International legal relations: Determining antitrust jurisdiction across borders

This study engages the discussion between dualists and monists over a normative determination of cross-border jurisdiction. Inherently involved is a consideration of a transnational view, considering international law with national laws. The study also considers United States, Argentina, and Brazil's respective national laws, agencies, and how they administer antitrust. While addressing Mercosur and the United States, the study translates possible implications to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the development of international legal relations, as a proactive approach to jurisdictional conflicts.; This study assumes that the normative determination of jurisdiction to apply antitrust law to cross-border energy activity is necessary to coincide with regional and hemispheric FTAA goals. The study's hypothesis is that energy sector activity across borders requires appropriate antitrust jurisdiction. Therefore, should a transnational approach be sought to determine jurisdiction?; The backdrop of the study is the energy sector between the United States and Mercosur as it develops within the FTAA. Through the dualist and monist debate, the study addresses judicial approaches to potential jurisdictional conflicts as activities cross national borders and domestic regulations are sought to be enforced. United States case law is utilized along with the Restatements of Law for Foreign Relations and for Conflicts of Law. The study also discusses international jurisdictional principles in light of relevant case law. As such, the study addresses judicial discretion in the use of comity as a conflict of laws approach when jurisdiction appears concurrent. In so doing, the study addresses the balancing of interests approach along with the proverbial canons of construction, i.e., the presumption in favor of international law and the presumption against extraterritoriality. It synthesizes transnational considerations by assessing and suggesting the establishment of an energy jurisdictional commission to determine appropriate jurisdiction. It surveys several potential models to emulate. It attempts to establish the ground work for the development of international legal relations instead of having varied judicial decisions setting precedent, which to date appears inconsistent and not fruitful for the establishment of a reliable legal system to determine jurisdiction for antitrust across national borders.