 |
customer@davidpublishing.com |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
A Study on the Legitimacy of the Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Export Control Regulations
WAN Huijie, CHEN Guowen
Full-Text PDF
XML 23 Views
DOI:10.17265/1548-6605/2026.03.002
Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
Taking the connecting factors of U.S. export controls as a clue, this paper constructs a three-tier analytical framework from the factual rationality of the connecting factors, the legitimacy under legal normative evaluation, and the effects of extraterritorial application, revealing how the extraterritorial application of U.S. export controls moves from a formally legal hierarchical structure to a systemic conflict of substantive legitimacy. Penetrating technical facades such as the “De Minimis Rule” and the “Foreign-Produced Direct Product Rule” (FDPR), U.S. export control regulations not only break through the genuine link principle of jurisdiction in international law, but also shift the regulatory purpose from traditional trade management to technological containment through the generalization of the national security concept and the absence of the principle of proportionality. The deep-seated contradiction lies in the fact that the domestic legal system allows executive power to escape the control of legislative purpose through layers of authorization, causing a divergence between formal legality and substantive legitimacy, while at the international law level, due to the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms, it is difficult to constrain this “legal but illegitimate” expansion of power. The effect test shows that this system not only triggers a spiral escalation of global legal fragmentation and jurisdictional conflicts, but also produces a backlash against the rule of law within the United States. Finally, the extraterritorial application of U.S. export control regulations is precisely a contemporary manifestation of the “jealousy of trade” criticized by Hume. The reconstruction of the export control governance order should return to the concept of “enlightened self-interest”, establish technology transfer rules based on reciprocal reciprocity and mutual recognition at the bilateral and multilateral levels, and correct unilateralism through international coordination mechanisms, thereby repairing the normative rupture between formal legality and substantive legitimacy.
U.S. export controls, extraterritorial application, rationality, legitimacy, international law, jealousy of trade
.WAN Huijie, CHEN Guowen.A Study on the Legitimacy of the Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Export Control Regulations.US-China Law Review, May-June 2026, Vol. 23, No. 3, 137-157
Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Buzan, B., Waever, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6, 167-191.
Guan, J. Q., & Sun, X. Y. (2023). Review and response to U.S. extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction in the context of unilateral sanctions. Nanjing University Law Review, 30(6), 75-94. doi:10.13519/b.cnki.nulr.2023.06.014
Hume, D. (1987). Of the jealousy of trade. In E. F. Miller (Ed.), Essays, moral, political, and literary (pp. 327-331). Carmel: Liberty Fund.
Kingsbury, B., Krisch, N., & Stewart, R. B. (Summer 2005). The emergence of global administrative law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68, 15-62. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol68/iss3/2
Koh, H. H. (1990). The national security constitution: Sharing power after the Iran-contra affair. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Li, S. Y., & Ou, F. Y. (2017). Private international law (5th ed.). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Ma, M. J. (2024). Rethinking the extraterritorial application of export control laws: Practical conflicts and international law constraints. Chinese Review of International Law, 11(5), 126-144.
Ryngaert, C. (2015). Jurisdiction in international law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sanger, D. E. (Jan. 8, 2026). Trump says he doesn’t recognize international law. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.qiia.org/zh-hans/node/1787 (last visited on Apr. 10, 2026)
Shi, R. W., & He, Q. S. (2025). Export controls on advanced technologies: Challenges of extraterritorial application of law and China’s response. Academic Journal of Zhongzhou, 47(12), 83-92.
Shurson, J. (2025). Investigative jurisdiction: The evolving limits of extraterritoriality in transnational digital investigations. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 74(3), 675-705. doi:10.1017/S0020589325100985
Sun, A. Y., & Hu, J. X. (2025). The extraterritorial application of U.S. export control legislation and its legitimacy review. Journal of International Economic Law, 28(2), 49-65.
Tian, J. (2025). Research on the extraterritorial application mechanism of U.S. public law and China’s response. Journal of Hainan University (Humanities & Social Sciences), 43(1), 195-206. doi:10.15886/j.cnki.hnus.202110.1409
U.S. Dep’t of Justice. (Mar. 7, 2017). ZTE corporation agrees to plead guilty. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/zte-corporation-agrees-plead-guilty-and-pay-over-4304-million-violating-us-sanctions