The core problem here goes beyond Greenpeace and this specific dispute. It speaks to the balance between defending the sovereignty of domestic judicial outcomes and mitigating the costs of perpetual legal exposure in multiple jurisdictions. If a matter has been fully litigated and resolved under U.S. law, reopening it elsewhere does not simply revisit the facts. It undermines the finality on which our civil justice system depends. Businesses operate on the expectation that once a verdict is reached they can move forward without fear of being dragged into yet another venue with different rules and standards. To preserve fairness and predictability there must be clear limits on the extraterritorial reach of litigation. Without them the precedent set will not only drain resources from targeted companies but also create hesitation among innovators and investors who rely on legal certainty to take calculated risks. This is not a question of avoiding accountability but of ensuring that the rules of engagement remain consistent and finite.