In the 20th century, states increasingly sought to apply their laws to situations occurring or originating beyond their borders but threatening their national interests. In more recent times, however, some states started to provide legal accountability for international crimes (such as crimes against humanity) which did not adversely affect them (?universal jurisdiction?). Lately, this evolution to protect ?global values? appears to be expanding into the environmental and socio-economic fields. This project examines whether the traditional international legal framework of jurisdiction (which emphasizes territorial or personal links to the regulating entity) can still accommodate these regulatory developments, or whether, instead, a novel ?global values?-based principle of jurisdiction is crystallizing. The project consists of two pillars. Pillar 1 studies three cases of states and regional organizations unilaterally applying their own laws to (partly) foreign situations considered as threatening global values: climate change, protection of marine resources, and foreign corrupt practices. Pillar 2 is synthetic in nature, and assesses whether, and to what extent, general rules of jurisdiction and jurisdictional restraint concerning the protection of global values are developing, or should develop, across various fields, including but not limited to the fields studied in Pillar 1. The project will utilize the knowledge developed by reaching out to various stakeholders: (prospective) policy-makers, businesses, and the general public. The project will in particular (1) provide training to professionals; (2) launch a blogging and discussion website; (3) co-organize Model United Nations events for students; (4) organize a business game for management and staff of transnational corporations.