Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Are there any possible legal arguments that support foriegn countries not having to follow RCW 19.28
Executive Summary
RCW 19.28 is a Washington statute governing electricians and electrical installations and primarily operates within Washington’s territorial reach, but legal arguments exist that foreign countries or foreign sovereign entities need not comply with it if territorial jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, or choice-of-law principles remove the statute’s force. Recent case law and scholarship show three principal defenses against extraterritorial application: territorial limits and reciprocity/exemptions in the statute itself, sovereign immunity doctrines that bar U.S. enforcement against foreign states or state-owned entities, and contractual choice-of-law/arbitration clauses that place disputes outside Washington courts [1] [2] [3].
1. Why Washington law looks territorial — and what RCW itself allows that could limit its reach
RCW 19.28 is framed as a state regulatory statute, and its enforcement mechanisms presume physical activities or actors within Washington’s borders; this territorial framing is central to arguments that foreign countries need not follow it. The statute also contains carve-outs and mechanisms for reciprocity and exemptions for certain entities such as utilities and telecommunications providers, which courts and defenders can read to constrain application to out-of-state or sovereign foreign actors. Those statutory exemptions provide a plausible, statutory-text basis to argue Washington lacked authority to compel compliance by a foreign government or its instrumentalities absent explicit statutory language asserting extraterritorial reach [1].
2. Sovereign immunity: a powerful shield for foreign states and state-owned entities
U.S. law treats foreign states as presumptively immune from suit in U.S. courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a doctrine routinely invoked to block enforcement actions against foreign sovereigns and their enterprises; FSIA can defeat attempts to apply state statutes against foreign states in U.S. courts unless a statutory exception applies. A recent appellate ruling refusing enforcement of an arbitral award against a Saudi state enterprise demonstrates how immunity doctrines operate to bar domestic remedies against foreign sovereigns, showing that even if RCW 19.28 were asserted extraterritorially, enforcement may be defeated on immunity grounds [2] [4].
3. Choice-of-law and jurisdiction clauses can displace RCW’s reach in contracts
Commercial parties routinely use foreign choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses to avoid the application of U.S. or state law; courts — including recent foreign high-court developments affirming asymmetric jurisdiction clauses — have validated such arrangements under certain conditions. When parties contractually select a foreign law or arbitral seat, Washington statutory rules may be displaced by the governing contract, and enforcement of regulatory claims in Washington courts can be limited or routed into arbitration fora where RCW’s direct regulatory remedies do not apply [3].
4. Extraterritoriality scholarship explains legal limits and competing approaches
Academic work on extraterritoriality highlights that states adopt multiform approaches to applying domestic law abroad, and that no single principle ensures automatic reach into foreign territory. The literature emphasizes jurisdictional limits, comity, and reciprocal frameworks; this body of thought supports the position that absent clear statutory intent and international comity, Washington law should not be read to bind foreign sovereigns or activities wholly outside the state [5]. Scholars frame enforcement as more pragmatic — dependent on where assets, parties, or enforcement mechanisms are located.
5. Enforcement is often the practical battleground, not the abstract rule
Even where a plaintiff claims RCW 19.28 was violated, the real obstacle often is enforcement: U.S. courts may lack personal or subject-matter jurisdiction over foreign entities, may find FSIA immunity, or may be constrained by chosen arbitration fora and foreign judgments. The Fifth Circuit’s refusal to enforce an award against a foreign sovereign illustrates that procedural doctrines and immunity frequently decide the outcome, independently of whether a state statute could theoretically apply to foreign conduct [4] [2].
6. Competing agendas and what to watch for in litigation strategy
Arguments that foreign countries need not follow RCW 19.28 reflect different agendas: states and regulators press broad protections for local safety and licensing; sovereigns and multinational commercial actors press for immunity, contractual autonomy, and limited extraterritorial reach. Each side will emphasize different authorities — statutory exemptions and reciprocity for regulators, FSIA and choice-of-law authorities for foreign actors — and courts will balance sovereignty, comity, and contractual certainty when resolving conflicts [1] [2] [3].
7. Bottom line for practitioners: multiple, defensible lines of defense exist
Legal arguments to keep RCW 19.28 from binding foreign countries cohere around three defensible pillars: statutory territoriality and exemptions within RCW itself, sovereign immunity under FSIA and related case law, and contractual choice-of-law/jurisdiction clauses validated by recent jurisprudence. Each pillar has limits and depends on the case’s facts — where the conduct occurred, the parties’ status, contract terms, and where enforcement must occur — so success typically rests on combining these doctrines rather than relying on any single theory alone [1] [2] [3] [5].