The Ontology of Blocking Law: From Regulatory History to Conceptual Return

Abstract

Against the background of the expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction, this paper points out that blocking law should not be reduced solely to the binary narrative of "extraterritorial foreign legislation infringing national interests – domestic defense of national interests." Its institutional evolution has progressed from blocking evidence discovery and the enforcement of foreign judgments in the competition-law context to a comprehensive framework under restrictive measures law encompassing "prohibition of compliance – shielding against foreign judgments – damages relief – reporting and exemption." At the level of international law, extraterritorial legislation merely extends the scope of application of the norm and does not necessarily project state power; the legitimacy of blocking law is therefore better explained as the use of domestic private international law tools to uphold reasonable nexus, international comity, and the avoidance of inconsistent obligations. At the level of domestic law, restrictive measures law pierces foreign property rights, corporate governance, and freedom of contract by relying on financial infrastructure and compliance deterrence; blocking law, by amending choice-of-law references, restricting the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, and supplementing these with prohibition of compliance and civil relief, achieves a "corrective realignment" of the domestic private-law order. Blocking law is thus an instrument combining unilateral countermeasure and order-repair: it denies the effect of foreign public law within the forum state, while returning private-law relations to domestic law.