The Mirage of Territoriality: EU Law’s Extraterritorial Reach Between Protectionism and Altruism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46282/bpf.2025.33Keywords:
EU Law, extraterritoriality, blocking statutes, CSDDD, competition law, public procurementAbstract
The paper examines the evolving extraterritorial reach of European Union law and its implications for the principle of territoriality in international public law. Focusing on internal market regulation, it argues that the EU’s legal framework increasingly generates extraterritorial effects through access-to-market conditions, competition enforcement, and sustainability obligations. The study traces this development from the early effects doctrine in competition law to recent instruments such as the Foreign Subsidies Regulation and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive These measures illustrate how internal policies acquire external dimensions — sometimes as protective tools safeguarding the internal market, sometimes as altruistic instruments promoting global public goods. The paper categorises the extraterritorial effects of EU law as productive, structural, and behavioural, demonstrating how the Union projects regulatory power beyond its borders while formally adhering to territorial limits. It concludes that the EU’s regulatory expansion reflects a tension, and often a mirage, between protectionist self-interest and altruistic globalism, demanding careful calibration of its external reach and internal legitimacy.
References
1. BENVENUTI, Giulia. The FSR and Public Procurement. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT MARKETS. 2024, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 1–10. ISSN 21843813. DOI: 10.54611/HPTO1789 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54611/HPTO1789
2. BERTRAM, Alice. Simplification Promised, Uncertainty Delivered. Verfassungsblog. Verfassungsblog, 2025. ISSN 2366-7044. DOI: 10.59704/603B4BFFE749683E DOI: https://doi.org/10.59704/603b4bffe749683e
3. BLAŽO, Ondrej and Adam MÁČAJ. Legal Challenges for the European Union Concerning an International Treaty on Business and Human Rights. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo. 2021, vol. 70, no. 620758, pp. 933–978. ISSN 19895569. DOI: 10.18042/cepc/rdce.70.04 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.70.04
4. BRADFORD, Anu. The Brussels Effect. Northwestern University Law Review [online]. 2012, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 1–68. Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarshipAvailableat:https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/271
5. BUENO, Nicolas et al. The EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD): The Final Political Compromise. Business and Human Rights Journal. 2024, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 294–300. ISSN 2057-0198. DOI: 10.1017/bhj.2024.10 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2024.10
6. CECI, Federico. Luci e ombre della direttiva sul dovere di diligenza ai fini della sostenibilità. Quaderni AISDUE - Rivista quadrimestrale [online]. 2024 [accessed 01.10.2025]. ISSN 2975-2698. Available at: https://www.aisdue.eu/federico-ceci-luci-e-ombre-della-direttiva-sul-dovere-di-diligenza-ai-fini-della-sostenibilita/
7. CORVAGLIA, Maria Anna and Kevin LI. Extraterritoriality and public procurement regulation in the context of global supply chains’ governance. Europe and the World: A law review. UCL Press, 2018, vol. 2, no. 1. DOI: 10.14324/111.444.ewlj.2018.06 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ewlj.2018.06
8. CROCHET, Victor and Marcus GUSTAFSSON. Lawful remedy or illegal response? Resolving the issue of foreign subsidization under WTO law. World Trade Review. 2021, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 343–366. ISSN 14753138. DOI: 10.1017/S1474745621000045 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745621000045
9. CUNHA RODRIGUES, Nuno. Filling the Regulatory Gap to Address Foreign Subsidies: The EC’s Search for a Level Playing Field Within the Internal Market. In: CUNHA RODRIGUES, Nuno, ed. Extraterritoriality of EU Economic Law. Springer Nature, 2021, pp. 197–227. ISBN 9783030822910. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-82291-0_10 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82291-0_10
10. CURRAN, Vivian Grosswald. Extraterritoriality, Universal Jurisdiction, and the Challenge of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. Maryland Journal of International Law [online]. 2013, vol. 28, p. 76. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2335440http://ssrn.com/abstract=2335440
11. EBBESSON, Jonas. Piercing the state veil in pursuit of environmental justice. In: EBBESSON, J. and P. OKOWA, eds. Environmental Law and Justice in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 270–293. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511576027.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576027.015
12. ENGLE, Eric. Corporate Criminal Liability & the Alien Tort Statute: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. Houston Journal of International Law. 2010, vol. 2005, no. 2005, pp. 1–8.
13. FOX, Eleanor M. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Antitrust, and the EU Intel Case: Implementation, Qualified Effects, and the Third Kind. Fordham International Law Journal [online]. 2019, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 981–998 [accessed 28.09.2025]. ISSN 0747-9395. Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol42/iss3/8
14. FRANK, Malte. The EU’s new Foreign Subsidy Regulation on collision course with the WTO. Common Market Law Review. 2023, vol. 60, no. Issue 4, pp. 925–958. ISSN 0165-0750. DOI: 10.54648/COLA2023070 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2023070
15. GREAR, Anna and Burns H. WESTON. The betrayal of human rights and the urgency of universal corporate accountability: Reflections on a post-Kiobel lawscape. Human Rights Law Review. Oxford University Press, 2015, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 21–44. ISSN 17441021. DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngu044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngu044
16. GSTREIN, Oskar Josef and Andrej Janko ZWITTER. Extraterritorial application of the GDPR: Promoting european values or power? Internet Policy Review. Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, 2021, vol. 10, no. 3. ISSN 21976775. DOI: 10.14763/2021.3.1576 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.3.1576
17. HOFMANN, Andreas. Is the Commission levelling the playing field? Rights enforcement in the European Union. Journal of European Integration. Routledge, 2018, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 737–751. ISSN 14772280. DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2018.1501368 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2018.1501368
18. HORNKOHL, Lena. Protecting the Internal Market From Subsidisation With the EU State Aid Regime and the Foreign Subsidies Regulation: Two Sides of the Same Coin? Journal of European Competition Law & Practice. 2023, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 137–151. ISSN 2041-7764. DOI: 10.1093/jeclap/lpad005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpad005
19. HORNKOHL, Lena. The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations in EU Law. 2022. Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law Research Paper Series. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4036688 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4036688
20. HORNKOHL, Lena and Pierfrancesco MATTIOLO. The Concept of “Distortion in the Internal Market” in the Foreign Subsidies Regulation - From the Legacy of State Aid Law to the First Case Practice. 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5247472 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5247472
21. HORNKOHL, Lena and Pierfrancesco MATTIOLO. Weighing the Scales: The Balancing Test of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5487826 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5487826
22. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL. Report on the first session of the open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, with the mandate of elaborating an international legally binding instrument. United Nations Human Rights Council. 2016, vol. 01535, no. February
23. IKEGBUNAM, Kimberly Chinyere. “Touching the Concerns” of Kiobel: Corporate Liability and Jurisdictional Remedies in Response to Kiobel vs. Royal Dutch Petroleum. American Indian Law Review [online]. 2014, vol. 39, pp. 201–234 [accessed 21.11.2025]. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol39/iss1/4
24. IRAMBONA, Estelle Valentine. The extraterritorial dimensions of the CS3D (CS3D Part 2). In: Consumer Competition Market Blog [online]. 8. 10. 2024 [accessed 30.09.2025]. Available at: https://www.law.kuleuven.be/ccm/blog/posts/cs3d-part-2
25. JANEBA, Eckhard. Extraterritorial trade sanctions: Theory and application to the US–Iran–EU conflict. Review of International Economics. John Wiley and Sons Inc, 2024, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 49–71. ISSN 14679396. DOI: 10.1111/roie.12682 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12682
26. JEVREMOVIĆ PETROVIĆ, Tatjana. Extraterritoriality effect of the CSDDD on non-EU companies. InterEULawEast: Journal for the International and European Law, Economics and Market Integrations. University of Zagreb Faculty of Economics and Business, 2024, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 195–216. ISSN 18493734. DOI: 10.22598/iele.2024.11.2.9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22598/iele.2024.11.2.9
27. JONGE, Alice de. Transnational Corporations and International Law. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2011. ISBN 9781849803687. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857930392
28. KOCHENOV, Dimitry. Article 52 TEU. In: The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford University Press, 2019, pp. 334–336. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.64 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.64
29. KOLIEB, Jonathan. Kiobel v Royal Dutch Shell: A Challenge for Transnational Justice. Macquare Law Journal. 2014, vol. 13, pp. 169–177.
30. KONTOROVICH, Eugene. Kiobel Surprise: Unexpected by Scholars but Consistent With International Trends [online]. 2014. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2353226
31. KRAJEWSKI, Markus, Kristel TONSTAD and Franziska WOHLTMANN. Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence in Germany and Norway: Stepping, or Striding, in the Same Direction? Business and Human Rights Journal. Cambridge University Press, 2021, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 550–558. ISSN 20570201. DOI: 10.1017/bhj.2021.43 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2021.43
32. KU, Julian G. Kiobel and the Surprising Death of Universal Jurisdiction Under the Alien Tort Statute . American Journal of International Law. 2013, vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 835–841. ISSN 0002-9300. DOI: 10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.4.0835 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.4.0835
33. KUNER, Christopher. Protecting EU Data Outside EU Borders Under the GDPR. Common Market Law Review. 2023, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 77–106. ISSN 18758320. DOI: 10.54648/cola2023004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2023004
34. LETNAR ČERNIČ, Jernej. Corporate Responsibility for Human Rights: A Critical Analysis of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational enterprises. Hanse Law Review [online]. 2008, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 71–100 [accessed 08.09.2018]. Available at: http://hanselawreview.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Vol4No1Art05.pdf
35. LETNAR ČERNIČ, Jernej. Corporate responsibility for human rights: Analyzing the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy. Miskolc Journal of International Law [online]. 2009, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 24–34 [accessed 17.08.2018]. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1459548
36. LETNAR ČERNIČ, Jernej. Towards a Holistic Approach to Business and Human Rights in the European Union. Human Rights & International Legal Discourse (HR&ILD) [online]. Intersentia, 2016, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 160–181. Available at: https://www.jurisquare.be/en/journal/hrild/10-1/towards-a-holistic-approach-to-business-and-human-rights-in-the-european-union/
37. LOWE, Vaughan. Jurisdiction. In: EVANS, Malcolm D., ed. International law. Second. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 335–360. ISBN 978-0-19-928270-8.
38. LUSTIG, Doreen. Three paradigms of corporate responsibility in international law: The Kiobel moment. Journal of International Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press, 2014, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 593–614. ISSN 14781395. DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mqu040 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqu040
39. MARTIN, Rik. Why Qatar’s gas lifeline to Germany is at risk – DW – 08/01/2025. In: DW [online]. 8. 1. 2025 [accessed 01.10.2025]. Available at: https://www.dw.com/en/why-qatars-gas-lifeline-to-germany-is-at-risk/a-73460153
40. MARTYNISZYN, Marek. Export cartels: Is it legal to target your neighbour? Analysis in light of recent case law. Journal of International Economic Law. 2012, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 181–222. ISSN 13693034. DOI: 10.1093/jiel/jgs003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgs003
41. MARTYNISZYN, Marek. Intel, iiyama and Air Cargo: Far-Reaching Extraterritorial Application of EU Competition Law. European Competition Law Review. 2022, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 505–512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4256651
42. MARTYNISZYN, Marek. Legislation Blocking Antitrust Investigations and the September 2012 Russian Executive Order. World Competition. 2014, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 103–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/WOCO2014006
43. MARULLO, Maria Chiara and Francisco Javier ZAMORA CABOT. Transnational Human Rights Litigations. Kiobel’s touch and concern: A test under construction [online]. 2016. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2765068
44. MEHRA, Salil K. Extraterritorial antitrust enforcement and the myth of international consensus. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law. 1999, vol. 10, pp. 191–221.
45. NAGY, Csongor István. Foreign Subsidies, Distortions and Acquisitions: Can the Playing Field Be Levelled? Central European Journal of Comparative Law. Central European Journal of Comparative Law, 2021, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 147–162. ISSN 2732-0707. DOI: 10.47078/2021.1.147-162 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47078/2021.1.147-162
46. PERRONE, Nadia. Perspectives of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction for Environmental Damage in the Proposal of the European Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence. The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law. 2023, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 389–408. ISSN 2772-5642. DOI: 10.1163/27725650-03020012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-03020012
47. QUESADA, Jimena. Article 52 TEU [Territorial Scope of the Treaties]. In: BLANKE, Hermann-Josef and Stelio MANGIAMELI, eds. The Treaty on European Union (TEU). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 1433–1448. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-31706-4_53 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31706-4_53
48. DE SCHUTTER, Olivier. Towards a New Treaty on Business and Human Rights. Cambridge University Press, 2016. DOI: 10.1017/bhj.2015.5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2015.5
49. SCOTT, Joanne. The new EU “extraterritoriality.” Common Market Law Review. 2014, vol. 51, no. Issue 5, pp. 1343–1380. ISSN 0165-0750. DOI: 10.54648/COLA2014110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2014110
50. SHU, Zhongsheng. Application and Improvement of Blocking Statute in the View of the Intersection of Public International Law and Private International Law: Review of the Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou Incident. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology. vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1–21.
51. SIRE, Thibault. The uneven playing field How to deal with foreign subsidies when assessing mergers. Concurrences. 2022, no. 1, pp. 1–9.
52. SJÅFJELL, Beate. Conceptualising Corporate Sustainability Law. Transnational Legal Theory. 2025, pp. 1–46. ISSN 2041-4005. DOI: 10.1080/20414005.2025.2559542 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2025.2559542
53. SKINNER, Gwynne L. Beyond Kiobel: Providing Access to Judicial Remedies for Violations of International Human Rights Norms by Transnational Business in a New (Post-Kiobel) World. Columbia Human Rights Law Review. 2014, vol. 46, pp. 158–265.
54. STEINHARDT, Ralph G. Kiobel and the Weakening of Precedent: A Long Walk for a Short Drink . American Journal of International Law. Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2013, vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 841–845. ISSN 0002-9300. DOI: 10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.4.0841
55. STEINHARDT, Ralph G. Kiobel and the Weakening of Precedent: A Long Walk for a Short Drink. The American Journal of International Law. 2013, vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 841–845. DOI: 10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.4.0841
56. STEINHARDT, Ralph G. Kiobel and the Weakening of Precedent: A Long Walk for a Short Drink. The American Journal of International Law. 2013, vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 841–845. DOI: 10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.4.0841 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.4.0841
57. SWAINE, Edward T. Kiobel and Extraterritoriality: Here, (Not) There, (Not Even) Everywhere. Oklahoma Law Review. 2016, vol. 69, pp. 23–51. ISSN 1556-5068. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2958277 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2958277
58. SZIGETI, Péter D. In the Middle of Nowhere: The Futile Quest to Distinguish Territoriality from Extraterritoriality. In: MARGOLIES, Daniel S. et al., eds. The Extraterritoriality of Law: History, Theory and Politics. Routledge, 2019. ISBN 9781032178318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351231992-3
59. SZIGETI, Péter D. The Illusion of Territorial Jurisdiction. Texas International Law Journal. 2017, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 359–399.
60. THE STATE COUNCIL INFORMATION OFFICE, the People’s Republic of China. China says EU’s foreign subsidy investigations constitute trade, investment barriers. In: CHINA SCIO [online]. 9. 1. 2025 [accessed 01.10.2025]. Available at: http://english.scio.gov.cn/pressroom/2025-01/09/content_117654850.html
61. THOMPSON, Benjamin. Was Kiobel Detrimental to Corporate Social Responsibility? Applying Lessons Learnt From American Exceptionalism. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law. 2014, vol. 30, no. 78, pp. 82–98. ISSN 2053-5341. DOI: 10.5334/ujiel.ce DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.ce
62. TRAPP, Patricia. The Procedural Framework of the Proposal for a Regulation on Foreign Subsidies Viewed from a Common Commercial Policy Perspective. Zeitschrift fur Europarechtliche Studien. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH und Co KG, 2022, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 495–504. ISSN 1435439X. DOI: 10.5771/1435-439X-2022-3-495 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/1435-439X-2022-3-495
63. TRUMP, Donald J. @realDonaldTrump. In: Truth Details | Truth Social [online]. 5. 9. 2025 [accessed 06.10.2025]. Available at: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115153232183118149
64. UNITED NATIONS-HUMAN RIGHT COUNCIL (UN-HRC). Elements for a draft legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights. [online]. 2017, vol. 9, pp. 1–14. Available at: www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session3/LegallyBindingInstrumentTNCs_O BEs.pdf
65. YILMAZ VASTARDIS, Anil and Rachel CHAMBERS. Overcoming the Corporate Veil Challenge: Could Investment Law Inspire the Proposed Business and Human Rights Treaty? International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2018, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 389–423. ISSN 14716895. DOI: 10.1017/S0020589317000471 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589317000471
66. YOKOMIZO, Dai. Japanese blocking statute against the U.S. Anti-Dumping Act of 1916. The Japanese Annual of International Law. 2006, p. 36.
67. ZELGER, Bernadette. EU Competition law and extraterritorial jurisdiction–a critical analysis of the ECJ’s judgement in Intel. European Competition Journal. Taylor and Francis Ltd., 2020, vol. 16, no. 2–3, pp. 613–627. ISSN 17578396. DOI: 10.1080/17441056.2020.1840844 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441056.2020.1840844
68. EXXONMOBIL. A bone-crushing burden: Darren Woods discusses CSDDD | ExxonMobil in Europe. In: ExxonMobil in Europe [online]. 2. 10. 2025 [accessed 06.10.2025]. Available at: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/locations/european-region/european-newsroom/2025/a-bone-crushing-burden-darren-woods-discusses-csddd#DarrenWoodsdiscussesCSDDD
69. Better Regulation Guidelines. Brussels, 2021.
70. Better Regulation toolbox. In: Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox [online]. 7. 2023, p. 612 [accessed 21.11.2025]. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/9c8d2189-8abd-4f29-84e9-abc843cc68e0_en?filename=BR%20toolbox%20-%20Jul%202023%20-%20FINAL.pdf
71. EURACTIV.COM WITH AFP. Chinese train maker withdraws from Bulgaria tender after EU probe. In: Euractiv [online]. 30. 9. 2024 [accessed 01.10.2025]. Available at: https://www.euractiv.com/news/chinese-train-maker-withdraws-from-bulgaria-tender-after-eu-probe/
72. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Statement by Commissioner Breton on withdrawal by CRRC Qingdao Sifang Locomotive Co., Ltd. from public procurement following the Commission’s opening of an investigation under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation. In: European Commission [online]. 26. 3. 2024 [accessed 01.10.2025]. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/statement_24_1729/STATEMENT_24_1729_EN.pdf
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ondrej Blažo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
