Myths and misconceptions in extraterritorial torts^†.

This article examines the legitimacy and limits of states’ ability to impose tort liability for extraterritorial torts—wrongful acts causing harm outside a state’s own territory—through both instrumental and rights-based legal frameworks. It argues that domestic courts can legitimately hold their own states and officials liable for torts committed abroad without asserting authority over foreign states, while imposing liability on foreign states for extraterritorial torts requires either the foreign state’s consent, a sufficient jurisdictional connection, or the breach of jus cogens norms (peremptory international law). The article further distinguishes compensatory damages, which aim to restore losses and are generally legitimate, from punitive damages, which seek to punish or deter and are typically considered an illegitimate unilateral assertion of authority over foreign states. The analysis is contextualized by recent legal disputes involving Canada and the United States, highlighting inconsistencies and misconceptions in current tort liability regimes concerning foreign sovereign immunity and extraterritorial jurisdiction.