Extraterritorial jurisdiction

Last updated

Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries.

Contents

Any authority can claim ETJ over any external territory they wish. However, for the claim to be effective in the external territory (except by the exercise of force), it must be agreed either with the legal authority in the external territory, or with a legal authority that covers both territories. When unqualified, ETJ usually refers to such an agreed jurisdiction, or it will be called "claimed ETJ" or similar terms.

The phrase may also refer to a country's laws extending beyond its boundaries in the sense that they may authorise the courts of that country to enforce their jurisdiction against parties appearing before them in with respect to acts they allegedly engaged in outside that country. This does not depend on the co-operation of other countries, since the affected people are within the relevant country (or at least, in a case involving a person being tried in absentia , the case is being heard by a court of that country). For example, many countries have laws which give their criminal courts jurisdiction to try prosecutions for piracy, sexual offences against children, computer crimes and/or terrorism committed outside their national boundaries. Sometimes such laws only apply to nationals of that country, and sometimes they may apply to anyone.

Terminology

Some confusion has arisen as to the meaning of "extraterritorial jurisdiction." In its broad application, the term refers to criminal acts that were committed outside the sovereign territory of a prosecuting state. Cedric Ryngaert, Professor of Public International Law and Head of the Department of International and European Law at Utrecht University, noted that a state asserting jurisdiction over crimes committed in other jurisdictions would still prosecute in the state's own territorial courts. [1]

Cases of exercised jurisdiction

Diplomatic missions

Diplomatic immunity of foreign embassies and consulates in host countries is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. They remain under the jurisdiction of the host country but are 'inviolable' (the host country's agents may not enter the premises, or detain accredited diplomats).

Military forces

Status of forces agreements and visiting forces agreements are in effect in many countries that allow visiting forces to exercise jurisdiction over members of their forces that are stationed in the host country.

Criminal law

Criminal jurisdiction can be of an extraterritorial nature where:

Criminal codes in certain countries assert jurisdiction over crimes committed outside the country:

Many countries have implemented laws that allow their nationals to be prosecuted by their courts for crimes such as war crimes and genocide even when the crime is committed extraterritorially. In addition, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has been incorporated into domestic law in many countries to provide for the International Criminal Court to exercise jurisdiction within their borders.

Sanctions against foreign countries

Economic sanctions against other countries may be instituted under either domestic law or under the authority of the United Nations Security Council, and their severity can include measures against foreign persons operating outside the country in question.

In 2017, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Union President Jean-Claude Juncker criticized the draft of new U.S. sanctions against Russia targeting the EU–Russia energy projects. [4] [5] France’s foreign ministry described the new U.S. sanctions as illegal under international law due to their extraterritorial reach. [6]

Competition law

Extraterritorial jurisdiction plays a significant role in regulation of transnational anti-competitive practices. In the U.S., extraterritorial impacts in this field first arose from Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States , [7] where Imperial Oil in Canada was ordered to be divested from Standard Oil. Current practice dates from United States v. Alcoa , [8] where the effects doctrine [9] was introduced, allowing for jurisdiction over foreign offenders and foreign conduct, so long as the economic effects of the anticompetitive conduct are experienced on the domestic market. [10] The effects doctrine has been gradually developed in the U.S. and then in various forms accepted in other jurisdictions, also in the developing world. [11] In the EU it is recognised based on the qualified effects or implementation test. [12]

Extraterritorial jurisdiction in the area of antitrust faces various limitations, such as the problem of accessing foreign-based evidence, [13] as well as the difficulties of challenged anticompetitive conduct arising from foreign state involvement. [14]

Application in specific countries

Commonwealth of Nations

The ability of parliaments of Commonwealth countries to legislate extraterritorially was confirmed by s. 3 of the Statute of Westminster 1931 . [15]

In Australia, extraterritorial jurisdiction of the state parliaments was authorized by s.2 of the Australia Act 1986 . [16]

Canada

The Criminal Code asserts jurisdiction over the following offences outside Canada: [17]

China

Article 38 of the Hong Kong national security law, passed in Jun 2020, asserts that the law applies to all persons - regardless of nationality - both inside and outside Hong Kong. [18]

Crimes covered under the national security law include:

Ireland

United Kingdom

Under Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, British citizens can be prosecuted for sexual offences committed against children abroad. Section 72 was used to convict paedophile Richard Huckle on 71 counts of serious sexual offences against children in Malaysia. [19] Huckle was sentenced to 22 life sentences. While no official tally is kept, seven people are believed to have been convicted under Section 72. [20]

The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction to close the loophole whereby girls could be taken outside the UK to undergo FGM procedures.

The Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998 in Section 2 [21] prohibits United Kingdom nationals, Scottish partnerships or bodies incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom from knowingly causing a nuclear explosion in the United Kingdom "or elsewhere".

United States

Municipal and state law

In the U.S., many states have laws or even constitutional provisions which permit cities to make certain decisions about the land beyond the town's incorporated limits.

  • Examples of states which allow cities to claim ETJ with respect to zoning or other matters, either generally or prior to annexation, are:

Federal law

The U.S. Criminal Code asserts the following items to fall within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, much of which is extraterritorial in nature: [27]

  1. The high seas and any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, including any vessels owned by US persons that are travelling on them [28]
  2. Any US vessel travelling on the Great Lakes, connecting waters or the Saint Lawrence River (where that river forms part of the Canada–United States border)
  3. Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof
  4. Any island claimed under the Guano Islands Act
  5. Any US aircraft flying over waters in the same manner as US vessels
  6. Any US spacecraft when in flight
  7. Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States [29]
  8. Any foreign vessel during a voyage having a scheduled departure from or arrival in the United States with respect to an offense committed by or against a national of the United States
  9. Offenses committed by or against a national of the United States in diplomatic missions, consulates, military and other missions, together with related residences, outside the US
  10. International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act

Individuals involved in doping at major international sporting events can be sanctioned by the United States via the Rodchenkov Act if American companies are involved in sponsoring those events or the American financial system is utilized by the organizers. [30] [31]

In order to deal with the issue of private military contractors and private security contractors being used by U.S. Government agencies overseas, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act [32] was passed by Congress to subject them to a similar manner of jurisdiction.

Certain federal property has the status of federal enclave, restricting the application of state laws, [33] but that has been partially rectified by the Assimilative Crimes Act . [34] Similarly, state jurisdiction is restricted on Native American tribal lands.

Generally, the U.S. founding fathers and early courts believed that American laws could not have jurisdiction over sovereign countries. In a 1909 Supreme Court case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes introduced what came to be known as the "presumption against extraterritoriality," making explicit this judicial preference that U.S. laws not be applied to other countries. American thought about extraterritoriality has changed over the years, however. For example, the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 allows foreign citizens in the United States to bring cases before federal courts against foreign defendants for violations of the "law of nations" in foreign countries. Although this statute was ignored for many years, U.S. courts since the 1980s have interpreted it to allow foreigners to seek justice in cases of human-rights violations in foreign lands, such as in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain . [35] In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 2010, the Supreme Court held that in interpreting a statute, the "presumption against extraterritoriality" is absolute unless the text of the statute explicitly says otherwise. [36]

Economic law

Economic sanctions with extraterritorial impact have been instituted under:

See also

Related Research Articles

Jurisdiction is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, the concept of jurisdiction applies at multiple levels.

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both criminal law and civil law such as contract law and property law, though often under different names and with varying details.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Summary offence</span> Crime tried without a jury

A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as to the concept of jus cogens – that certain international law obligations are binding on all states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extraterritoriality</span> State of being exempted from the jurisdiction of local law

In international law, extraterritoriality is the state of being exempted from the jurisdiction of local law, usually as the result of diplomatic negotiations.

Child sex tourism (CST) is tourism for the purpose of engaging in the prostitution of children, which is commercially facilitated child sexual abuse. The definition of child in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is "every human being below the age of 18 years". Child sex tourism results in both mental and physical consequences for the exploited children, which may include sexually transmitted infections, "drug addiction, pregnancy, malnutrition, social ostracism, and death", according to the State Department of the United States. Child sex tourism, part of the multibillion-dollar global sex tourism industry, is a form of child prostitution within the wider issue of commercial sexual exploitation of children. Child sex tourism victimizes approximately 2 million children around the world. The children who perform as prostitutes in the child sex tourism trade often have been lured or abducted into sexual slavery.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extradition</span> Transfer of a suspect from one jurisdiction to another by law enforcement

In an extradition, one jurisdiction delivers a person accused or convicted of committing a crime in another jurisdiction, over to the other's law enforcement. It is a cooperative law enforcement procedure between the two jurisdictions and depends on the arrangements made between them. In addition to legal aspects of the process, extradition also involves the physical transfer of custody of the person being extradited to the legal authority of the requesting jurisdiction.

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; it may extend the statute of limitations; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

An accessory is a person who assists, but does not actually participate, in the commission of a crime. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

Criminal jurisdiction is a term used in constitutional law and public law to describe the power of courts to hear a case brought by a state accusing a defendant of the commission of a crime. It is relevant in three distinct situations:

  1. to regulate the relationship between states, or between one state and another;
  2. where the nation is a federation, to regulate the relationship between the federal courts and the domestic courts of those states comprising the federation; and
  3. where a state only has, to a greater or lesser extent, a single and unified system of law, it is the law of criminal procedure to regulate what cases each classification of court within the judicial system shall adjudicate upon. People must be tried in the same state the crime is committed.

Long-arm jurisdiction is the ability of local courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants, whether on a statutory basis or through a court's inherent jurisdiction. This jurisdiction permits a court to hear a case against a defendant and enter a binding judgment against a defendant residing outside the jurisdiction concerned.

<i>Filártiga v. Peña-Irala</i> United States court case

Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, was a landmark case in United States and international law. It set the precedent for United States federal courts to punish non-American citizens for tortious acts committed outside the United States that were in violation of public international law or any treaties to which the United States is a party. It thus extends the jurisdiction of United States courts to tortious acts committed around the world. The case was decided by a panel of judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit consisting of judges Wilfred Feinberg, Irving Kaufman, and Amalya Lyle Kearse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immunity from prosecution (international law)</span>

Immunity from prosecution is a doctrine of international law that allows an accused to avoid prosecution for criminal offences. Immunities are of two types. The first is functional immunity, or immunity ratione materiae. This is an immunity granted to people who perform certain functions of state. The second is personal immunity, or immunity ratione personae. This is an immunity granted to certain officials because of the office they hold, rather than in relation to the act they have committed.

Aiding and abetting is a legal doctrine related to the guilt of someone who aids or abets another person in the commission of a crime. It exists in a number of different countries and generally allows a court to pronounce someone guilty for aiding and abetting in a crime even if he or she is not the principal offender. The words aiding, abetting and accessory are closely used but have differences. While aiding means providing support or assistance to someone, abetting means encouraging someone else to commit a crime. Accessory is someone who in fact assists "commission of a crime committed primarily by someone else". However, some jurisdictions have merged being an accessory before the fact with aiding and abetting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Marshall Court</span>

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are United States v. Simms (1803), United States v. More (1805), Ex parte Bollman (1807), United States v. Hudson (1812), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), United States v. Perez (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and United States v. Wilson (1833).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes Act of 1790</span> US bill

The Crimes Act of 1790, formally titled An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States, defined some of the first federal crimes in the United States and expanded on the criminal procedure provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Crimes Act was a "comprehensive statute defining an impressive variety of federal crimes".

The state of Ireland asserts universal jurisdiction and extraterritorial jurisdiction in various situations. Ireland has universal jurisdiction for murder and manslaughter committed by its citizens. This dates from at least 1829, retained by the Offences against the Person Act 1861, as adapted in 1973.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act</span>

The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), implemented in 1986 by the United States, is a piece of legislation combatting the illegal drug trade. Enacted through congress, the MDLEA establishes that it is illegal for anyone on board a vessel belonging to the United States or within their jurisdiction to deliberately produce or disseminate psychotropic substances. The act is notable for its extraterritorial jurisdiction and its lack of nexus requirement. The Act provides that the United States jurisdiction reaches any vessel "registered in a foreign nation where the flag nation has consented or waived objection to the enforcement of the United States law by the United States." In recent years the MDLEA has been met with controversy as it permits the U.S. Coast Guard the authority to reach and imprison drug traffickers who are operating over international waters and foreign citizens who are not located on board the watercraft but operating overseas or as a conspirator.

References

  1. ↑ Cormier, Monique (2020). "3 - Delegation of Jurisdiction: The Concepts". The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court Over Nationals of Non-States Parties. Cambridge University Press. p. 63. doi:10.1017/9781108588706. ISBN   9781108588706. S2CID   157620519.
  2. ↑ "Code pénal, art. 113-6 à 113-12" (in French). Retrieved 2012-08-02.
  3. ↑ "Penal Code, ss. 2-6". Archived from the original on 2015-11-03. Retrieved 2012-08-03.
  4. ↑ "Germany's Angela Merkel slams planned US sanctions on Russia". Deutsche Welle . 16 June 2017.
  5. ↑ "Europe 'stands ready to act' if US sanctions on Russia affect its oil and gas supplies". The Independent. 26 July 2017.
  6. ↑ "France says U.S. sanctions on Iran, Russia look illegal". Reuters. July 26, 2017.
  7. ↑ The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, et al. v. The United States, 221 U.S. 1; 31 S. Ct. 502; 55 L. Ed. 619; 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1725
  8. ↑ United States v. Aluminium Company of America (Alcoa) 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945)
  9. ↑ A. Parrish, 'The Effects Test: Extraterritoriality's Fifth Business' (2008) 61 Vand. L. Rev. 1455
  10. ↑ JP Griffin, Extraterritoriality in U.S. and EU Antitrust Enforcement (1999) 67 Antitrust L.J. 159
  11. ↑ M Martyniszyn, Developing Countries’ Experience with Extraterritoriality in Competition Law, Report of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD/DITC/CPLP/2021/3, December 2021
  12. ↑ M Martyniszyn, Extraterritoriality in EU Competition Law (in) Nuno Cunha Rodrigues (ed), Extraterritoriality of EU Economic Law (Springer 2021).
  13. ↑ M Martyniszyn, Inter-Agency Evidence Sharing in Competition Law Enforcement, 19(1) International Journal of Evidence and Proof 11-28 (2015)
  14. ↑ M Martyniszyn, Avoidance Techniques: State Related Defences in International Antitrust Cases (2011)
  15. ↑ "s.3, Statute of Westminster 1931" . Retrieved 2012-08-01.
  16. ↑ "s.2, Australia Act 1986" . Retrieved 2012-08-01.
  17. ↑ "Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 7" . Retrieved 2012-08-03.
  18. ↑ "Hong Kong National Security Law" (PDF). Retrieved 2020-07-01.
  19. ↑ Evans, Martin (2016-06-01). "Britain's 'worst paedophile' Richard Huckle who targeted poverty-stricken children faces life in prison after admitting scores of offences". The Telegraph. ISSN   0307-1235 . Retrieved 2018-09-06.
  20. ↑ "Sky News - First For Breaking News From The UK And Around The World". Sky News. Retrieved 2018-09-06.
  21. ↑ "Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998".
  22. ↑ "Alaska Statutes - Section 29.35.020.: Extraterritorial jurisdiction". FindLaw. Retrieved 2012-08-03.
  23. ↑ "Planning and Zoning FAQs". City of Fort Smith, Arkansas. Archived from the original on 2011-11-04. Retrieved 2012-08-03.
  24. ↑ "Nebraska Revised Statute 13-327". State of Nebraska. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
  25. ↑ "Incorporation, Annexation and Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction: A Double Standard?" (PDF). Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities. Retrieved 2012-08-03.
  26. ↑ "Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)". City of Fort Worth. Archived from the original on 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2012-08-03.
  27. ↑ 18 U.S.C.   § 7 (subject to the provisions of any treaty or international agreement)
  28. ↑ as clarified under s. 901, Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  104-132–110 , 1317  Stat.   (volume): “The Congress declares that all the territorial sea of the United States, as defined by Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988, for purposes of Federal criminal jurisdiction is part of the United States, subject to its sovereignty, and is within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of title 18, United States Code.”
  29. ↑ This element was added in response to the case of United States v. Escamilla , a murder case on an iceberg in international waters.
  30. ↑ "The United States' Response to the Russian Doping Scandal". Marquette Law Scholarly Commons.
  31. ↑ Ian Dille (October 13, 2023). "This Could Be a Game Changer in the Fight Against Doping".
  32. ↑ 18 U.S.C.   § 3261
  33. ↑ 18 U.S.C. §7(3). See United States Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual § 1630
  34. ↑ 18 U.S.C.   § 13
  35. ↑ Cabranes, Jose (21 September 2015). "Withholding Judgment: Why U.S. Courts Shouldn't Make Foreign Policy". Foreign Affairs. Foreign Policy. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
  36. ↑ "Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. (Syllabus)". www.law.cornell.edu.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.