I wasn't sure if this is better for the site itself or for the meta site. But just in case there is a proper legal term, I figured maybe the question does belong on the site.
We have some questions and answers which confuse what jurisdiction some laws claims (de jure) and what jurisdiction they have (de facto).
Some examples of these are
- ICC has made some claim of jurisdiction over the US, while the US has denied ICC this jurisdiction.
- EU-block countries claim that GDPR applies to all entities which interact with the member-countries' citizens. But the US entities without any physical presence or assets in EU-member countries appear to be outside of the de facto reach of GDPR.
- The US criminal justice system claims jurisdiction over any citizen of any country, but it does not de facto (rather than de jure) apply to the countries with no extradition treaties with the US.
The best I can describe this situation is the way I did in the question's title. The entities are outside of reach of those laws, but they are not outside of claim of reach of those laws. However, if this is not the formal terminology, then simply stating "outside the reach of the law of X" is likely to result in answers trying to correct the assumptions of the question by attempting to explain that the entities are not outside of the claim of the reach of those laws.
Are there any legal terms which can make it clear that such questions are about the "outside of reach" rather than "outside of claim of reach" situations?