Tanja Domej retraces the debates over the relevancy and meaning of the principle of territoriality for the cross-border attachment of debts from a comparative perspective. On the basis of an interest analysis, she presents perspectives for an appropriate approach to dealing with issues of cross-border attachment of incorporeal assets.

It is often said that jurisdiction for execution measures is strictly territorial. Measures that can be carried out without physical compulsion, however, cannot be distinctly localised. Tanja Domej retraces the debates over the relevancy and meaning of the principle of territoriality for the cross-border attachment of debts from a comparative perspective. She shows that the pertinent issues of cross-border debt enforcement cannot be solved by reference to this principle but that, on the other hand, simply transferring concepts developed in the field of international litigation is also unsuitable. On the basis of an interest analysis, she presents perspectives for an appropriate approach to dealing with issues of cross-border attachment of incorporeal assets.