Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Blocking Statutes: Private Individuals Entangled in Interstate Conflicts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Blurry Boundaries of Public and Private International Law

  • 685 Accesses

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the instrument of Blocking Statutes and to place them in the interface between public international law and private international law. This article first establishes the meaning of extraterritorial jurisdiction and its consequences. It then describes different public international law measures that aim at avoiding or at least mitigating these consequences, followed by possible national reactions to foreign extraterritorial jurisdiction. In this context, the content of Blocking Statutes and their effects will be analyzed in detail. Particularly the latter, i.e. the effects of Blocking Statutes, will show that Blocking Statutes are not an appropriate alternative to international cooperation and coordination.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom, Official Journal L 309, 29/11/1996, p. 1.

  2. 2.

    Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1100 of 6 June 2018 amending the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 protecting against the effects of extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting there from, Official Journal LI 199, 7/8/2018, p. 1.

  3. 3.

    Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of 14 July 2015, adopted on 18 October 2015 (United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 [2015]).

  4. 4.

    Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (LIBERTAD), Pub. L. 104–114, 110 Stat. 785 (codified at 22 U.S.C. §§ 6021-91 [1995]); the Act is an important and controversial part of the extensive US economic embargo against Cuba.

  5. 5.

    Gernert (2020a), p. 171.

  6. 6.

    Süddeutsche Zeitung (2021), China demonstriert seine Macht. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/china-sanktionen-menschenrechte-1.5320972. Accessed 14 June 2021.

  7. 7.

    Meng (1994), p. 1.

  8. 8.

    See for an overview Randall (1988), p. 786 ff.; see also Bagheri and Jafar Ghanbari Jahromi (2016), p. 398 ff.

  9. 9.

    American Law Institute (2018) Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 401 (b); see Dodge (2018), p. 143 ff.; for the previous Restatement (Third) see Hixson (1988), p. 129.

  10. 10.

    See Mann (1964), p. 23 ff.; Mann (1984), p. 19 ff.

  11. 11.

    See Lowenfeld (1986), p. 91.

  12. 12.

    Ryngaert (2015), p. 9.

  13. 13.

    See on jurisdiction in the sense of (territorial or extraterritorial) behaviour control Kim (2003), p. 387 f.

  14. 14.

    See for a detailed distinction between territoriality and extraterritoriality Emmenegger (2016), p. 638.

  15. 15.

    Parrish (2012), p. 1678.

  16. 16.

    Tirkey (2019), p. 2.

  17. 17.

    Eren and Pinter (2013), p. 16; Tehrani (2016), p. 87; Meyer (2009), p. 925.

  18. 18.

    Karpenstein and Sangi (2019), p. 309.

  19. 19.

    Differently: Ryngaert (2008), p. 626; Tirkey (2019), p. 2; Hoff (2019b), p. 1341.

  20. 20.

    Cf. Karpenstein and Sangi (2019), p. 309; Haellmigk (2018), p. 34 f.

  21. 21.

    Tehrani (2016), p. 87.

  22. 22.

    Meyer (2009), p. 926; Tehrani (2016), p. 87.

  23. 23.

    Senz and Charlesworth (2001), p. 79; Meyer (2009), p. 926.

  24. 24.

    See as an introduction to the Helms-Burton Act and the claim of Title III Kern Alexander (1998), p. 523 ff.

  25. 25.

    See in detail on this claim for damages Adams (1997–1998), p. 157 ff.

  26. 26.

    See in detail Mann (1964), p. 127 ff.; Mann (1984), p. 34 ff.

  27. 27.

    Emmenegger (2016), p. 638 f.

  28. 28.

    Colangelo (2014), p. 1304 f.

  29. 29.

    Cf. Bertele (1998), p. 410.

  30. 30.

    See for subpoena procedures in the U.S. Meng (1994), p. 252 f.

  31. 31.

    See for example Warner Jr. (1990–1991), p. 372.

  32. 32.

    Buxbaum (2019), p. 307.

  33. 33.

    See already American Law Institute (1987) Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Chap. 4 Introductory Note.

  34. 34.

    Cf. Warner Jr. (1990–1991), p. 372.

  35. 35.

    Cf. Rowold (2020), p. 51.

  36. 36.

    Buxbaum (2019), p. 288.

  37. 37.

    Buxbaum (2019), p. 288.

  38. 38.

    For example, in competition law, see in detail Mestmäcker and Schweitzer (2014), p. 141 ff.

  39. 39.

    Mestmäcker and Schweitzer (2014), p. 512; cf. also Buxbaum (2019), p. 300.

  40. 40.

    Buxbaum (2019), p. 351 f.

  41. 41.

    Buxbaum (2019), p. 352.

  42. 42.

    Buxbaum (2019), p. 302; Gerber (1999), p. 126, 131 ff.

  43. 43.

    Buxbaum (2019), p. 299.

  44. 44.

    Buxbaum (2019), p. 299.

  45. 45.

    Basedow (2013), p. 124 f.; Buxbaum (2019), p. 303.

  46. 46.

    Buxbaum (2019), p. 317.

  47. 47.

    Sterio (2006–2007), p. 113 ff.; see on over- and under-regulation as a result of conflicts Buxbaum (2019), p. 292 ff.

  48. 48.

    See in general Kämmerer (2006), http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e691?rskey=Ey5mjS&result=1&prd=EPIL. Accessed 14 Jun 2021.

  49. 49.

    Dodge (2015), p. 2079.

  50. 50.

    Buxbaum (2019), p. 289.

  51. 51.

    See on such cooperation agreements in detail Du Toit (1999), p. 29 ff.

  52. 52.

    Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.

  53. 53.

    For a description of the provisions of the agreement, see Heck (1986), p. 233–237.

  54. 54.

    Meng (1994), p. 103 ff.

  55. 55.

    Meng (1994), p. 90 ff.

  56. 56.

    See for the term countermeasures Klein (1998), p. 42 ff.

  57. 57.

    Basedow (2017), p. 209.

  58. 58.

    See Forwick (1993), p. 104 f.; Kayser (2001), S. 93.

  59. 59.

    See Hoff (2019a), p. 31 ff.

  60. 60.

    See for instance Klein (1998), p. 45 ff.

  61. 61.

    Art. 23 para 2(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (Annex 2 to the Treaty of Marrakesh, 1869 UNTS 401).

  62. 62.

    Basedow (2017), p. 209.

  63. 63.

    Nissen (1999), p. 352 f.

  64. 64.

    Arendt (1998), p. 271 f.

  65. 65.

    Trice (1997), p. 99 ff.; Adams (1997–1998), p. 160 ff.

  66. 66.

    Basedow (2017), p. 209.

  67. 67.

    See Schnyder (1998), p. 88 f.

  68. 68.

    See Schnyder (1998), p. 89 ff.

  69. 69.

    Schnyder (1998), p. 92.

  70. 70.

    See as the first Blocking Statute “The Business Records Protection Act of the Province of Ontario”, RSO 1980 ch. 56, passed in 1947.

  71. 71.

    See as an example Art. 5 EU-Blocking-Regulation.

  72. 72.

    See for the EU-Blocking-Regulation Bälz (2020), p. 416 ff.

  73. 73.

    For example in France, see Forwick (1993), p. 103.

  74. 74.

    Basedow (2017), p. 212.

  75. 75.

    See as an example Art. 4 EU-Blocking-Regulation.

  76. 76.

    See as an example of such clawback provisions Art. 4 EU-Blocking-Regulation; § 6 of the British “Protection of Trading Interests Act”, 1980 c. 11; Art. 5 of the Mexican,,Act to Protect Trade and Investment from Foreign Norms that Contravene International Law”, I.L.M. 36 (1997) 133–154.

  77. 77.

    Schnyder (1998), p. 93; Basedow (2017), p. 212; April (1984), p. 231; Gotto (1981), p. 946, 956 f.

  78. 78.

    See generally, Basedow (2017), p. 212 f.; Basedow (2013), p. 339 f.; see in particular for the clawback claim of the EU-Blocking-Regulation Lieberknecht (2018), p. 578 f.

  79. 79.

    Basedow (2013), p. 341.

  80. 80.

    See for provisions of this type in detail April (1984), p. 224 ff.

  81. 81.

    Lieberknecht (2018), p. 576; Cremer (2016), p. 18.

  82. 82.

    Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), Official Journal L 177, 4/7/2008, p. 6.

  83. 83.

    See ECJ, 18/10/2016 – C-135/15 (Nikiforidis), para 40 ff.

  84. 84.

    This is the solution in German substantive law, see for example Mankowski (2016), p. 489 ff.

  85. 85.

    See in detail Gernert (2020b), p. 332; Lieberknecht (2018), p. 576; see also the Opinion of the Advocate General in the case C-124/20 (Bank Melli).

  86. 86.

    See on the conflict of duties in Blocking Statutes Mankowski (2019), p. 184.

  87. 87.

    American Law Institute (2018) Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 442, Comment a; see also Meng (1994), p. 256.

  88. 88.

    American Law Institute (2018) Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 442, Comment c.

  89. 89.

    American Law Institute (2018) Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 442, Reporters’ Notes Nr. 2.

  90. 90.

    Cf. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993), at 799; Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp., 595 F.2d 1287 (3d Cir. 1979), at 1293.

  91. 91.

    See on the problem of effective enforcement of Blocking Statutes Mankowski (2016), p. 489.

  92. 92.

    See for an overview of previous cases Bellinger III et al. (2021) Two Years of Title III: Helms-Burton Lawsuits Continue to Face Legal Obstacles. https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/publications/2021/05/two-years-of-title-iii-helmsburton-lawsuits?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=LinkedIn-integration. Accessed 14 Jun 2021.

  93. 93.

    Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522 (1987), at 541–42, 544 n.29.

  94. 94.

    See Hoda (2018), p. 231 ff.

  95. 95.

    See also Basedow (2013), p. 341.

  96. 96.

    Mankowski (2019), p. 184; Lieberknecht (2018), p. 579.

  97. 97.

    Basedow (2013), p. 341.

  98. 98.

    Lieberknecht (2018), p. 579; Mankowski (2019), p. 184.

  99. 99.

    See for examples Basedow (2013), p. 341.

  100. 100.

    See on this Compromise Smis and Borght (1999), p. 227 ff.

  101. 101.

    Lieberknecht (2018), p. 579.

  102. 102.

    Basedow (2017), p. 209.

  103. 103.

    Basedow (2017), p. 210.

  104. 104.

    Basedow (2013), p. 342.

References

  • Adams KS (1997–1998) Subchapter III of the Helms-Burton Act: a reasonable assertion of United States extraterritorial jurisdiction? Hamline L Rev 21:147–180

    Google Scholar 

  • American Law Institute (1987) Restatement of the Law Third, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States. American Law Institute, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • American Law Institute (2018) Restatement of the Law Fourth, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States. American Law Institute, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • April S (1984) Blocking statutes as a response to the extra-territorial application of law. In: Olmstead CJ (ed) Extra-territorial application of laws and responses thereto. International Law Association, London, pp 223–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt M (1998) The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996: isolationist obstacle to policy of engagement. Case W Res J Int’l L 30:251–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagheri M, Jafar Ghanbari Jahromi M (2016) Globalization and extraterritorial application of economic regulation: crisis in international law and balancing interests. Eur J Law Econ 41:393–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Bälz K (2020) Das “Befolgungsverbot” der Blocking-VO (EG) Nr. 2271/96. EuZW 31:416–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow J (2013) The law of open societies: private ordering and public regulation of international relations. Recueil des cours 360. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow J (2017) Blocking statutes. In: Basedow J, Rühl G, Ferrari F, Miguel Asensio P (eds) Encyclopedia of private international law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 209–214

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bellinger III JB, Shannon Jr. TA, Barker JP, Weiss B, McSorley T, Mirski SA (2021) Two Years of Title III: Helms-Burton lawsuits continue to face legal obstacles. https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/publications/2021/05/two-years-of-title-iii-helmsburton-lawsuits?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=LinkedIn-integration. Accessed 14 Jun 2021

  • Bertele J (1998) Souveränität und Verfahrensrecht. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Buxbaum HL (2019) Public regulation and private enforcement in a global economy: strategies for managing conflict. Recueil des cours 399. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Colangelo AJ (2014) What is extraterritorial jurisdiction? Cornell L Rev 99:1303–1352

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremer M (2016) Embargovorschriften als Eingriffsnormen. Bucerius Law J 10:18–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodge WS (2015) International comity in American Law. Colum L Rev 115:2071–2141

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodge WS (2018) Jurisdiction in the Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law. In: Bonomi A, Romano G, Pretelli I (eds), Yearbook of private international law. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 143–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Toit R (1999) Regulation of competition in a global economy. https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk1/tape9/PQDD_0022/MQ50929.pdf. Accessed 14 Jun 2021

  • Emmenegger S (2016) Extraterritorial economic sanctions and their foundation in international law. Ariz J Intl & Comp L 33:632–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Eren H, Pinter S (2013) U.S. economic sanctions against Iran – navigating treacherous. The American Club “Currents” 35:16–23, https://www.american-club.com/files/files/currents_35.pdf. Accessed 14 Jun 2021

  • Forwick C (1993) Extraterritoriale US-amerikanische Exportkontrollen. Verl. Recht und Wirtschaft, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber DJ (1999) The U.S. - European conflict over the globalization of antitrust law: a legal experience perspective. New Engl L Rev 34:123–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Gernert M (2020a) Auswirkungen des Helms-Burton Act und der EU-Blocking-Verordnung auf europäische Verfahren. Iprax 40:170–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Gernert M (2020b) Vertragskündigungen iranischer Geschäftsbeziehungen aufgrund US-Sanktionen und ein möglicher Verstoß gegen die EU-Blocking-Verordnung und § 7 AWV. Iprax 40:329–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotto GA (1981) Foreign blocking legislation: recent roadblocks to effective enforcement of American Antitrust Law. Ariz State L J 1981:945–976

    Google Scholar 

  • Haellmigk P (2018) Das aktuelle US-Iran-Embargo und seine Bedeutung für die deutsche Exportwirtschaft: Das US-Sanktionsregime der Primary und Secondary Sanctions. CCZ 11:33–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck A (1986) US misinterpretation of the Hague evidence convention. Colum J Transnat’l L 24:231–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Hixson K (1988) Extraterritorial jurisdiction under the third restatement of foreign relations law of the United States. Fordham Int Law J 12:127–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoda MJ (2018) The Aérospatiale Dilemma: Why U.S. Courts ignore blocking statutes and what foreign states can do about it. Calif L Rev 106:231–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoff L (2019a) Transaktionen in US-Dollar und sekundäre Sanktionen. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoff L (2019b) US-amerikanische Wirtschaftssanktionen – Eine Gefahr für europäische Banken am Beispiel des Iran. WM 73:1336–1342

    Google Scholar 

  • Kämmerer JA (2006) Comity. In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/https://doi.org/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e691?rskey=Ey5mjS&result=1&prd=EPIL. Accessed 14 Jun 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpenstein U, Sangi R (2019) Iran-Sanktionen am Scheideweg: Die EU-Blocking-Verordnung und INSTEX. EuZW 30:309–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayser J (2001) Gegenmassnahmen im Aussenwirtschaftsrecht und das System des europäischen Kollisionsrechts. P. Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern Alexander S (1998) Trafficking in confiscated Cuban property: lender liability under the Helms-Burton act and customary international law. Dick J Int’l L 16:523–562

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim W-K (2003) The extraterritorial application of U.S. antitrust law and its adoption in Korea. Sing J Int’l & Comp L 7:386–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, 1998.Klein E (1998) Gegenmaßnahmen. BerGesVR 37:39–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberknecht M (2018) Die Blocking-Verordnung: Das IPR als Instrument der Außenpolitik. Iprax 38:573–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenfeld AF (1986) Jurisdiction to prescribe: some contributions from an international lawyer. B U Int’l L J 4:91–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2016) Drittstaatliche Embargonormen, Außenpolitik im IPR, Berücksichtigung von Fakten statt Normen: Art. 9 Abs. 3 Rom I-VO im praktischen Fall. Iprax 36:485–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2019) Politik und missliebige drittstaatliche Eingriffsnormen – Der Israel-Boykott der arabischen Staaten und der Fall Kuwait Airways. RIW 65:180–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann FA (1964) The doctrine of jurisdiction in international law. Recueil des cours 111. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann FA (1984) The doctrine of international jurisdiction revisited after twenty years. Recueil des cours 186. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng W (1994) Extraterritoriale Jurisdiktion im öffentlichen Wirtschaftsrecht. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mestmäcker E-J, Schweitzer H (2014) Europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, 3rd edn. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer JA (2009) Second thoughts on secondary sanctions. U Pa J Int’l L 30:905–967

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissen H-O (1999) Der Helms-Burton act vor der WTO. RIW 45:350–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish AL (2012) Evading legislative jurisdiction. Notre Dame L Rev 87:1673–1708

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall KC (1988) Universal jurisdiction under international law. Tex L Rev 66:785–841

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowold J (2020) Pflichten und Handlungsmöglichkeiten von Vorstandsmitgliedern bei internationalen Normenkonflikten. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryngaert C (2008) Extraterritorial export controls (secondary boycotts). Chinese J Int’l L 7:625–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryngaert C (2015) Jurisdiction in international law, 2nd edn. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnyder AK (1998) “Gegenmaßnahmen” im Internationalen Privat- und Zivilverfahrensrecht. BerGesVR 37:73–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Senz D, Charlesworth H (2001) Building blocks: Australia’s response to foreign extraterritorial legislation. Melb J Int’l L 2:69–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Smis S, van der Borght K (1999) The EU-U.S. Compromise on the Helms-Burton and D’Amato Acts. Am J Int Law 93:227–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterio M (2006–2007) Clash of the Titans: collisions of economic regulations and the need to harmonize prescriptive jurisdiction rules. U C Davis J Int'l L & Pol'y 13:95–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Tehrani R (2016) US Secondary Sanctions und ihre Bedeutung für die europäische Versicherungswirtschaft – das Ende der Neutralität? VersR 67:85–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirkey A (2019) US secondary sanctions: framing an appropriate response for India. https://www.orfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ORF_IssueBrief_273_SecondarySanctions.pdf. Accessed 14 Jun 2021

  • Trice RC (1997) Helms-Burton: Canada and Mexico v. the United States – blocking legislation is an unwise barrier between neighbors. Sw J L & Trade Am 4:87–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner Jr. MA (1990–1991) Strangers in a strange land: foreign compulsion and the extraterritorial application of United States employment law. Nw J Int'l L & Bus 11:371–402

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Private and Comparative Law, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Marcel Gernert

Authors
  1. Marcel Gernert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcel Gernert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Maritime Law, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, Australia

    Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit

  2. Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

    Dharmita Prasad

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gernert, M. (2022). Blocking Statutes: Private Individuals Entangled in Interstate Conflicts. In: Sooksripaisarnkit, P., Prasad, D. (eds) Blurry Boundaries of Public and Private International Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8480-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8480-7_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-8479-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-8480-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation