From the Seal Products AB report:
5.173. Finally, we note that, in US – Shrimp, the Appellate Body stated that it would not "pass upon the question of whether there is an implied jurisdictional limitation in Article XX(g), and if so, the nature or extent of that limitation".1187 The Appellate Body explained that, in the specific circumstances of that case, there was "a sufficient nexus between the migratory and endangered marine populations involved and the United States for purposes of Article XX(g)".1188 As set out in the preamble of the Basic Regulation, the EU Seal Regime is designed to address seal hunting activities occurring "within and outside the Community"1189 and the seal welfare concerns of "citizens and consumers" in EU member States.1190 The participants did not address this issue in their submissions on appeal.1191 Accordingly, while recognizing the systemic importance of the question of whether there is an implied jurisdictional limitation in Article XX(a), and, if so, the nature or extent of that limitation, we have decided in this case not to examine this question further.
Was this paragraph designed to get me excited that the AB was going to address extra-territoriality, only to leave me frustrated by saying it would not be addressed after all? If so, it worked!