This article responds to Cedric Ryngaert’s commentary on the treatment of the customary international law of jurisdiction in the Restatement of the Law (Fourth): The Foreign Relations Law of the United States. With respect to prescriptive jurisdiction, the article explains that the Restatement (Fourth) has not abandoned reasonableness as a rule of customary international law, although its ‘genuine connection’ requirement differs from the interest-balancing approach of the Restatement (Third). With respect to adjudicative jurisdiction, the article explains that the Restatement does not exclude the possibility of limits under customary international law but simply finds that no such limits currently exist, apart from the rules on foreign sovereign immunity. In each case, the Restatement reflects a modest approach to the customary international law of jurisdiction that insists on state practice and opinio juris.

中文翻译：

---

对习惯国际法管辖权的一种温和态度

本文回应了 Cedric Ryngaert 在《法律重述（第四）：美国对外关系法》中对习惯国际管辖权法的处理的评论。关于规定性管辖权，文章解释说，《重述》（四）并没有放弃作为习惯国际法规则的合理性，尽管其“真正联系”的要求与《重述》（三）的利益平衡方式有所不同。关于审判管辖权，文章解释说，重述并不排除根据习惯国际法进行限制的可能性，只是简单地认定，除了外国主权豁免规则外，目前不存在此类限制。在每种情况下，