of fundamental rights in US and EU legal models – The limited usefulness of effective control tests for establishing the responsibility of states for action taken in cyberspace – Judgment of Bundesverfassungsgericht in the BND Act case as an interpretative guideline for the regulation of foreign surveillance in EU member states – Electronic surveillance as a threat to European integration process.

Broadcasting Borders: Why Forensic Extraterritorial Electronic Border Searches for Contraband Do Not Require Reasonable Suspicion under the Fourth Amendment

This Comment will argue that forensic extraterritorial electronic border searches for contraband do not require individualized suspicion. Although forensic electronic border searches for contraband at the U.S. border and ports of entry (e.g., interior airports) may require, at most, reasonable suspicion according to some courts, the further reduced privacy expectations and further magnified government interests involved in extraterritorial border searches dictate that forward-operating border officers merely adhere to the Fourth Amendment requirement of reasonableness with respect to U.S. persons. To support this argument, this Comment will proceed in five parts, first summarizing jurisprudence regarding the border search exception and routine versus non-routine border searches. Second, it will explore recent case law examining the validity of electronic border searches. Third, this Comment will review the relatively sparse jurisprudence regarding the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment. Fourth, it will argue that electronic border searches within or at traditional U.S. borders require, at most, reasonable suspicion, although the necessary level of suspicion in this sphere is far from resolved. Fifth, this Comment will analyze the necessary level of suspicion for electronic border searches at Preclearance locations in light of jurisprudence regarding the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment. It should be noted that this Comment only focuses on those Fourth Amendment protections to which U.S. persons are entitled and does not address electronic border searches for the purpose of finding general evidence of wrongdoing. Further, this Comment examines the required level of suspicion for searches of electronic devices in general because, in addition to ensuring that this Comment is more concise and cogent, if no Supreme Court precedent supports distinguishing between electronic devices and other types of property at the border, it is equally baseless—and imposes unnecessary constraints on CBP officers and introduces complexity that is anathema to the border search doctrine—to distinguish between different types of electronic devices.

美国经济制裁执法管辖“非美国人”之批判分析

文章从法理、执法策略及其实施路径三个层面批判分析美国经济制裁领域对“非美国人”的执法管辖，对于化解我国企业和实体跨境交易风险、构建中国公法的域外适用体系具有重要的理论与现实意义。单边经济制裁领域的制裁目标、执法对象二元结构契合了国际法关于立法、执法管辖划分的原理，为一国公法的域外适用提供了法理空间。但是，美国执法管辖“非美国人”的实践滥用了效果管辖原理。美国依托美元金融基础设施，构造了执法管辖“非美国人”的联系因素和威慑、激励两大执法策略，以及美元同业往来账户、股东控制、执法和解、许可例外等公私互动路径。这些策略、路径滥用了美元国际货币地位，共同构成了美国对“非美国人”的“隐形”执法管辖机制。我国公法域外适用体系需要重点关注跨境执法管辖能力和机制，从公私层面积累、构建具有中国优势的执法管辖全球联系因素是基础和关键。

EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF THE EU GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION: AN INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVE

The General Data Protection Regulation (the GDPR) of the European Union (EU) emerges as a hot-button issue in contemporary global politics, policies, and business. Based on an omnibus legal substance, extensive extraterritorial scope and influential market powers, it appears as a standard for global data protection regulations as can be witnessed by the growing tendency of adopting, or adjusting relevant national laws following the instrument across the globe. Under Article 3, of the GDPR applies against any data controller or processor within and outside the EU, who process the personal data of EU residents. Therefore, the long arm of the GDPR is extended to cover the whole world, including Malaysia. This gives rise to tension worldwide, as non-compliance thereof leads to severe fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual turnover. This is not a hypothetical possibility, rather a reality, as a huge amount of fines are already imposed on many foreign companies, such as Google, Facebook, Uber, and Equifax to name a few. Such a scenario, due to the existence of state sovereignty principles under international law, has made the researchers around the world curious about some questions, why does the EU adopt an instrument having the extraterritorial application; whether the extraterritorial scope is legitimate under normative international law; how the provisions of this instrument can be enforced, and how these are justified. This article attempts to search for answers to those questions by analyzing the relevant rules and norms of international law and the techniques of the EU employed. The article concludes with the findings that the extraterritorial scope of the GDPR is justified under international law in a changed global context. The findings of this article will enlighten the relevant stakeholders, including Malaysian policymakers and business entities, to realise the theoretical aspects of inclusion of the extraterritorial feature of the GDPR, and this understanding may facilitate them to map their future strategies.

The Evolution of European Data Law

This new chapter for the next edition of Paul Craig and Grainne de Burca’s Evolution of EU Law conceptualizes European data law as an area of EU law that gravitates around but transcends data protection law. It traces the origins of the EU’s data protection law to national and international antecedents, stresses the significance of recognizing data protection and privacy in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, and explores the gradual institutionalization of data protection law through exceptionally independent data protection authorities, firmly embedded data protection officers, and emergent structures for supranational coordination. It then contrasts the EU law on personal data with the EU law on non-personal data and scrutinizes two other domains of European data law that intersect in complicated ways with data protection law: data ownership laws and access to data laws. European data protection law has been globally diffused through extraterritorial application, conditionalities for transfers of personal data, international agreements, and the “Brussels Effect” but whether the EU will retain its role as global data regulator is far from certain. As the European Commission is executing its data strategy, it needs to move beyond simplistic understandings of data as a resource, recognize the salience of data infrastructures, and confront the reality that data is more than a regulatory object.

Comparison of the Regulations on Communication Privacy between EU and Japan: Toward Reinforcement of Japan’s Communication Privacy

This article examines the legal scope of communication privacy in the telecommunication services and territorial application in Japan and the EU. Both face similar regulatory challenges regarding how to ensure a level playing field between incumbent services and emerging ones, and how to protect communication privacy in Over-The-Top (OTT) services. A difference between Japan’s and the EU’s current legislation is that Japan’s regulatory framework has the issue of extraterritorial application, whereas the issue in the EU is the scope of regulatory services and territory. The EU has proposed a revision of law to address the issue, whereas Japan has not taken any measures, despite an increase in the number of people using OTT services and accompanying demand for ensuring protection of online privacy. A possible remedy for the Japanese statute is to add services originating from foreign companies to a regulatory category in Japan’s already existing Telecommunication Business Act which requires operators to comply with communication privacy. Although domestic law generally has effects only within a nation, there is a clause in the Act on the Protection of Personal Information to apply regulations even to foreign countries’ business entities. I argue that such measures should be incorporated into Japan’s Telecommunication Business Act.