Definition of Different Types of Jurisdiction PDF

This article is published in a peer-reviewed section of the Utrecht Law Review
Prosecutions of Extraterritorial Criminal Conduct and

the Abuse of Rights Doctrine
Danielle Ireland-Piper*
Introduction1
Jurisdiction was once primarily understood by reference to geographical borders. However, assertions of
jurisdiction over extraterritorial conduct have become increasingly frequent in the twenty-first century.
Assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction sit at the crossroads of domestic and international law, and
can be controversial. This is in part because states may enjoy competing claims to jurisdiction, but
also because the rights of individuals can be compromised in prosecutions of extraterritorial conduct.
Part I of this paper briefly explains the distinction between prescriptive, enforcement and adjudicative
jurisdiction, sets out some of the historical developments of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and introduces
the principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Part II then identifies some of the ways in which the rights
of individuals can be undermined by assertions of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction. Finally, Part III
considers whether the abuse of rights doctrine might usefully regulate the relationship between a state’s
right to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the rights of individuals.
Part I
In international law, the term ‘jurisdiction’ describes the rights of states to regulate conduct, and the
limit on those rights. Domestic law prescribes the extent to which states make use of those rights.
Under customary international law, states exercise jurisdiction on three main bases: nationality,
territoriality, and universality. Put simply, the nationality principle can provide a state with grounds for
jurisdiction where a national is either a victim (passive nationality) or a perpetrator (active nationality).
The territoriality principle may be invoked where conduct either takes place within a nation’s borders
(subjective territoriality), or the effects of the conduct are felt within the borders (objective territoriality).
The universality principle is reserved for conduct constituting an international crime, such as piracy,
genocide and crimes against humanity. International law also recognises a ‘protective principle’, wherein
a state can assert jurisdiction over foreign conduct that threatens national security. There is also some
support for an ‘effects principle’, which gives jurisdiction over extraterritorial conduct, the effects of
which are felt by a state.
* LLB/BIR (1st Hons) (Bond), LL M (Cantab.); PhD (Candidate, UQ), senior teaching fellow, Faculty of Law, Bond University, Australia. Email:
[email protected]. The author is grateful to her research assistant, Gordon C. McBain, for his assistance in finalizing parts of this paper.
http://www.utrechtlawreview.org | Volume 9, Issue 4 (September) 2013 | URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-112946 |
68
Danielle Ireland-Piper
1. The distinction between prescriptive, enforcement and adjudicative jurisdiction
As a preliminary point, a distinction is often made between prescriptive, enforcement and adjudicative
jurisdiction.1 Prescriptive extraterritorial jurisdiction refers to the capacity of a state to legislate in respect
of persons and/or conduct.2 Enforcement jurisdiction refers to the capacity, or otherwise, of that state to
enforce compliance with those laws.3 Adjudicative jurisdiction refers to the ability of courts to adjudicate
and resolve disputes.4 This paper is, at various points, concerned with all three. The distinction, however,
is not necessarily determinative of the issues raised in Parts II and III. Therefore, for the purposes of this
paper, the difference between the three is not laboured upon.
2. Historical context
2.1. Pre-twentieth century

Traditionally, the geographical boundaries of a nation state provided the foundation for jurisdictional
queries. Territoriality was considered a defining pillar of international law. For example, in the 1600s,
the Treaty of Westphalia conceptualized a nation’s power as ending at its territorial borders.5 In this
way, regardless of economic or military disparities, each state possessed exclusive jurisdiction within its
own territory.6 However, the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction was not unknown. For example, it
existed in medieval Italy, sixteenth-century Brittany, and seventeenth-century Germany.7 Further, during
the nineteenth century some European jurisdictions began to claim jurisdiction over extraterritorial
acts committed by non-citizens that threatened the security of the state.8 Nonetheless, extraterritorial
jurisdiction occurred as an exception, rather than as a rule.
2.2. Twentieth century

In 1927, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) delivered judgment in the Lotus9 case.
This decision was a turning point in jurisdictional jurisprudence. The PCIJ considered whether
Turkey, in instituting criminal proceedings against a French national over a collision on the high seas
between a Turkish ship and a French ship resulting in the death of Turkish nationals, acted in conflict
with international law.10 The French Government submitted that the Turkish courts, in order to have
jurisdiction, must be able to identify a specific title to jurisdiction given to Turkey in international law.11
Conversely, the Turkish Government took the view that it inherently had jurisdiction, provided such
jurisdiction did not come into conflict with a principle of international law.12 The PCIJ stated:
‘International law governs relations between independent States. The rules of law binding upon
States therefore emanate from their own free will as expressed in conventions or by usages
generally accepted as expressing principles of law and established in order to regulate the
1 See, e.g., B. Perrin, ‘Taking a Vacation from the Law? Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction and Section 7(4.1) of the Criminal Code’,
2009 Canadian Criminal Law Review 13, no. 2, p. 175, p. 178; American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law
of the United States, 1987, § 101; R. Liivoja, ‘The Criminal Jurisdiction of States: A Theoretical Primer’, 2010 No Foundations: Journal for
Extreme Legal Positivism 7, p. 25.
2 R. O’Keefe, ‘Universal Jurisdiction: Clarifying the Basic Concept’, 2004 Journal of International Criminal Justice 2, no. 3, pp. 735-760, p. 736.
3 See, e.g., G.D. Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and Practices, 2006, p. 344; D.J. Gerber, ‘Beyond Balancing: International
Law Restraints on the Reach of National Laws’, 1984 Yale Journal of International Law 10, p. 189.
4 J.A. Zerk, ‘Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Lessons for the Business and Human Rights Sphere From Six Regulatory Areas’ (Working Paper
No. 59, Harvard Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, 2010), p. 13.
5 A. Parrish, ‘The Effects Test: Extraterritoriality’s Fifth Business’, 2008 Vanderbilt Law Review 61, no. 5, p. 1455, pp. 1463-1464, citing
L. Gross, ‘The Peace of Westphalia, 1648-1948’, 1948 American Journal of International Law 42, p. 20, pp. 28-29.
6 Ibid., p. 1464.
7 M. Akehurst, ‘Jurisdiction in International Law’, 1972-1973 British Yearbook of International Law 46, p. 145, p. 163.
8 Ibid., pp. 157-158.
9 The S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey) (Judgment), [1927] PCIJ (ser. A) No. 10 .
10 The S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey) (Judgment), [1927] PCIJ (ser. A) No. 10, p. 5.
12 Ibid.
69
Prosecutions of Extraterritorial Criminal Conduct and the Abuse of Rights Doctrine
relations between these co-existing independent communities or with a view to the achievement
of common aims. Restrictions upon the independence of States cannot therefore be presumed.’13
And, while observing that ‘jurisdiction is certainly territorial’,14 the PCIJ found:
‘It does not, however, follow that international law prohibits a State from exercising jurisdiction
in its own territory, in respect of any case which relates to acts which have taken place abroad,
and in which it cannot rely on some permissive rule of international law. Such a view would
only be tenable if international contained a general prohibition (…).’15

Finally, the Court concluded, in what has become a frequently cited passage and articulates what could
be described as the ‘Lotus principle’,
‘(…) Far from laying down a general prohibition to the effect that states may not extend the
application of their laws and the jurisdiction of their courts to persons, property and acts outside
their territory, it leaves them in this respect a wide measure of discretion which is only limited
to certain cases by prohibitive rules; as regards other cases, every State remains free to adopt the
principles which it regards as best and most suitable.’16
In this way, the PCIJ established a presumption in favour of a nation’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, in the
absence of a prohibitive rule. Some commentators attribute the development of the ‘effects test’ to the
decision in Lotus having undermined ‘territoriality as a limiting constraint on legislative jurisdiction’.17
Following the decision in Lotus, domestic courts began to grapple with the consequences of assertions
of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Although some argue that jurisdiction based solely on territoriality
well ‘served the goals of ‘predictability and efficiency’,18 by the mid-1900s the ‘heyday’ of territorial
jurisdiction had begun its demise.19 As economies became increasingly interconnected there was an
increased interest in regulating cross-border activities, such as transnational crime and the activities of
multinational corporations.20 In some cases, the interest in extraterritoriality became associated with
attempts to enforce human and indigenous rights.21
The prosecution of war crimes after World War II was also pivotal in the development of
extraterritorial jurisdiction. The adjudication of Nazi war crimes in the Nuremberg tribunals
‘transformed our understanding of jurisdiction’.22 The trials are often described as an exercise of
extraterritorial jurisdiction that sought to bring ‘accused war criminals to account on behalf of the entire
world community of civilized nations.’23 Although it has been argued by some commentators that the
allied forces were in fact exercising territorial jurisdiction as sovereigns over occupied territory,24 it
is widely accepted that the Nuremberg trials were an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction based on
the universality principle. Following Nuremberg, Israel’s prosecution of a member of the Gestapo for
his involvement in administering the ‘final solution’ in Attorney General of the Government of Israel v
13 Ibid. (emphasis added).

15 Ibid., p. 19.
16 Ibid. (emphasis added).
17 Gerber, supra note 3, pp. 196-197.
18 Parrish, supra note 5, p. 1467.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., p. 1469.
21 Ibid., p 1470.
22 H. Gluzman, ‘On Universal Jurisdiction – Birth, Life and a Near-Death Experience’, Bocconi School of Law Papers, Paper No. 2009-08/EN,
p. 4, citing R. Teitel, ‘Nuremberg and its Legacy: Fifty Years Later’, in B. Cooper (ed.), War Crimes: the Legacy of Nuremberg, 1990, p. 50.
23 H. Gluzman, ‘On Universal Jurisdiction – Birth, Life and a Near-Death Experience’, Bocconi School of Law Papers, Paper No. 2009-08/EN,
p. 4, citing W.B. Simons, ‘The Jurisdictional Bases of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg’, in G. Ginsburgs & V. Kudriavtsev
(eds.), The Nuremberg Trial and International Law, 1990, p. 52.
24 M.C. Bassiouni, ‘Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice’, 2001 Virginia Journal
of International Law 42, p. 81, pp. 96-97.
70
Eichmann,25 is also widely cited as an example of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, as late as 1990,
the scholar Frederick Mann observed:
‘Normally no State is allowed to apply its legislation to foreigners in respect of acts done by them
outside the dominions of the sovereign power enacting. That is a rule based on international
law, by which one sovereign power is bound to respect the subjects and the rights of all over
sovereign powers outside its own territory.’26
He was also of the view that ‘the nationality of the defendant is now probably an insufficient link to
provide the courts of his home State with jurisdiction over him.’27 However, by the end of the twentieth
and beginning of the twenty-first centuries, a number of treaties called on states to assert extraterritorial
jurisdiction. For example, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Optional
Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography together require parties to
criminalise child prostitution whether or not the acts occur domestically or extraterritorially.28 All but
two countries of the world are now party to the CRC, making it one of the most universally ratified of
all United Nations conventions.29 Other examples include the international anti-corruption frameworks.
The major international treaties on anti-corruption all either require or permit a degree of extraterritorial
jurisdiction.30 Similarly, international treaties relating to terrorism and torture also permit some assertions
of extraterritorial jurisdiction. For example, the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist
Bombings calls upon parties to assert jurisdiction on the basis of both passive and active nationality,31
and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism calls upon parties
to assert active nationality jurisdiction.32 The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment also permits states to exercise active nationality jurisdiction, and
passive nationality, where a state deems it to be ‘appropriate’.33
2.3. Twenty-first century

Many states now have domestic legislation with extraterritorial reach. By way of example, states as diverse
as Singapore,34 Indonesia,35 Zimbabwe,36 Iraq,37 Russia,38 France,39 the United Kingdom,40 Mexico,41
25 (1961) 36 International Law Reports 5.

26 F.A. Mann, Further Studies in International Law, 1990, p. 5.
27 Ibid.
28 See Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography,
opened for signature 25 May 2000, 2171 UNTS 227 (entered into force 18 January 2002), Art. 1,3.
29 F. David, ‘Child Sex Tourism’, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, no. 156, June 2000.
30 See, e.g., Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, OECD (21 November 1997);
United Nations Convention Against Corruption, UNCAC (31 October 2003); Inter-American Convention Against Corruption, Organization
of American States (29 March 1996); Criminal Law Convention on Corruption 1999 and its Additional Protocol, European Union
(27 January 1999).
31 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, opened for signature 15 December 1997, 2149 UNTS 256 (entered
into force 23 May 2001), Art. 6.
32 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, opened for signature 9 December 1999, 2178 UNTS 197
(entered into force 10 April 2002), Art. 7(1).
33 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature 10 December 1984,
1465 UNTS 85 (entered into force 26 June 1987), Art. 5.
34 For example, see Penal Code, (Singapore, cap. 224, 2008 rev. ed.), s. 3; Prevention of Corruption Act, (Singapore, cap. 241, 1993 rev. ed.),
s. 37(1); and the decision in Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong, [1998] 2 SLR 410, [27]-[43].
35 For example, see Penal Code of Indonesia (1982), <http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ffc09ae2.html> (last visited 12 September 2013),
Art. 4.
36 For example, see Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Zimbabwe) (2004), <http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c45b64c2.html>
(last visited 12 September 2013), s. 5.
37 For example, see Criminal Code 1969 (Iraq), <http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/documents/Iraqi_Penal_Code_1969.pdf> (last visited
12 September 2013), ss. 2-4.
38 For example, see Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (1996), <http://www.russian-criminal-code.com/PartI/SectionI/Chapter2.
html> (last visited 12 September 2013), Art. 12.
39 For example, see Code Pénal [Penal Code] (France), <http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/Traductions/en-English/Legifrance-translations> (last
visited 12 September 2013), Art. 113(6)-113(12).
40 For example, see Bribery Act 2010 (UK) c. 23, s. 12.
41 For example, see Código Penal Federal (Mexico) 1931, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=199697#LinkTarget_461>, (last
visited 12 September 2013), Art. 4.
71
Canada,42 the United States,43 Japan,44 Israel45 and Thailand46 have at least some legislative provisions
with extraterritorial effect. Geographical conceptions of territory are ‘becoming a less salient feature of
the international legal landscape.’47 States are acting on treaty obligations, reacting to world events, or
seeking to achieve political objectives.48 Undoubtedly, high-profile terrorist attacks such as the infamous
events in the United States in September 2001, and Internet leaks such as those by the organization
‘Wikileaks’, have resulted in increased efforts by states to regulate extraterritorial conduct.
The Internet poses particular challenges for jurisdictional frameworks. As Okoniewski observes,
‘because anyone can view information on the Internet, every nation has an interest in regulating it (…)
and determining which nation has jurisdiction over a particular issue can have a significant impact on
the outcome’. 49
3. Principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction
The principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction are now explored in further detail. Differential time and
attention will be given to each principle, because some principles are less controversial than others and
require less explanation. Nonetheless, the same three questions will be asked in relation to each principle:
1. What is the particular principle of jurisdiction under discussion?

2. What is an example of that principle?
3. Is there debate on the principle?
3.1. The territoriality principle

3.1.1. What is the territorial principle of jurisdiction?
The territoriality principle is the most common basis of jurisdiction50 and is widely regarded as a
manifestation of state sovereignty.51 At its simplest, the territoriality principle denotes that a state has
jurisdiction over conduct that occurs within territorial borders. However, it has both subjective and
objective limbs. Subjective territoriality describes the jurisdiction of a state over conduct that occurs
entirely within that state’s borders. Objective territoriality refers to the jurisdiction of a state over conduct
that only partially occurs in that state’s territory. In particular, a territorial conception of jurisdiction is
deeply rooted in common-law countries. One reason for this in English-speaking jurisdictions is the
need for trial by jury, and original conceptions of the jury being part of the community in which the
crime was committed.52
3.1.2. What is an example of territorial jurisdiction?

An example of subjective territorial jurisdiction is a murder committed in the physical territory of State A.
The arrest, trial and imprisonment of the perpetrator in State A are on the basis of territorial jurisdiction.
An example of objective territorial jurisdiction takes place on the border between two states, State A
42 For example, see Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 7(4.1), <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-3.html> (last visited
12 September 2013).
43 For example, see Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, 18 USC § 3261(2000), <http://www.pubklaw.com/hi/pl106-523.pdf>
(last visited 12 September 2013).
44 For example, see Penal Code (Japan) (1907), <http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?ft=2&re=02&dn=1&yo=penal+code
&x=0&y=0&ky=&page=1> (last visited 12 September 2013), Art. 3-5.
45 For example, see Penal Law of Israel (Israel) 199, <http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b60a4.html> (last visited 12 September 2013),
ss. 13-17.
46 For example, see Criminal Code (Thailand) (1956), <http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex_browse.details?p_lang=en&p_country=
THA&p_classification=01.04&p_origin=COUNTRY&p_sortby=SORTBY_COUNTRY> (last visited 12 September 2013), s. 8.
47 M. Byers, ‘Abuse of Rights: An Old Principle, A New Age’, 2001-2002 McGill Law Journal 47, p. 424.
48 See generally the discussion in D. Ireland-Piper, ‘Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction: Does the Long Arm of the Law Undermine the Rule
of Law?’, 2012 Melbourne Journal of International Law 13, no. 1, p. 122.
49 E.A. Okoniewski, ‘Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA: The French Challenge to Free Expression on the Internet’, 2002 American University International
Law Review 18, no. 1, pp. 310-311.
50 Zerk, supra note 4, p. 18.
51 A. Chehtman, The Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment, 2010, p. 56.
52 Akehurst, supra note 7, p. 152.
72
and State B. A gun is fired across the border from State A into State B, where it causes injury. Although,
the trigger was pulled in State A, the injury from the bullet occurred in State B. In that scenario, State B
may assert jurisdiction on the basis of objective territorial jurisdiction. Another example of objective
territorial jurisdiction is an offence relating to human trafficking. In order to take persons from State A
into State B, preparations may be made in State A. The remaining parts of the conduct may occur in
State B. This may also give rise to objective territorial jurisdiction. In both cases, if either the victim or
the perpetrator is a national of a state other than State A or State B, that other state may also be able to
assert jurisdiction based on the nationality principle. This is further discussed below in relation to the
nationality principle.
3.1.3. Is there debate on this principle?

From a theoretical standpoint, it is uncontroversial and universally recognised that a state may assert
jurisdiction over activities in its own territory.53 It is commonly relied on. As Michael Akehurst has
observed:
‘One of the main functions of a State is to maintain order within its own territory, so it is not
surprising that the territorial principle is the most frequently invoked ground for criminal
jurisdiction (…).’54
Nonetheless, objective territoriality may involve competing jurisdictional claims.55 To use the human
trafficking example above, although parts of the conduct will have taken place in State A, others were
consummated in State B. If each of State A and State B wished to assert jurisdiction, this may give rise to
a competing claim. International law does not clearly set out a hierarchy of jurisdictional claims, other
than by reference to principles of jurisdictional restraint, such as comity or non-interference. These and
other principles of jurisdictional restraint will be discussed in greater detail in Part III.
3.2. The nationality principle

3.2.1. What is the nationality principle of jurisdiction?
The nationality principle authorises extraterritorial jurisdiction by a state over its nationals, even where
the conduct may have occurred extraterritorially. Like the territorial principle of jurisdiction, this
principle also has two limbs. If jurisdiction is asserted over a national accused of being a perpetrator of
extraterritorial conduct, this is described as ‘active nationality’. If the national is a victim of extraterritorial
conduct, then jurisdiction over that national is termed ‘passive nationality’. Civil-law jurisdictions rely
on the nationality principle to a ‘far greater extent’56 than common-law countries. For example, countries
such as the United States, Canada and Australia tend to assert nationality jurisdiction on an ad-hoc
basis, and for specific offences. This means that not all criminal offences in those jurisdictions will have
extraterritorial effect, and they are generally presumed not to unless otherwise specified. In contrast,
European countries such as France and Switzerland have a broader range of offences with extraterritorial
reach. For example, the French Penal Code provides:
‘French criminal law is applicable to any felony, as well as to any misdemeanour punishable by
imprisonment, committed by a French national or by a foreigner outside the territory of the
republic when the victim is of French nationality at the time of the offence.’57
53 Triggs, supra note 3; Chehtman, supra note 51, p. 56.

55 Gerber, supra note 3.
57 See French Penal Code (France), Art. 113-6, 113-7 (15 March 2013) <http://195.83.177.9/upl/pdf/code_33.pdf> (last visited 12 September
2013).
73
This provision is an example of both active and passive personality jurisdiction. There is generally
a connection between the prohibition on the extradition of nationals and the broad assertion of
extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction over nationals.58
3.2.2. What is an example of the nationality principle?

Domestic child sexual offences with extraterritorial reach are an example of active nationality jurisdiction.
State A may legislate to criminalise sexual activities between its nationals and children, regardless of
where those activities take place. It may seek the extradition of the national or, if the activity is discovered
on the national’s return to State A, simply prosecute in much the same way as for a territorial offence.
An example of passive nationality jurisdiction is State A legislating to make it an offence to recklessly or
intentionally harm, kill or seriously injure a State A citizen or resident anywhere in the world.
3.2.3. Is there debate on the nationality principle?

States are described as having ‘an unlimited right to base jurisdiction on the nationality of the accused.’59
However, there is uncertainty as to how nationality is to be defined. Traditional models of citizenship and
nationality have been altered by globalisation60 and the increased mobility of persons. May articulates
this difficulty when he asserts that it is a ‘mistake to say that there are citizens and yet for it be unclear
what political community these citizens are connected to.’61
International law is generally neutral toward a grant of nationality, provided the granting state does
not breach certain international obligations, such as those under the Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness.62 This means that determination as to who is a ‘national’ for the purpose of the nationality
principle is a matter largely left to individual states. By way of example, Australia’s child-sex tourism
laws assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over citizens and residents, and persons and corporate entities.63
Given that residents have no right to vote in parliamentary elections, this raises issues as to the legitimacy
of assertions of authority over Australian residents overseas. It is also problematic in that residents
are not always considered nationals in other aspects of the law, and, therefore, residents are not truly
nationals under Australian law. In this way, assertions of jurisdiction over residents may be outside the
nationality principle. For dual citizens, there is also the possibility of persons being subject to multiple,
and potentially conflicting, legislative regimes. Rubenstein observes:
‘Domestic laws about who is and who is not a citizen vary significantly, and laws relating to
citizenship in each of the different states are also different. As a result, many people hold more
than one nationality by fulfilling the formal requirements for citizenship in more than one
domestic legal framework.’64
The idea that every individual may be subject to the laws of multiple states in all places, and at all times,
is described as ‘intolerable’.65 Further, there is also debate on the scope of both the active and the passive
limbs of the nationality principle.
Active nationality
A report for the Harvard Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative suggests that states regard the active
nationality principle as the strongest basis for direct extraterritorial jurisdiction.66 However, some
58 Z. Deen-Rascmany, ‘Modernising the Nationality Exception: Is the Non-extradition of Residents a Better Rule?’, 2006 Nordic Journal of
International Law 30, p. 75.
60 K. Rubenstein, ‘Citizenship in an Age of Globalisation: The Cosmopolitan Citizen?’, 2007 Law in Context 25, no. 1, p. 88.
61 L. May, Global Justice and Due Process, 2011, p. 198.
62 Triggs, supra note 3, p. 344.
63 See, Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s. 272.6.
64 Rubenstein, supra note 60, pp. 90-91.
65 1928 Law Quarterly Review 44, pp. 154, 161 as cited in M. Akehurst, ‘Jurisdiction in International Law’, 1972-1973 British Yearbook of
International Law 46, p. 165.
74
commentators express concern as to the underlying philosophical justifications for the principle. For
example, Chehtman claims that, ‘as a basis for criminal jurisdiction, the nationality principle is altogether
unjustified at the bar of justice.’67 He argues that ‘individuals in any given state lack an interest in having
that state’s criminal laws enforced against them or their co-nationals (or co-residents) abroad.’68 By way
of example, and referring to assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction by Spain, he argues:
‘Inhabitants of Spain may feel horrified by a particular crime committed outside its territory by
a co-national, but their belief in the system of criminal laws under which they live being in force
is not undermined by these offences.’69
In contrast, Arnell argues that the nationality principle is symbolic of an evolution from narrow, self-
interested territorial interests to a broader collective interest in the conduct of nationals overseas.70 He
suggests that greater reliance on the nationality principle is justified on three grounds. First, he argues
that given that the conduct of nationals overseas is already regulated on an ad-hoc basis, a standard
framework should be developed to govern its use more broadly.71 It is possible that this has merit; a
standardised framework would allow for greater transparency and consistency in the employment of
the nationality principle. Second, he argues that exercises of jurisdiction on the basis of nationality can
be used to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial.72 Arnell refers to the United Kingdom, where the
rights to a fair trial, liberty and freedom from retrospective legislation are all part of municipal law, and
therefore would be guaranteed to nationals being prosecuted for extraterritorial criminal conduct. While
this assurance of basic human rights is certainly desirable, the reverse could equally be true. Nationals
of states which do not guarantee those same human rights could equally assert jurisdiction over the
conduct of their nationals overseas, thereby depriving a person of those rights. Finally, Arnell argues
that the mobility of people has changed the relationship between citizen and state to the extent where
territorial boundaries are less relevant, and so the relationship ought to be governed by the nationality
principle.73
Passive nationality
The existence and use of the passive nationality principle is particularly controversial, perhaps because
of the particular challenge it poses for territorial-based systems of regulation.74 Of all the grounds
discussed in this paper, it is the only one not included in the Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with
Respect to Crime.75 As a ground of criminal jurisdiction, it has been described as the ‘most contested in
contemporary International Law.’76 In his dissenting judgment in the Lotus case, Judge Moore expressed
his reservation on the passive nationality principle thus:
‘[A]n inhabitant of a great commercial city (...) may in the course of an hour unconsciously
fall under the operation of a number of foreign criminal codes (...) this (...) is at variance not
only with the principle of exclusive jurisdiction of a State over its own territory, but also with
the equally well settled principle that a person visiting a foreign country (...) falls under the
dominion of the local law.77
67 Chehtman, supra note 51, p. 66.

68 Ibid., p. 67.
69 Ibid., p. 61.
70 P. Arnell, ‘The Case for Nationality Based Jurisdiction’, 2001 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 50, no. 4, p. 961, cited in
M.D. Evans (ed.), International Law, 2006.
71 Ibid., p. 959.
72 Ibid., p. 955.
73 Ibid., p. 960.
75 Text with comment, supplement to 1935 American Journal of International Law 29.
76 Chehtman, supra note 51, p. 67.
77 S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey) (Judgement), [1927] PCIJ (ser A) No 10, cited in G.D. Triggs, International Law: Contemporary Principles and
Practices, 2006, p. 355.
75
In particular, the passive nationality principle has potential to create legal uncertainty. While persons
are generally aware of their own nationality, they may not be aware of the nationality of the persons
with whom they interact. For example, a person in State A, when he or she acts, may not be aware of the
nationality of Citizen X, and therefore will not be in a position to assess the legal framework in which
his or her conduct will be assessed.78 Nonetheless, examples of state practice indicate the international
community is increasingly willing to accept assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction on the basis of the
passive nationality principle.79 This is particularly so where the conduct constitutes a serious crime such
as terrorism, hijacking or hostage-taking.
3.3. The universality principle

3.3.1. What is the universality principle?
The universality principle refers to the right of states to assert jurisdiction over serious international
crimes regardless of where the conduct occurs, or the nationality of the perpetrator(s).80 The theory is
that some crimes are so offensive to international peace and security that all states are regarded as having
a legitimate interest in their proscription and punishment.81 Unlike other grounds of extraterritorial
jurisdiction, which demand some connection with the regulating state (such as the nationality of the
perpetrator or the victim), this principle provides every state with a basis to prosecute certain international
crimes. The scope of universal jurisdiction is conceived of in two different ways: conditional and
absolute. A conditional conception of universal jurisdiction requires the presence of the accused in the
prosecuting state.82 An absolute conception, in contrast, does not require the presence of the accused.83
This is sometimes described as ‘universal jurisdiction in absentia’. The latter is far more controversial, and
is not widely accepted as a sound basis for jurisdiction.84
3.3.2. What is an example of universal jurisdiction?

In earlier times, the reach of extraterritorial jurisdiction on the basis of universality was limited to
piracy and the slave trade.85 For example, international law grants every state the authority to assert
jurisdiction over piracy and slave trading because those crimes are ‘prototypal offences that (...) have
long been considered the enemies of humanity.’86 It has expanded since World War II, to the extent that
there is now no firm consensus as to what crimes are subject to universal jurisdiction.87 Prosecutions
over war crimes and crimes against humanity in the post-World War II era also relied heavily on the
universality principle.88 As noted earlier, the prosecution of war crimes in the Nuremberg tribunals and
Israel’s prosecution in Eichmann are considered examples of universal jurisdiction. The court before
which Eichmann was tried in Israel found that:89
‘The[se] abhorrent crimes (…) are crimes not under Israeli law alone. These crimes which
offended the whole of mankind and shocked the conscience of nations are grave offences
against the law of nations itself. Therefore, far from international law negating or limiting the
jurisdiction of countries with respect to such crimes (…) the international law is in need of the
judicial and legislative authorities of every country to give effect to its penal injunctions and
bring criminals to trial. The jurisdiction to try crimes under international law is universal.’

79 Triggs, supra note 3, pp. 355, 356.
81 Ibid.
82 H. Gluzman, ‘On Universal Jurisdiction – Birth, Life and a Near-Death Experience’, Bocconi School of Law Papers, Paper No. 2009-08/EN, p. 4.
83 Ibid.
84 See, for example, the discussion in O’Keefe, supra note 2, pp. 748-750.
85 D.F. Orentlicher, ‘Whose Justice? Reconciling Universal Jurisdiction with Democratic Principles’, in T.J. Biersteker et al. (eds.), International
Law and International Relations, 2007, p. 205.
86 K.C. Randall, ‘Universal Jurisdiction Under International Law’, 1988 Texas Law Review 66, p. 785, p. 788, citing O. Schachter, International
Law in Theory and Practice, 1985), pp. 240-265.
87 Orentlicher, supra note 85, p. 205.
88 Randall, supra note 86, p. 788.
89 36 ILR 5, [12].
76
3.3.3. Is there debate on the universality principle?

There is little to no debate on the existence of the universality principle. However, there is some debate
as to its scope. Critics of universal jurisdiction argue that the courts and prosecutors ‘are completely
unaccountable to the citizens of the nation whose fate they are relying upon.’90 Since absolute universal
jurisdiction allows prosecution by any country at any time, there are also concerns as to due process. For
example, Fletcher warns that universal jurisdiction may result in ‘hounding an accused in one court after
another until the victims are satisfied that justice has been done.’91
The response to Belgian assertions of universal jurisdiction indicates that states are still resistant to
a broad conception of universal jurisdiction. Criminal prosecutions were instituted in Belgian courts
against current and former leaders of Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Israel,
Cote d’Ivoire, the Palestinian Authority, the United States, and others.92 Individuals such as the then
United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, were named. There was a strong reaction, particularly
from the United States and Israel. Israel withdrew its ambassador. The United States warned that Belgium
risked losing its status as the headquarters of NATO, and that US officials would stop visiting Belgium
if it did not further restrict its laws on universal jurisdiction.93 Consequently, Belgium bowed to this
pressure, and amended its laws, ‘leaving scant scope for universal jurisdiction’.94
3.4. The protective principle

3.4.1. What is the protective principle?
The protective principle is invoked to justify claims of extraterritorial jurisdiction by a regulating state for
offences against its national interest. This might include the security, integrity, sovereignty or government
functions of that state.95 In particular, a state may rely on the protective principle because acts that
threaten its security or national interest may not be illegal in the state where they are being performed.96
3.4.2. What is an example of protective principle jurisdiction?

The protective principle has been used to prosecute extraterritorial offences relating to counterfeiting
currency, desecration of flags, economic crimes, forgery of official documents such as passports and
visas, and political offences (such as treason).97 For example, in Joyce v DPP,98 an American citizen gained
a British passport by fraudulent means and worked for German radio during World War II. It was argued
on behalf of the accused that the United Kingdom did not have jurisdiction to try a non-national for a
crime committed outside British territory. The Court rejected this argument on the basis that:
‘No principle of comity demands that a state should ignore the crime of treason committed
against it outside its territory. On the contrary a proper regard for its own security requires that
all those who commit that crime, whether they commit it within or without the realm should
be amenable to its laws.’99
3.4.3. Is there debate on the protective principle?

Given uncertainties as to what constitutes a sufficient threat to ‘national interest’, the protective principle is
open to abuse. While jurisdiction over counterfeiting of state documents is unobjectionable, some states
have made far wider claims. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, companies which purchased goods
90 J. Goldsmith & S.D. Krasner, The Limits of Idealism, 2003, p. 51.

91 G.P. Fletcher, ‘Against Universal Jurisdiction’, 2003 Journal of International Criminal Justice 1, no. 3, p. 580, p. 582.
92 Orentlicher, supra note 85, p. 205.
93 Ibid.
94 Ibid.
95 Triggs, supra note 3; Zerk, supra not 4, p. 19; and generally, M.B. Krizek, ‘The Protective Principle of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: A Brief
History and an Application of the Principle to Espionage as an Illustration of Current United States Practice’, 1988 Boston University
International Law Journal 6, p. 337.
97 Triggs, supra note 3, pp. 356-357; Zerk, supra note 4, p. 19; and generally, Krizek, supra note 95.
98 Joyce v DPP, [1946] AC 347.
99 Ibid., 372.
77
from the United States and undertook not to sell on those goods to communist countries were liable for
prosecution in the United States if they breached that undertaking.100 The Hungarian Criminal Code
once spoke sweepingly of offences against ‘a fundamental interest relating to the democratic, political
and economic order.’101 Notoriously, Nazi Germany prosecuted extraterritorial acts that threatened the
racial purity of the nation.102 As Akehurst has stated,103
‘A State is entitled to impose its ideology on its nationals and on all persons present in its
territory; it is also entitled to oblige both categories of persons to take its side in its struggles
against other States. But it is not entitled to make such demands on aliens living in foreign
countries.’
Nonetheless, most commentators accept the legitimacy of the protective principle. For example,
Chehtman accepts that individuals within a given state have a collective interest in the security of their
state being protected.104 He argues that ‘the fact that a given state can abuse a right it has is hardly a
conclusive argument against it initially holding that right.’105 Similarly, Triggs notes that the protective
principle is open to abuse, but observes that reliance on the principle is generally limited to exceptional
cases and particular categories of offences.106 She also suggests that concerns about terrorism have led to
a growing acceptance by the community of assertions of extraterritoriality on the basis of the protective
principle.107
3.5. The effects principle

3.5.1. What is the effects principle?
Commentators on extraterritoriality often refer to the effects principle as an additional basis for asserting
extraterritorial jurisdiction. The effects principle allows states to assert jurisdiction over conduct occurring
extraterritoriality if that conduct has an effect on their territory. The effects principle is easily confused
with objective territoriality. However, it differs from objective territoriality in that no constituent element
of the offence takes place within the territory of the asserting state.108
3.5.2. What is an example of effects principle jurisdiction?

Legislation drafted as applying in State A to ‘conduct both within or having an effect within the territory’109
of State A, would be an assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction on the basis of the effects principle.
Jurisdiction on the basis of offences that merely produced effects in their territory has been claimed by
various states including the United States, Argentina, Mexico, China, Cuba and Italy.110
3.5.3. Is there debate on the effects principle?

The scope of the effects principle is controversial, particularly regarding the proposition that a purely
economic effect would suffice.111 In expanding the jurisdiction of the regulating state, the effects principle
fails to provide an effective framework for protecting the interests of other states which might be affected
by this expansion. Parrish is also of the view that the effects principle has expanded the potential for
jurisdictional conflict between states. He describes it as the ‘beginning of the end to meaningful territorial

101 Ibid., p. 159
102 Ibid.
103 Ibid.
104 Chehtman, supra note 51, pp. 71-21.
105 Ibid., p. 73.
106 Ibid., p. 358.
107 Ibid., p. 358.
108 O’Keefe, supra note 2, p. 739.
109 See, for example, Restatement (Second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States 38 (1965).
78
limits to legislative jurisdiction’,112 and as ‘problematic for both conceptual and pragmatic reasons’.113 He
argues that it is ‘unconstrainable’114 and gives ‘license to near universal jurisdiction’.115
Akehurst also sees the effects principle as a ‘slippery slope’ towards universal jurisdiction.116 He
cites the example of a person committing arson and destroying a factory, and, as a result, the company
owning the factory becomes insolvent, the effects of which could be felt all over the world.117 In his view,
the effects principle is only workable if jurisdiction is limited to the state where the primary effect is felt,
and even then only where the effect is substantial.118
In summary, the effects principle is one of the most highly contentious bases on which to assert
extraterritorial jurisdiction. Its scope is not well articulated, and it is prone to abuse. In a globalised
world, one thing can affect many others, and therefore the effects principle should not be considered a
legitimate basis upon which to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is also superfluous in the sense that it
is hard to imagine a state having a legitimate jurisdictional interest in a conduct that would not otherwise
be covered by the objective territoriality or protective principles, or by other less contentious bases of
extraterritorial jurisdiction.
3.6. Preliminary conclusions on the principles of jurisdiction in international law

Extraterritorial jurisdiction is useful in seeking to regulate transnational crime, such as child-sex tourism,
money laundering, drug trafficking, human trafficking and migrant smuggling. These activities are not
confined to territorial borders, and therefore, neither should the relevant legal frameworks be. However,
reliance on extraterritorial jurisdiction may have the following consequences:
–– Given that a country other than the country in which an offence occurred may assert jurisdiction and
seek to prosecute, a government’s promise of amnesties are undermined;
–– an accused person may be subject to multiple prosecutions for the same conduct, with no foreseeable
end point; and
–– persons may be unable to know or ascertain each and every law in each and every state that may have
grounds for jurisdiction over their conduct, thereby creating legal uncertainty.
These consequences could be greatly mitigated by extraterritorial jurisdiction being permitted only over
crimes that are the subject of international treaties, and by the development of a multilateral procedural
framework setting out model laws on prosecutorial discretion, and due process. Such a framework is
beyond the scope of this paper. However, this paper will provide examples of ways in which individual
rights may be undermined by assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and then consider whether the
abuse of rights doctrine is helpful in regulating extraterritoriality.
Part II
This Part provides examples of the some of the problems that can arise in domestic prosecutions of
extraterritorial conduct, and undermine the ability of an individual to enjoy a fair trial. In particular,
it considers: the lack of consistency in domestic conceptions of ‘ne bis in idem’ or ‘double jeopardy’;
extradition and mutual assistance frameworks; and the inconsistent application of constitutional
protections to persons accused of extraterritorial criminal conduct.
112 Parrish, supra note 5, p. 1470.

113 Ibid.
114 Ibid., p. 1478.
115 Ibid.
117 Ibid.
118 Ibid., pp. 154-155.
79
1. The lack of a consistent transnational principle of ne bis in idem
The principle that a person should not be prosecuted more than once for the same conduct is expressed
in the maxim ne bis in idem (‘ne bis’).119 In the common-law world, the ne bis principle is more commonly
referred to as ‘double jeopardy’.120 Although some may argue that there are differences between the two
concepts, both are premised on ‘similar considerations of fairness, just treatment, and respect for an
individual’s dignity’.121 For ease of reference, the term ‘double jeopardy’ will be used, and, unless stated
otherwise, is taken to encompass both. The principle has a long history dating back to ancient Greece and
Rome,122 and derives from the Roman Law principle, nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa.123
Despite this long history, the principle does not necessarily exist at the transnational level. For example,
the protection granted by Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) is limited to multiple prosecutions in one state, and not as between states.124 This leaves a person
accused of an extraterritorial crime, for which more than one state asserts jurisdiction, in a regulatory
void. While Article 20 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also provides some
protection against double jeopardy, this protection only applies to persons prosecuted for genocide,
crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.125 Therefore, it is generally not relevant
to prosecutions of other kinds of transnational crime such as money laundering, migrant smuggling,
human trafficking, child sex tourism, cybercrime or other criminal offences.
The Model Law on Extradition provides: ‘[e]xtradition may be refused, if there has been a final
judgment rendered and enforced against the person sought in [the country adopting the law] [or in a third
state] in respect of the offence for which extradition is requested.’126 However, the language is discretionary
and, as a model law, merely aspirational. For example, in the United States, the prevailing view is the ‘dual
sovereignty’ doctrine. The effect of this doctrine is to allow each sovereign state to prosecute criminal
conduct regardless of previous action in relation to the same conduct by other sovereign states.127 This
doctrine is ‘inequitable and ineffective at protecting the rights of criminal defendants’.128 For example,
consider the prosecution of Gabe Watson in the United States for conduct that had already been the
subject of a conviction and subsequent term of imprisonment in Australia. Watson, a citizen of the
United States, served 18 months’ imprisonment in Australia for the manslaughter of his wife on a diving
trip in Australia in 2003.129 Dissatisfied with the lenient sentence, an Alabama court indicted Watson for
murder for money and kidnap by trick,130 and was successful in seeking his extradition from Australia.131
119 G. Conway, ‘Ne Bis in Idem in International Law’, 2003 International Criminal Law Review 3, no. 3, p. 217.
120 See generally, L. Finlay, ‘Does the International Criminal Court Protect Against Double Jeopardy: An Analysis of Article 20 of the Rome
Statute’, 2009 UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy 15, no. 2, p. 221.
121 D.E. Lopez, ‘Not Twice for the Same: How the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine is Used to Circumvent Non Bis In Idem’, 2000 Vanderbilt Journal
of Transnational Law 33.
122 A.J. Colangelo, ‘Double Jeopardy and Multiple Sovereigns: A Jurisdictional Theory’, 2008 Washington University Law Review 86, no. 4, p. 778.
123 See, Conway, supra note 119, p. 221; Finlay, supra note 120, p. 223; Lopez, supra note 121, p. 1267.
124 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly
Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Art. 49.
125 See Art. 5 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc A/CONF.183/9* (entered into force 1 July 2002). Note that
Art. 20 of this Statute provides as follows:
‘1. Except as provided in this Statute, no person shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes
for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court.
2. No person shall be tried by another court for a crime referred to in article 5 for which that person has already been convicted or
acquitted by the Court.
3. No person who has been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7 or 8 shall be tried by the Court with
respect to the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court: (a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from
criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or (b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in
accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances,
was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.’
126 UNODC, 2004, <http://www.unodc.org/pdf/model_law_extradition.pdf> (last visited 13 September 2013).
127 Lopez, supra note 121, p. 1266.
128 Ibid.
129 See R v Watson; Ex parte A-G, [2009] QCA 279.
130 T. Thompson, ‘California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Signs Extradition Order on Gabe Watson’, The Courier Mail (online),
15 November 2010, <http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/california-governor-arnold-schwarzenegger-signs-extradition-
order-on-gabe-watson/story-e6freoof-1225953440198> (last visited 13 September 2013).
131 Note, the State of California also sought extradition from Australia, and ordered Watson’s extradition to Alabama.
80
Under Australian law, there is an ‘extradition objection’ if a person has undergone punishment under
the law of Australia in respect of the extradition offence, or another offence constituted by the same
conduct as the extradition offence.132 Therefore, although the offences for which Watson was indicted
in the United States were technically different from those in Australia, the conduct in question was
the same conduct and should have been caught by Section 7(e). It is unclear as to why the Australian
Government was not prevented by its own legislation from extraditing Watson. Nonetheless, he was
extradited. Ultimately, the case against Watson was dismissed on the basis of insufficient evidence.133
However, if the case had gone to trial, he may have been tried, convicted and punished in two different
jurisdictions. By contrast, in January 2012 a court in Mexico refused to extradite Sandra Ávila-Beltrán to
the United States for drug charges, on the basis that the charges related to conduct that had already been
the subject of a prosecution in Mexico.134 Perhaps the key difference between Ávila-Beltrán and Watson
is that the former is a citizen of Mexico, whereas Watson was not a citizen of Australia. Perhaps Australia
would have gone further to protect its own citizen from another trial arising out of the same conduct.
If so, that in itself is problematic, as it creates uncertainties and is inconsistent with the notion that all
persons are equal before the law. Notably, international law does not obligate a sovereign state to enforce
another state’s penal judgments.135
The double jeopardy principle is recognised in many constitutions of the world. As at 1993, some
form of protection from double jeopardy is included in the constitutions of over 50 countries.136 However,
constitutionalisation of the double jeopardy principle does not necessarily mean greater protection. For
example, the principle appears in Singapore’s Constitution, but the protection can be expressly waived by
a superior court quashing a conviction, an acquittal, or the ordering of a retrial.137 In some countries, the
protection afforded is not constitutionally protected at all, although it may form part of the common law
or be provided for in legislation.138 The variances between domestic double jeopardy protections create
uncertainty for persons accused of extraterritorial crimes, where more than one state may have claim
to jurisdiction. This is problematic because states are increasingly asserting extraterritorial criminal
jurisdiction and so are more likely to share concurrent jurisdiction over the same accused persons.
2. Extradition and mutual legal assistance
The ability for individuals to receive fair treatment under extradition and mutual legal assistance
frameworks is also limited. The removal of Julian Moti from the Solomon Islands to Australia is an
example of government officials cutting corners and undermining due process in order to secure the
presence of an accused person.
In December 2007, Mr Moti was deported from the Solomon Islands and, on arrival in Australia,
prosecuted under Australian law for child sexual offences.139 The charges referred to a time when Mr Moti
was a resident of Vanuatu, and were asserted on the basis of the active nationality principle (Mr Moti has
Australian citizenship). The Moti case has been a high-profile one, as Mr Moti was the Attorney-General
132 Section 7(e) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth).

133 J. Coglan, ‘Gabe Watson murder trial thrown out’, ABC News (online), 24 February 2012, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-24/
gabe-watson-murder-trial-thrown-out/3849836?section=qld> (last visited 13 September 2013).
134 H. Nelson Goodson, ‘Mexican Federal Judge Cited Double Jeopardy To Prevent Female Druglord Extradition To The U.S.’, on H. Nelson
Goodson, Hispanic News Network USA Blog, 12 January 2012, <http://hngwiusa.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/mexican-federal-judge-
cited-double-jeopardy-to-prevent-female-druglord-extradition-to-the-u-s/> (last visited 13 September 2013).
135 L. Ballard, ‘The Recognition and Enforcement of International Criminal Court Judgments in U.S. Courts’, 1997 Columbia Human Rights Law
Review 29, no. 1, p. 173.
136 M.C. Bassiouni, ‘Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice: Identifying International Procedural Protections and Equivalent
Protections in National Constitutions’, 1993 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 3, no. 2, p. 289; Finlay, supra note 120,
p. 224.
137 Art. 11(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Singapore, 9 August 1965) provides, ‘A person who has been convicted or
acquitted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence except where the conviction or acquittal has been quashed and a
retrial ordered by a court superior to that by which he was convicted or acquitted.’ (emphasis added)
138 For example, in Australia the principle of double jeopardy is not protected by the Constitution, and is instead determined by common
law and subject to variance by statute. See, e.g., in South Australia, the Criminal Law Consolidation (Double Jeopardy) Amendment
Act 2008(SA); in New South Wales, the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Act 2006 No 69 (NSW); in Tasmania,
ss. 392-4 of the Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas.); in Victoria, ss. 327(H), 327 (M) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009I (Vic.).
139 R v Moti, [2009] 235 FLR 320.
81
of the Solomon Islands. Three days before his deportation to Australia, it was officially published in
the Solomon Island Gazette that Moti had been removed from appointment as Attorney-General.140 Not
surprisingly, then, the case has been the subject of media attention and speculation as to the potential
political motives of the Australian Government in pursuing the case. For example, Purcell suggests that
the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the case was really about asserting Australia’s foreign policy
objectives, rather than the alleged conduct at issue.141 Purcell asks:
‘[W]as the Crimes (Child Sex Tourism) Act passed with the intention of enabling the Australian
prosecution authorities to launch a prosecution against a person who resided in Vanuatu and the
Solomons and who happened to take out Australian citizenship but had not lived in Australia
since student days and is currently living in the Solomons, to be tried in Australia for offences
allegedly committed when he was a citizen of Vanuatu?’142
The political agenda in Moti’s case was not denied by the Australian Government. In the written argument,
the Crown conceded that:
‘[T]he Australian High Commissioner to the Solomon Islands, Mr Cole, on a number of

occasions requested the AFP to investigate the applicant, and that the motivation was largely to
prevent the applicant from becoming the Attorney-General in the Solomon Islands.’143
Ultimately, the case went on appeal all the way to the High Court of Australia, where it was stayed as
an abuse of process. This case illustrates the ‘enormous discretion’144 given to prosecutors in deciding
whether to prosecute an extraterritorial crime, and the need for the development of prosecutorial
guidelines in relation to extraterritorial offences. It also demonstrates that extradition and mutual
assistance procedures and proceedings can be fraught with political tensions, and influenced by broader
foreign policy objectives.
Another example of abnormalities or illegalities in the extradition process is the Ker-Frisbie doctrine
in the United States. In essence the doctrine provides that anomalies or illegalities in the extradition
process will not bar prosecution in United States courts. In Ker v Illinois,145 the US Supreme Court held
that ‘such forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought
within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such an offense, and presents no
valid objection to his trial in such court’.146 This was again upheld in Frisbie v Collins.147
An accused person may also find it difficult to obtain foreign evidence.148 It is much easier for
prosecutors to access mutual legal assistance mechanisms than it is for an individual accused person.
For example, the mutual legal assistance treaties to which the US is party ‘regularize foreign evidence
gathering for prosecutors and explicitly prevent their use by criminal defendants.’149 This is concerning,
because ‘when the ability to compel evidence is unequal, accuracy and fairness norms (…) can be
illusory’.150
140 Ibid., [13].

141 F.J. Purnell SC, ‘The Julian Moti Affair and Double Jeopardy’, (25 October 2006) Civil Liberties Australia, <http://www.cla.asn.au/Articles/
Moti%20Affair%20-%20Purnell061024.pdf> (last visite 13 September 2013).
142 Ibid.
143 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, ‘Respondent’s Summary of Argument’, Julian Ronald Moti v R, (No. 47 of 2010) 3
(emphasis added).
144 E.S. Podger, ‘Defensive Territoriality: A New Paradigm for the Prosecution of Extraterritorial Business Crimes’, 2002 Georgia Journal of
International and Comparative Law 31, no. 1, p. 24.
145 119 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1886)
146 Ibid.
147 342 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1952).
148 L.S. Richardson, ‘Convicting the Innocent in Transnational Criminal Cases: A Comparative Institutional Analysis Approach to the Problem’,
2008 Berkeley Journal of International Law 26, no. 1, p. 62, p. 64.
149 Ibid.
150 Ibid., p. 67.
82
3. Constitutional guarantees
Many states grant some form of due process rights to persons subject to legal proceedings in that
jurisdiction. However, due process rights may be applied differently to prosecutions of territorial conduct
than to prosecutions of extraterritorial conduct. For example, in R v Hape the Supreme Court of Canada
found that Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees a right against
‘unreasonable search or seizure’, does not apply extraterritorially to investigations conducted overseas
by Canadian officials.151 The Court held that because Canada was required to respect the sovereignty
of other states, ‘extraterritorial enforcement is not possible’152 and, therefore, given that ‘enforcement
is necessary for the Charter to apply, extraterritorial application of the Charter is impossible’.153 Pierre-
Huges Verdier argues that the decision in R v Hape departs from the previous line of authority that Charter
rights apply to criminal investigations conducted abroad, provided they did not generate ‘objectionable
extraterritorial effects’.154 In R v Klassen,155 the Court confirmed R v Hape as authority for the proposition
that the Canadian Charter of Rights does not apply outside of Canada.156
While this is just one example in one country, it is illustrative of the way in which the ability of an
individual to enjoy a fair trial may be compromised in prosecutions of extraterritorial criminal conduct.
A comprehensive analysis of the ingredients of a fair trial is beyond the scope of this paper. However, for
current purposes a fair trial is taken to be a trial that provides certainty, equality, and review of executive
and administrative action. For example, Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
provides that ‘all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection
of the law’.157 This could be argued to prohibit differential treatment of persons accused of extraterritorial,
as opposed to territorial, offences. Article 10 is also relevant. It states: ‘Everyone is entitled in full equality
to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights
and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.’158 Further, Article 14(1) of the ICCPR provides:
‘All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals’, and that in ‘the determination of any criminal
charge (…) everyone shall be entitled to a fair (…) hearing by a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal established by law.’159
The requirement that all persons be equal before the courts would arguably require states to
provide the same procedural and substantive rights to persons accused of extraterritorial offences as
to those accused of domestic offences. As shown above, the lack of a transnational principle of double
jeopardy creates uncertainty; and the ability of an individual to utilize extradition and mutual assistance
frameworks creates inequality, as does the potential for a state to preclude constitutional guarantees from
applying extraterritorially.
Part III
As set out in Part I, there are several bases on which states have a right to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction.
However, as suggested in Part II, this right to assert jurisdiction may compromise the rights of individuals,
particularly with respect to fair trial rights. In that connection, Part III now considers whether the ‘abuse
of rights’ doctrine might be helpful in seeking to maintain an appropriate balance between the rights of
states, and the rights of individuals.
151 See the discussion of R v Hape [2007] SCC 26 in Ireland-Piper, supra note 48.
152 R v Hape [2007] SCC 26.
153 Ibid.
154 P.-H. Verdier, ‘R v Hape 2007 SCC 26’, 2008 American Journal of International Law 102, no. 1, p. 143, p. 145.
155 R v Klassen [2008] BCSC 1762.
156 Ibid.
157 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (December 10, 1948), available online at <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/> (last visited
13 September 2013).
158 Ibid., Art. 10.
159 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly
resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49.
83
1. Abuse of rights
In international law, the doctrine of abuse of rights prohibits states from making use of their rights
if to do so impedes the enjoyment by other states of their own rights, or to achieve an end which is
different from that for which the right was created, to the injury of another state.160 The abuse of rights of
doctrine appears in arbitral,161 and judicial, decision making in the International Court of Justice (ICJ),
the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ),162 and in the appellate body of the World Trade
Organisation.163 It also appears in treaties. For example, the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea requires Member States to ‘exercise the rights, jurisdiction and freedoms recognised in this
Convention in a manner which would not constitute an abuse of right’.164
One of the obvious difficulties with the proposition that the abuse of rights doctrine may be helpful
in regulating exercises of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction is that in international law the doctrine is
generally understood in the context of rights between states, and not with rights as between an individual
and a state. However, as Lauterpacht has advocated, ‘[t]here is no legal right, however well established,
which could not, in some circumstances, be refused recognition on the ground that it has been abused’.165
Further, international law extensively recognises the rights of individuals, as is evidenced by the existence
of the ICCPR, the UDHR and other human rights treaties. It is not such a great leap to suggest that a state
that exercises its jurisdictional rights over an individual in a manner inconsistent with the rule of law,
abuses its rights. The abuse of rights doctrine can be understood as an ‘omnibus term to describe certain
ways of exercising a power which are legally reprehensible’.166
The abuse of rights doctrine may also be more willingly embraced by the domestic courts, rather
than other principles of jurisdictional restraint that are predominately creatures of international law
(such as the principle of non-interference). This is because there are principles and doctrines analogous
to the international abuse of rights doctrine in the domestic law of many civil-law and common-law
countries. Such principles may exist in a private law context such as in tort or property law, and others
in a public law context, such as in administrative law. Either way, there are doctrines and principles
prohibiting the exercise of rights by legal persons in a manner that is detrimental to the rights and
interests of other legal persons.167
For example, a number of civil-law codes have provisions that prohibit the use of a right for a purpose
other than for which it is intended. Article 226 of the German Civil Code prohibits the exercise of a right
if the only purpose of such exercise is to cause damage to another.168 Other codes only recognise an abuse
of a right where an element of intent is present. For example, Article 1912 of the Mexican Civil Code
reads: ‘When damage is caused to another by the exercise of a right, there is only an obligation to make it
good if it was proved that the right was exercised only to cause the damage.’ Similarly, Article 833 of the
Italian Civil Code prohibits the exercise of a right if the purpose is to harm or inconvenience others.169
Japan further requires an element of unreasonableness in order to establish an abuse of rights.170
160 A. Kiss, ‘Abuse of Rights’, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. 1, 1992, p. 4.
161 Byers, supra note 47, p. 400.
162 Ibid., p. 399.
163 Ibid., p. 401.
164 Art. 300 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, <http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/
texts/unclos/part16.htm> (last visited 13 September 2013).
165 H. Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court, 1958, p. 164.
166 G.D.S. Taylor, ‘The Content of the Rule Against Abuse of Rights in International Law’, 1972-1973 British Yearbook of International Law 46,
p. 325.
168 Art. 266 of the German Civil Code, <http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html> (last visited 13 September
2013) (Civil Code in the version promulgated on 2 January 2002 (Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] I, p. 42, 2909; 2003 I, p. 738),
last amended by Art. 1 of the Statute of 27 July 2011 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1600)).
169 Art. 833 of the Italian Civil Code (G. Alpa & V. Zeno-Zencovich, Italian Private Law, 2007, <http://shr.receptidocs.ru/docs/4/3577/conv_1/
file1.pdf> (last visited 13 September 2013)); see also Art. 1295(2) of the Austrian Civil Code (R. Schnopfhagen et al., Intellectual Property
Law in Austria, 2011, p. 439).
170 See, for example, the decision of the Japanese Supreme Court in Mitamura v Suzuki, 1067 Sup. Ct., 27 June 1972.
84
It is true that the principle is less known in common-law systems, and, therefore more likely to meet
with strong resistance from the common-law world. There are, however, analogous legal concepts. For
example, it is suggested that the notion of abuse of rights is the basis on which tort law developed.171
For example, the tort of ‘abuse of process’ in Australia has been described as ‘the clearest illustration in
Australian law of what civil lawyers call an “abuse of right”’.172 The High Court of Australia has also drawn
upon notions of ‘abuse of process’ in considering the propriety of a criminal prosecution.173 In the United
Kingdom, the ‘abuse of discretion’ doctrine in English administrative law, and the notion of malicious
prosecutions in criminal law are both somewhat analogous.174 Further, the concept of abuse of rights has
been raised by a UK Judge in the context of piercing the corporate veil.175 Therefore, although it might be
labelled differently, the basic principle underlying the abuse of rights doctrine does exist in the common
law world. This paper adopts in generality the view expressed by Rick Bigwood in his discussion of abuse
of rights in Anglo-Australian law:176
‘I am untroubled by the particular label that one chooses to capture what seems to be a common
idea in relation to a universal legal problem. What one prefers as “unconscionability”, another
will favour as “abuse of rights” or “bad faith” (…) Acceptance of, or at least familiarity with,
the idea behind the label is more important here than the label itself. Although it is true that
no general “doctrine” of abuse of rights or good faith exists in Anglo-Australian law (…) there
can be no denying that, in one guise or another, [such] notions (…) pervade discrete doctrines,
rules and principles, and exceptions (…) throughout (…) common law and equity.’
Bigwood’s point is that while there may be no general ‘abuse of rights’ doctrine in common-law countries,
the concept is inherent in a variety of common law and equitable principles. Similarly, although the
doctrine varies throughout civil-law countries, one would not suggest that it does not exist in those
jurisdictions. A variation in language or form is no argument against the existence of a substantive
principle, that the right of one party should not be exercised to abuse the rights of the other.
Therefore, the abuse of rights doctrine may provide a useful paradigm through which to regulate
assertions of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction. However, the Draft Articles on State Responsibility
make no reference to abuse of rights, and some may be of the view that it is too imprecise to be of any
use.177 For example, Schwarzenberger queries whether an abuse of rights can be distinguished from a
harsh, but an otherwise justified exercise of rights.178 In response, this paper suggests that a ‘harsh but
justified’ exercise of a jurisdictional right would be consistent with fair trial rights, whereas an abuse of
right would not. Alternatively, it is suggested that a harsh but justified exercise of a jurisdictional right
would be consistent with a substantive conception of the rule of law, whereas an abuse of right would not.
This then begs the question: what is the content of the rule of law?
A.V. Dicey is sometimes credited with introducing the term ‘rule of law’.179 However, the concept
of the rule of law has a far longer history. Fred D. Miller describes a Greek document from the fifth
century B.C., the Gortyn Law Code. At its outset, the Code stated: ‘If anyone wishes to contest the status
of a free man or a slave, he is not to seize him before a trial.’180 Another author traced the idea back to
Aristotle.181 Examples of adherence to, or aspiration towards, the rule of law can be found throughout the

172 J.G. Fleming, The Law of Torts, 1992, p. 623.
173 D. Ireland-Piper, ‘Abuse of Process in Cross Border Cases: Moti v The Queen’, 2012 QUT Law & Justice Journal 12, no. 2.
174 G.D.S. Taylor, ‘The Content of the Rule Against Abuse of Rights in International Law’, 1972-1973 British Year Book of International Law 46,
p. 324.
175 Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and others, [2013] UKSC 34, at [68(i)] per Lord Neuberger.
176 R. Bigwood, ‘Throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Four questions on the demise of lawful-act duress in New South Wales’, 2008
The University of Queensland Law Journal 27, no. 2, p. 41, p. 65.
177 Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, 2001, <http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/
instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf> (last visited 13 September 2013).
178 G. Schwarzenberger & E.D. Brown, A Manual of International Law, 1976, p. 84.
179 T. Bingham, The Rule of Law, 2010, p. 3.
180 F.D. Miller, ‘The Rule of Law in Ancient Greek Thought’, in M. Sellers & T. Tomaszewski (eds.), The Rule of Law in Comparative Perspective,
2010, pp. 11-18.
181 Bingham, supra note 179.
85
world, and at various points in human history. Academics and philosophers have debated the concept
for generations. Geoffrey Walker may be correct when he suggests the rule of law ‘is not easy to define
with precision, because in part it manifests itself more as an absence than a presence.’182 Nonetheless,
Fred Miller describes the rule of law as ‘a normative principle that political power may not be exercised
except according to procedures and constraints prescribed by laws which are publicly known’.183 James
Harrington writes of an ‘empire of laws and not of men’.184 And Friedrich Hayek offered what Brian
Tamanaha describes as a ‘highly influential definition of the rule of law’.185 Hayek posits,
‘Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its action is bound by rules fixed
and announced before-hand – rules which make it possible to forsee with fair certainty how the
authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs
on the basis of this knowledge.’186
Some may argue that the content of the rule of law is subject to cultural relativism. Mortimer Sellers
concedes this point: ‘[t]he social, historical, geographical and other circumstances in different societies
will always differ, limiting what is appropriate, prudent and possible in practice.’187 However, this paper
adopts his view that ‘certain standards and basic institutions will be shared by every society that aspires
to attain the government of laws and not of men’.188 As Brian Z. Tamanaha has observed, ‘support for the
rule of law is not exclusive to the West’.189 In his view,
‘The reasons they articulate for supporting the rule of law might differ, some in the interest of
freedom, some in the preservation of order, many in the furtherance of economic development,
but all identify it as essential.’190
There is also some contest between neutral and substantive conceptions of the rule of law. A neutral
conception may be seen simply as the requirement for all to follow the law, regardless of its content or
morality. By contrast, a substantive conception has content, such as an inherent right to a fair trial, or
to equality before the law. These are sometimes referred to as ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ conceptions. This paper
advocates a ‘thick’ or ‘substantive’ conception of the rule of law. As George Fletcher states, ‘[w]hatever
philosophers may argue, we know that the rule of law means more than the law of rules’.191
Further, the importance of the rule of law is widely recognised both in domestic and international
frameworks. It is inherently linked with human rights. For example, the preamble to the UDHR describes
it as essential that ‘human rights should be protected by the Rule of Law’.192 The European Convention
on Human Rights speaks of a ‘common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule
of law (…).’193 The American Convention on Human Rights does not specifically use the term ‘rule of
law’, but Article 8 confers the right to a fair trial, and Article 9 provides protection against retrospective
laws.194 Similarly, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights confers rights relating to fair trial,195
182 G. Walker, The Rule of Law: Foundation of Constitutional Democracy, 1988, p. 3.

183 Miller, supra note 180.
184 J. Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), ed. J.G.A. Pcock, 1992, p. 20.
185 B. Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End, Threat to the Rule of Law, 2006, p. 227.
186 F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 1994, p. 80.
187 M. Sellers, ‘An Introduction to the Rule of Law in Comparative Perspective’, in M. Sellers & T. Tomaszewski (eds.), The Rule of Law in
Comparative Perspective, 2010, p. 5.
188 Ibid.
189 Tamanaha, supra note 185, p. 2.
190 Tamanaha, supra note 185, pp. 2-3.
191 Byers, supra note 47, p. 413, citing G. Fletcher (footnote omitted).
192 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, <http://www.un.org/en/documents/
udhr/> (last visited 13 September 2013), Preamble.
193 The European Convention on Human Rights (4 November, 1950), Preamble, <http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Preamble> (last
visited 13 September 2013).
194 American Convention on Human Rights, Adopted at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, Costa Rica,
22 November 1969, <http://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/english/basic3.american%20convention.htm> (last visited 13 September 2013).
195 Art, 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (27 June 1981), <http://www.hrcr.org/docs/Banjul/afrhr3.html> (last visited
13 September 2013).
86
equality and equal protection before the law,196 and states ‘[n]o one may be deprived of his freedom
except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law’.197 International organisations have also
formally acknowledged the importance of the rule of law. For example, in 2005, the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) prepared an ‘Issues Brief ’ entitled Equal Access to
Justice and the Rule of Law.198 Among other things, the brief asserts ‘[t]he rule of law and access to justice
are crucial to the immediate upholding of law and order, and to human security imperatives, stability
and development’.199
While this paper does not seek to provide an exhaustive definition of the rule of law, if the concept
is to be used as a benchmark by which to evaluate whether an assertion of extraterritorial criminal
jurisdiction constitutes an abuse of rights, it is necessary to establish substantive content. Therefore, the
rule of law is taken to refer to the following principles.
Principle 1: The law must be both readily known and available, and certain and clear
This principle requires legal certainty. James Maxeiner has described legal certainty as ‘a central tenet
of the rule of law as understood around the world’. 200 Given the various bases on which extraterritorial
criminal jurisdiction can be asserted, some prosecutions of extraterritorial criminal offences may
undermine this principle. For example, if a national of State W interacts with a national of State X in the
territory of State Y, in a manner that may affect the security interests of State Z, then States W, X, Y and
Z all have a basis on which to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. Is it fair to assume that each national is
familiar with the nationality of each person with whom they interact? And if so, is it also fair to assume
each knows their legal obligations under the laws of that nation? As Tom Bingham has said,
‘(…) if you and I are liable to be prosecuted, fined, and perhaps imprisoned for doing or failing
to do something, we ought to be able, without undue difficulty, to find out what it is we must or
must not do on pain of criminal penalty.’ 201
In reality, it is unreasonable to demand that every citizen of the world be familiar with the laws of each
nation. Yet, the rule of law demands that the content of the law should be accessible to the public.202 It
cannot be assumed that all laws of all nations are ‘knowable’. Therefore, if the laws of a state are to apply
extraterritorially, then a precondition of prosecution for extraterritorial criminal offences must be that
the law is ascertainable. In turn, this suggests that extraterritorial jurisdiction should only be asserted
for widely recognised crimes, such as those forming the subject of international agreements and treaties.
Principle 2: The law should be applied to all people equally, and operate uniformly in circumstances which
are not materially different
Article 7 of the UDHR provides that, ‘all are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to equal protection of the law.’203 As Walker has asserted, ‘the rule of law implies the
precept that similar cases be treated similarly’.204 The problem with extraterritorial jurisdiction is that
persons who have committed extraterritorial crimes may be treated differently than those who commit
territorial crimes. For example, as noted above, in R v Hape205 and R v Klassen,206 the Supreme Court
196 Ibid., Art. 3.

197 Ibid., Art. 6.
198 OECD Development Assistance Committee, ‘Issues Brief: Equal Access to Justice and the Rule of Law’, 2005, <http://www.oecd.org/
development/conflictandfragility/35785584.pdf> (last visited 13 September 2013).
199 Ibid.
200 J.R. Maxeiner, ‘Some Realism About Legal Certainty in the Globalization of the Rule of Law’, in M. Sellers & T. Tomaszewski (eds.), The Rule
of Law in Comparative Perspective, 2010, p. 41.
201 Bingham, supra note 179, p. 37.
202 M. Gleeson, ‘Courts and the Rule of Law’, Melbourne University, 7 November 2001.
203 Art. 7, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, <http://www.un.org/en/
documents/udhr/> (last visited 13 September 2013).
204 Walker, supra note 182, p. 19.
205 [2007] SCC 26.
206 [2008] BCSC 1762
87
of Canada held the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is limited to Canadian provinces and territories,
and does not apply extraterritorially to searches and seizures outside of Canada. Further, as was also
discussed above, a person accused of extraterritorial crimes do not enjoy the same level of protection
against double jeopardy as a person accused of territorial crime.
Principle 3: All people are entitled to a fair trial

The right to a fair trial is described as the ‘minimum content’ of the rule of law.207 Thom Brooks argues
that it is the very importance of fairness to a trial that justifies the existence of a ‘right’ to a fair trial.208
In his view, ‘[f]airness further entails that trial procedural rules apply to all parties equally without
clear disadvantage to one over the other’.209 As noted above, persons accused of extraterritorial crime
can be treated differently to those accused of territorial crime, and this diminishes their opportunity
for a fair trial. For example, as discussed above in Ker v Illinois,210 the United States Supreme Court
held that forcible abduction presents no valid objection to a criminal trial. Article 14(7) of the ICCPR
provides: ‘No-one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already
been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.’211
However, the Human Rights Committee has interpreted this principle to only apply to trials within a
single jurisdiction, as opposed to trials in several different countries. 212 This means a person who is
accused of committing a crime over which several states may have a jurisdictional claim is not protected
from multiple prosecutions and may be brought to trial again and again, thereby increasing the chance
of conviction. This raises questions as to whether persons accused of extraterritorial crimes are able to
receive a fair trial.
Principle 4: There must be some capacity for judicial review of administrative action and the executive arm
of government should be subject to the law and any action undertaken by the executive should be authorised
by law.
It has been said that the ‘single greatest advance towards the rule of law occurs when judges secure
their independence from executive and legislative power’.213 Regarding assertions of extraterritorial
jurisdiction, courts should play a role in considering whether prosecutions of extraterritorial conduct
are consistent with the rule of law, or whether they are an abuse of process. Extradition arrangements and
the exercise of prosecutorial discretion are often matters for the executive, and states may try and hide
behind the ‘act of state’ doctrine. However, courts should play a role in ensuring the act of state doctrine
is not an impenetrable veil. For example, in Moti v The Queen,214 the High Court of Australia considered
whether proceedings could be maintained against a person who had not properly been brought within
the jurisdiction by regular means, or whether such proceedings were an abuse of process. In so doing, a
majority of six to one concluded that the act of state doctrine does not preclude findings as to the legality
of the conduct of a foreign government, where those conclusions are a necessary step in determining a
question within the competency of the Court.
It is suggested that these four principles together constitute a substantive conception of the rule of law.
In turn, a substantive conception of the rule of law provides content to the abuse of rights doctrine. In
summary, this paper suggests that if a state exercises extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction in a manner
that is inconsistent with the four principles set out above, it has abused its jurisdictional rights.
207 Walker, supra note 182, p. 5.

208 T. Brookes (ed.), The Right to a Fair Trial, 2009, p. xii.
209 Ibid.
210 119 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1886).
211 Art. 14(7) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN GA Res 2200 A (XXI), 16 December 1966, <http://www.ohchr.org/en/
professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx> (last visited 16 September 2013).
212 See AP v Italy, no. 204/1986, 2 Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee Under the Optional Protocol, 76 UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/2,
UN Sales No E89 XIV 1 (1990).
213 Sellers, supra note 187, p. 8.
214 Moti v The Queen, (2012) 283 ALR 393.
88
Conclusion
There are various bases on which a state may have a right to assert jurisdiction over conduct occurring
extraterritorially. However, this right is not unyielding to the rights of individuals. Nonetheless, as this
paper has shown, an exercise by a state of its jurisdictional rights may cause injustice to a person accused
of an extraterritorial crime. In particular, the lack of a transnational principle of double jeopardy, the
fact that states have better access to mutual legal assistance than individuals, and the ability of states to
preclude constitutional guarantees from applying extraterritorially, are problematic.
To that end, the abuse of rights doctrine may be a useful tool in regulating the relationship between a
state’s jurisdictional rights, and the rights of individuals. In turn, the content of the abuse of rights doctrine
can be found in a substantive conception of the rule of law. A substantive conception of the rule of law
consists of certainty, equality, fair trial rights, and judicial review of administrative and executive action.
Petty arguments over the label of a particular legal doctrine are not enough to mask the existence of a
legal principle which provides that one party’s rights are not absolute in relation to the rights of another.
This is particularly important when considering the relationship between the rights of an individual and
the rights of states in criminal law. The ways in which criminal justice is administrated goes to the core of
the legitimacy of the relationship between the state and an individual. Indeed, the ‘field of battle in which
democracy and human rights are tested is the administration of criminal justice, which encompasses
all processes and practices by which a state effects, curtails, or removes basic rights’.215 Therefore, a state
that asserts extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction in such a way as to deprive an individual of legal certainty,
equality before the law, fair trial rights, or so as to preclude judicial review, is a state that abuses its rights. ¶
215 Bassiouni, supra note 136, p. 236.
89

Definition of Different Types of Jurisdiction PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Definition of Different Types of Jurisdiction PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Definition of Different Types of Jurisdiction PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article is published in a peer-reviewed section of the Utrecht Law Review

Prosecutions of Extraterritorial Criminal Conduct and

http://www.utrechtlawreview.org | Volume 9, Issue 4 (September) 2013 | URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-112946 |

1. The distinction between prescriptive, enforcement and adjudicative jurisdiction

2.1. Pre-twentieth century

2.2. Twentieth century

13 Ibid. (emphasis added).

2.3. Twenty-first century

25 (1961) 36 International Law Reports 5.

3. Principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction

1. What is the particular principle of jurisdiction under discussion?

3.1. The territoriality principle

3.1.2. What is an example of territorial jurisdiction?

3.1.3. Is there debate on this principle?

3.2. The nationality principle

53 Triggs, supra note 3; Chehtman, supra note 51, p. 56.

3.2.2. What is an example of the nationality principle?

3.2.3. Is there debate on the nationality principle?

67 Chehtman, supra note 51, p. 66.

3.3. The universality principle

3.3.2. What is an example of universal jurisdiction?

78 Zerk, supra note 4, p. 20.

3.3.3. Is there debate on the universality principle?

3.4. The protective principle

3.4.2. What is an example of protective principle jurisdiction?

3.4.3. Is there debate on the protective principle?

90 J. Goldsmith & S.D. Krasner, The Limits of Idealism, 2003, p. 51.

3.5. The effects principle

3.5.2. What is an example of effects principle jurisdiction?

3.5.3. Is there debate on the effects principle?

100 Akehurst, supra note 7, p. 158.

3.6. Preliminary conclusions on the principles of jurisdiction in international law

112 Parrish, supra note 5, p. 1470.

1. The lack of a consistent transnational principle of ne bis in idem

2. Extradition and mutual legal assistance

132 Section 7(e) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth).

‘[T]he Australian High Commissioner to the Solomon Islands, Mr Cole, on a number of

140 Ibid., [13].

171 Byers, supra note 47, p. 396.

182 G. Walker, The Rule of Law: Foundation of Constitutional Democracy, 1988, p. 3.

196 Ibid., Art. 3.

Principle 3: All people are entitled to a fair trial

207 Walker, supra note 182, p. 5.

215 Bassiouni, supra note 136, p. 236.

You might also like