The Comment concludes that the Boureslan majority adhered to the canon of statutory construction by denying Title VII application overseas in light of the absence of the requisite congressional intent. The majority properly deferred policy considerations to Congress. Although this Comment concludes that the dissent's analysis in statutory construction is technically incorrect, it emphasizes the dissent's opinion because it sets forth national and foreign policy considerations that support the need for Congress to make Title VII enforceable outside the United States.
Goldstein, Dina S.
"The Need For Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in the Application of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Boureslan v. Aramco,"
Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce: Vol. 16:
2, Article 5.
Available at: https://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol16/iss2/5