Countries that enforce American sanctions do so because they're signatories to various treaties. Similarly, countries that enforce American copyright laws are also signatories. It's opt-in, often under real-or-perceived economic duress, but it's not like it's totally arbitrary.

Doesn't change the fact that it should be up to that country's prosecutors to do the enforcement - not the governments of Canada or the USA.

International treaties should not override a country's laws - Canada for example is already in brazen violation of internation drug treaties.

If US authorities want them on these charges, they should be presenting legitimate evidence to Chinese prosecutors and arguing over the treaty in question, not playing world police.

No. If every person was legally immune, save for their own country, then each country could simply refuse to persecute citizens that violate treaties. Under your proposed scheme, treaties wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on.

Of course, but then they'd have to contend with the country in question - basically, the US should be revoking whatever benefits China gains from such treaties, not prosecuting them directly.

Yes, copyright is a good analogy: I don't get to legally torrent non-American works just because they're foreign. And if I did breach the copyright laws of a country with which the US has no extradition treaty, I absolutely could be persecuted if I travel to that country.

That's not quite the same because we recognise the copyright in domestic law. American copyright laws aren't being directly applied in other countries - different countries can have different laws on dealing with copyrighted material.

Sure, but if you violate those laws and then travel to that country they're completely allowed to persecute you. That's what happened to the Huawei exec (or to be more specific, she traveled to a country with extradition treaties with the US).

Nope, you cant. This is like saying if I smoke weed in a country where it is legal and then go to a country B where it is illegal. Country B can arrest me because I broke their law.

Copyright law is a domestic law. You cannot be prosecuted for break US copyright law if you broke the law in an unrelated country B and you are not US citizen. Also B doesn't recognize US's jurisdiction to enforce copyright law in that country.

> This is like saying if I smoke weed in a country where it is legal and then go to a country B where it is illegal. Country B can arrest me because I broke their law.

This is the case for several countries, such as South Korea: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/23/bong-arm-of-th...

In Huawei's case even domestic law doesn't apply to them. Its like a canadian citizen being arrested in South Korea for smoking weed in Canada

Huawei broke international treaties. My understanding is that violation of such treaties is enforceable by any signatory. It's more like someone laundering money in one country and getting arrested in another country that is a signatory of an international anti-laundering law.

If this weren't the case, then international treaties would be pointless. Countries just wouldn't bother enforcing them against their own citizens.

I dislike American copyright law and despise how it’s so broadly enforced around the world. Having said that I’m unmoved by the “Chinese company” argument. Practically speaking most companies are effectively stateless multinationals, and even state entities like Huawei do business around the world.

It’s not shocking that a country with the muscle to flex would say “If you want to do business with us, follow these rules.” No one forces a company of country X to do business in country Y, and they knew the score when they decided to expand to a given market. Add to that the fabric of treaties and obligations tying countries together and all told it’s a reality of a modern world which sought to avoid a Third World War. Sure it’s annoying when the US acts like a BSD on behalf of its moneyed interests, but the underlying structure of international obligation is better than the alternatives.