Blocking Statutes, Foreign Illegality and Extra-Territorial Economic Sanctions

The increased scope and rigour of US sanctions in recent years have produced a strong reaction by many countries and regional trading blocs against their unilateral and extra-territorial application. Emblematic of this backlash has been the reaction in the international community to the Cuban trade embargo, the Helms-Burton Act and the Iran Sanctions Act. Most countries contend that these sanctions laws violate international law (Marcus, 1996b, 9). Canada and Mexico have claimed that the Cuban trade embargo and Helms-Burton Act violate US obligations under the NAFTA.1 Both countries have taken domestic legislative action to counter the Act. The Canadian Parliament responded by amending existing blocking laws to make it illegal for Canadian businesses, including Canadian subsidiaries of US companies, to comply with the provisions of the Act.2 In addition, the Canadian Parliament has amended its Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act to provide Canadian companies a means to countersue in Canadian courts to recover damages awarded against them by US courts under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act.3 In 1996, Mexico’s Senate unanimously approved a Helms-Burton ‘antidote’ law which fines Mexican companies that allow themselves to be fined under Helms-Burton.4 Moreover, in 1996, the Juridical Committee of the Organisation of American States (OAS) adopted a unanimously approved statement condemning the Helms-Burton Act and the Cuban Democracy Act as contrary to international law.5