The Normative Framework of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in International Law: From the Lotus Paradigm to Transnational Climate Accountability

This article proposes a coherent jurisdictional framework for transnational corporate climate liability through the integration of public and private international law. It identifies a persistent institutional failure: the separation of prescriptive legitimacy (public international law) from adjudicatory operability (private international law) generates substantive regulatory rights without accessible courts—exemplified most acutely in the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which establishes compensation entitlements whilst remaining jurisdictionally silent on many third-country claims. Methodologically, the article combines critical legal dogmatics with functional comparison of US and EU jurisdictional frameworks, drawing on primary sources (treaties, legislation, and case law) and specialist literature. Substantively, it contends that (i) extraterritorial jurisdiction has evolved from the Lotus paradigm toward a genuine-connection/legitimate-interest standard; (ii) the US constitutional model exemplifies institutional “gatekeeping” that may externalize access-to-justice costs, whilst the EU model demonstrates substantive regulatory ambition unaccompanied by procedural avenues; and (iii) a workable integrated standard remains available. The article operationalizes “genuine connection” through four cumulative judicial criteria—foreseeability, material contribution, effective control, and remedial necessity—conditioned by safeguards of subsidiarity, reasonable connection, defendant protection, and multilateral enforcement. The analysis reflects legislative and judicial developments through early 2025, notably the CSDDD, the ECtHR’s KlimaSeniorinnen judgment, and the German Lliuya v. RWE AG decision. It characterizes the CSDDD’s jurisdictional silence as a structural design failure—predictable under public/private compartmentalization—rather than a mere legislative oversight.