Search

The sovereignty of states is reflected in the notion of jurisdiction, empowering them to enact and enforce laws and regulations, and to adjudicate disputes in court. The jurisdiction of states and the exercise thereof is primarily territorial, limiting the exercise of state authority to their respective national territories except in specific situations. However, in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, it would be hard to maintain that a state should be denied the right to exercise its sovereign powers beyond national borders when there are reasonable grounds for doing so. Consequently, the exercise of extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction has become more accepted, although it is limited to particular situations and circumstances. These have to do with the exercise of jurisdiction over nationals, vessels and aircraft registered in or pertaining to the legislating state, as well as certain activities aimed at undermining the state’s security or solvency or which constitute crimes under international law. However, in principle it is not allowed to regulate activities of foreign nationals or entities operating wholly outside the legislating state’s territory. One area where this has become increasingly prevalent is through the exercise of export controls over foreign nationals and legal persons. The United States (US) has long been engaged in the exercise of this type of extraterritorial jurisdiction and is, without doubt, the state that is most proactive in doing so. This chapter considers US extraterritorial claims with respect to its export control and sanctions legislation and explores the limits of this practice under public international law.

On 15 November 2017, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion OC-23/17 on the relationship between human rights and the environment. The opinion responded to a request made by Colombia pursuant to Article 64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction of state parties to the Convention resulting from mega-infrastructure projects in the Greater Caribbean region. The purpose of this article is to discuss the general issues dealt with by the Court, concentrating on the significance of this Advisory Opinion for international law. The opinion contains two main interesting aspects. First, in the light of the opinion, states are responsible for the environmental damage they cause, regardless of whether it occurs within their borders or beyond them. Second, the Advisory Opinion recognizes that the right to a healthy environment is an autonomous, fundamental human right that shall be protected.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the emergence of the changing face of criminal jurisdiction in dealing with cross-border money laundering that develops dynamically due to the development of globalization. Design/methodology/approach This research was a doctrinal legal research using conceptual approach concerning the very strict principle of territorial jurisdiction in criminal law. This study also used case approach related to the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction and long-arm jurisdiction in some cross-border money laundering cases. The collection of legal materials was carried out through literature as well as case study and was analyzed qualitatively based on data reduction, presentation and concluding. Findings This study revealed that territorial jurisdiction which was originally strictly enforced by state sovereignty over crimes that occurred in its territory then changed widely with multi-territorial perspective. Because of its condition, the state then expands its authority to deal with money laundering as a cross-border crime involving more than one territorial state, namely, by using extraterritorial jurisdiction and then developed into a long-arm jurisdiction trend that allows state authorities to prosecute foreigners outside its state boundaries. Originality/value The research finding can be used as one of the alternatives by countries to break the territorial jurisdiction in combating the cross-border money laundering.

The use of extraterritorial jurisdiction of competition law, based on the effect doctrine, has long been debated. This paper discusses the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction to Indonesian competition law. Competition law in Indonesia applies to any collusive or abusive behaviour that has a necessary effect on the business and economy spheres, regardless of the nationality or geographic location of the company or where the occurred conduct. This study employs a normative juridical method to analyse legal norms and principles. The approaches used include a statutory approach, a comparative law approach, and a case approach. This study reveals that the regulations concerning the prohibition of monopolistic practices and unfair business competition have not explicitly regulated extraterritorial norms in Indonesia. However, the Business Competition Supervisory Commission makes legal breakthroughs by applying the extraterritorial principle to resolve the involvement of foreign business actors and impose penalties on them. This article argues that Indonesia significantly needs to amend its competition law and increase cooperation with other countries to enforce the competition law.

The purpose of this article is to clarify the scope of the Regulation (eu) 2016/679 of the European parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (here in after — Regulation). The author makes a comparative legal analysis of the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (here in after — the Directive) and Regulations. As a result of the study, the author distinguishes between the territorial and extraterritorial scope of the Regulation. The author clarifies the content of the concepts of “equipment” and “the establishment” of the controller and the person processing personal data in the context of the application of the Regulations. The article concludes that since no changes were made to the concept of “the establishment” when the Directive was repealed, a broad interpretation of this concept in judicial practice can also be applied to the territorial scope of the Regulation. The continuity of the wording of the Directive and the Regulation allowed the author to conclude that the extraterritorial scope of the Regulation can be seen not only in Part 2 of Article 3 of the Regulation, which provides for its direct extraterritorial effect, but also in Part 1 of Article 3, which specifies the territorial scope of its action, on the basis of criteria that are based solely on the territory of the EU member States, such as the “place of establishment” of the controller or the person processing personal data.

The General Data Protection Regulation (the GDPR) of the European Union (EU) emerges as a hot-button issue in contemporary global politics, policies, and business. Based on an omnibus legal substance, extensive extraterritorial scope and influential market powers, it appears as a standard for global data protection regulations as can be witnessed by the growing tendency of adopting, or adjusting relevant national laws following the instrument across the globe. Under Article 3, of the GDPR applies against any data controller or processor within and outside the EU, who process the personal data of EU residents. Therefore, the long arm of the GDPR is extended to cover the whole world, including Malaysia. This gives rise to tension worldwide, as non-compliance thereof leads to severe fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual turnover. This is not a hypothetical possibility, rather a reality, as a huge amount of fines are already imposed on many foreign companies, such as Google, Facebook, Uber, and Equifax to name a few. Such a scenario, due to the existence of state sovereignty principles under international law, has made the researchers around the world curious about some questions, why does the EU adopt an instrument having the extraterritorial application; whether the extraterritorial scope is legitimate under normative international law; how the provisions of this instrument can be enforced, and how these are justified. This article attempts to search for answers to those questions by analyzing the relevant rules and norms of international law and the techniques of the EU employed. The article concludes with the findings that the extraterritorial scope of the GDPR is justified under international law in a changed global context. The findings of this article will enlighten the relevant stakeholders, including Malaysian policymakers and business entities, to realise the theoretical aspects of inclusion of the extraterritorial feature of the GDPR, and this understanding may facilitate them to map their future strategies.

This article analyses the decisions of Belgian and Dutch courts concerning the repatriation of the family members of foreign fighters who are now detained in dire conditions in North-East Syria. The article shows that, under international law, these women and children have no individual right to be repatriated by their State of nationality, based on either consular assistance, the extraterritorial applicability of human rights treaties, or the right of return to one's own country. Nonetheless there are good reasons why States should exercise their prerogative to repatriate.

The article analyzes the Ogoni case, which combines several high-profile lawsuits in the courts of Nigeria, the United States, theNetherlands, the United Kingdom, the African Commission on Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the Economic Communityof West Africa. Practical issues related to the jurisdiction of states are covered, namely, extraterritorial jurisdiction, universal jurisdictionin civil matters, ‘piercing the corporate veil’, ‘forum shopping’, doctrines ‘forum non conveniens’, ‘forum necessitatis’, etc. The Ogonicase demonstrated the diversity and complexity of jurisdictional issues at the national and international levels. Although in terms ofjurisdiction the courts of Nigeria were the most appropriate forum to bring an action in this case, due to the inefficiency of the Nigerianjudicial system, the plaintiffs appealed to other jurisdictions. The Wiwa and Kiobel cases before the US courts can be considered asexamples of an attempt, albeit unsuccessful, to implement the extraterritorial application of US national law and to apply the principleof universal jurisdiction in civil tort cases. US courts have denied the plaintiffs’ claims under the ‘forum non conveniens’ doctrine andrefused to apply extraterritorially the American tort law to corporations located and registered in other states. In the Akpan case, theDistrict Court of the Netherlands refused to ‘pierce the corporate veil’, but the Court of Appeal ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear thacase concerning both Shell and the Nigerian subsidiary. In the Kiobel case, which is also before the courts of the Netherlands, an alternativebasis for jurisdiction was used – ‘forum necessitatis’. In the Okpabi case, the British courts have so far refused to recognize theirjurisdiction. It should be noted that the Wiwa and Kiobel cases concern the liability of Shell and SPDC for human rights violations,while the Akpan and Okpabi cases concern the civil liability for environmental damage. The above proceedings in national and internationalcourts are a clear example of ‘forum shopping’. The case was considered by the African Commission on Human Rights, whichrecognized its jurisdiction despite the absence of domestic remedies exhaustion, and by the West African Economic Community Court,which recognized its jurisdiction to hear the case under the African Charter as well as international covenants on human rights.

This contribution argues that the right of access to extraterritorial jurisdiction shaped privilege-based communities across national borders. It discusses extraterritoriality as a legal framework that enabled and shaped the building of communities of foreigners from many different backgrounds. Extraterritoriality – counterintuitively – amalgamated and strengthened a community through that very diversity. This was precisely why that community of foreigners – specified as the odd ones out – understood itself as a social unit across national boundaries, loosening and even contesting its affiliation to a specific nation and/or empire.

It has been two decades since the terrorist attacks on September 11. These events were the starting shot for the US war on terrorism, which has resulted in extreme challenges for human rights treaties. Several people have fallen victim to the US protection measures, which have included a detention and interrogation program and extraordinary renditions. The US protection measures have resulted in military invasions, kidnappings, detentions, and acts of torture. Even though black sites are no longer secret, has nobody ever been held responsible for these crimes. The question of who should be held responsible for the systematic violations of the United States is therefore necessary to discuss as this is a problem that characterizes the international legal system still today. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the US legal argument for justifying enhanced interrogation techniques and extraordinary renditions is consistent with the human rights treaties. The study examines the extent to which the US exercises jurisdiction over people who are subject to extraordinary renditions. Furthermore, it is also important to investigate if extraordinary renditions conflict with two treaties that have been approved in the United States and consequently the legitimacy of the arguments will be tested against CAT and ICCPR. The problem has been analysed in the light of jurisdiction. The interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction in general international law and human rights treaties constitutes an essential issue regarding states’ responsibilities to uphold and respect the human rights within the research area and research questions. The study focuses primarily on the question of when a state has obligations under human right treaties outside of its own territory. The issue of jurisdiction has been discussed primarily in international courts since Bankovic. The investigation shows that people that have been subject to extraordinary renditions as well as the detention and interrogation program fall under US jurisdiction. According to case law, the study establishes that the United States exercises effective control over the people in the event of extraordinary renditions. Moreover, the study claims that state responsibility can be attributed to the US for having failed in its obligations to respect and protect human rights in the war on terrorism.

The focus of this piece lies with extraterritorial jurisdiction in the context of the application of the EU competition provisions. Whereas the doctrine of effects has been established in the conte...

This article argues that the politics of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the 1920s reshaped relations between ethnicity and territorial sovereignty in Ethiopia's eastern borderlands. A 1925 criminal trial involving Gadabursi Somalis began as what Britons deemed a ‘tribal matter’ to be settled through customary means, but became a struggle for Ethiopia's regent, Ras Tafari, to assert Ethiopia's territorial authority and imperial sovereignty. British claims of extraterritorial jurisdiction over Somalis amidst 1920s global geopolitical shifts disrupted existing practices of governance in Ethiopia's eastern borderlands and created a dilemma for Ethiopian authorities. In order to uphold international obligations, Ethiopian officials effectively had to revoke their sovereignty over some Somalis indigenous to Ethiopia. Yet Britons’ practical application of extraterritoriality to Somalis was predicated on assumed racial differences between Somalis and highland Ethiopians (‘Abyssinians’). Thus, Ethiopia's recognition of British extraterritorial jurisdiction would lend legitimacy to claims exempting Somalis from Ethiopian sovereignty due to differences in identity. The case reveals how assertions about race, nationality and ‘tribal’ identity articulated to subordinate Ethiopian rule to British interests and, in the longer term, to delegitimize Ethiopian governance over Somalis.

This article aims at analysing the main mechanisms available, for setting limits to the exercise of State Criminal Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, mainly as it applies to International Crimes in the absence of direct links between the conduct of the accused person and the State. Initially, jurisdiction is examined as a legal concept, for later to be approached within the delimitation of the State power to exercise its jurisdictional competence horizontally (among States), as it is not in the scope of this article the vertical exercise of State Jurisdiction (State & International Courts).

The continuous rising levels of rhino poaching in South Africa require smart strategies that move beyond prosecuting the actual poachers to engaging the transnational criminals who deal with the rhino horn after it leaves the country. In this regard, South Africa has a number of laws that deal with the poaching of rhino horns. The Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) does not provide for the adequate prosecution of offenders outside South Africa. It is argued that the POCA has to be amended to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction to deal with the prosecution of the higher echelons of those involved in rhino poaching. While the POCA provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction in some respects, the application of these provisions still presents challenges in their implementation. To substantiate this claim, this article first discusses the international networks that support the trade in rhino horn. A critique of the available statistics on rhino poaching follows, as does a suggestion that attention must be paid to the details in the statistical records to understand how desperate the situation is. Thereafter, an evaluation of South Africa's legislative framework and other interlinking factors that affect rhino poaching is performed This demonstrates the need for extraterritorial jurisdiction with regard to rhino poaching.

This article analyses the current regulatory framework governing transnational restrictive business practices. It identifies key gaps that provide room for anticompetitive practices to flourish, causing cross-border transfer of wealth, typically from less affluent states. The economic harm caused by cross-border anticompetitive conduct is significant; international cartels alone caused overcharges exceeding $1.5 trillion in the period 1990–2016. This article offers a series of pragmatic policy recommendations that could narrow existing regulatory gaps. The proposals require no international negotiations and can be implemented domestically. They call for enabling of more assertive and robust extraterritorial enforcement of domestic competition laws and facilitation of positive externalities in that context.

Corruption has been linked to urgent transnational problems, including, inter alia, market uncertainties, the undermining of democracy, economic disparity, religious extremism, and authoritarianism. As corruption is a global problem, it requires coordination across states’ anticorruption laws. Anticorruption thus provides grounds to reassess the promise and limits of transnational law. This Article examines the operation of anticorruption as transnational law across the corporate governance regimes of the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies. As opposed to perceptions that Washington and Beijing are engaged in a zero-sum game, anticorruption is a policy concern against which both states may rally. Inter-regulatory coordination is far from a frictionless process, however. Cross-border lawyers working on both sides of the Pacific engaged in anticorruption law are a type of transnational community and highlight these tensions. Lawyers apply standards in the 1977 U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the People’s Republic of China antibribery laws, and internal Chinese Communist Party rules to ensure their clients comply with multiple regimes. Ethnographic data shows that lawyers assess different regulatory environments, in this case, one of extraterritorial jurisdiction and the other characterized by a political campaign, in the course of advising multinational companies. The Article argues that lawyers’ roles are a lynchpin of these overlapping systems of compliance as their work operates to discipline corporations in China; nonetheless, lawyers’ position in the global legal market impacts what they deem to be “corrupt” and which rules apply. A focus on cross-border lawyers as transnational communities thus marries legal analysis with a contextual grounding in lawyers’ work, an approach that has merit for the study of comparative law more generally. The Article finds that given market pressures, in the area of anticorruption, trends show a preference for “bicultural lawyers,” those who are both embedded within transnational communities and respond to demands in the global market.

This article seeks to map the possible bottlenecks for international legal cooperation in the context of terrorism and/or organized crime. The assumption is that – because of the crime–terror nexus – any obstacle encountered in that area with respect to the suppression of one form of criminality will backfire on the other form as well. After addressing the indefinite concept of terrorism, and its connection with organized crime, we will look at extraterritorial jurisdiction and international cooperation in criminal matters. In the final section, we will offer a number of concluding observations.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is threefold; first, to show the role played by the United Nations (UN) in the fight against transnational organized crime; second, to analyze two subject areas, commercial sexual exploitation of children and mutilation of albinos, in which the Organization gives voice to the often voiceless victims; and third, to examine the role the UN may or should be called on to play in the postulated cooperation between high-level investigative means and personnel on the ground. Design/methodology/approach The paper relies on information generated by international organizations (Red Cross and UN) and media reports. Findings Although commercial sexual exploitation of children in many if not most advanced jurisdicitions is a crime with extraterritorial jurisdiction in the sense that perpetrator can be tried in, say, an advanced country for violations in a developing country, and considering that this crime has a strong international component, it has proved difficult to investigate. This is caused by the procedural difficulties in collecting proofs in one jurisdiction for use in another, transport of victims and witnesses, etc. Therefore, among many other measures, advanced countries should further tighten the investigation of so-called sex tourism clearly targeting children. Mutilation of persons with albinism is strongly linked to superstition and although often involving international trade, must be strongly countered by information. Again the UN plays and should play a leading role. Research limitations/implications Research in these and similar areas is quite obvious hindered by the so-called “dark number syndrome”, i.e. as the subject-matter is both illegal and the target of strong moral condemnation, it is difficult to get more than a small, hopefully representative, set of cases to examine. Practical implications Advanced countries must assist in limiting and hopefully stopping the overseas sex tourism involving underage individuals. Also, through the UN, the only moral arbiter we have, the international community should assist in informing and teaching, in particular, in the countries around the big lakes in Africa and in Malawi to bring to an end this kind of superstition. Likewise, the UN should act as a bridge, allowing sophisticated investigative means to link up with less sophisticated ones, in particular in the area of abuse of the environment (pachyderms in Africa and protected fisheries breeding grounds). Social implications From the previous paragraph, it is obvious, so it seems, that at least the commercial sexual exploitation of children and the mutilation of albinos can only be countered though a conscious effort at training aimed at the social layers – mostly in rural areas – where both superstition (albinos and brains of bald males) and the habitual view of children, in particular, but not only girls, as a source of income are prevalent. Originality/value The paper does not attempt to present original material. Rather it emphasizes the role of the UN in protecting the unprotected and promotes ideas with which to commence pushing back against the serious destruction of animals, including fishes.

Space exploration is a trailblazing project endowed with multiple uses by multiple users. The human settlement project on celestial bodies, such as the Moon Village, will give rise to complex activities. To regulate these activities, it is necessary to extend earthly countries' jurisdiction into outer space. This article examines existing rules on extraterritorial jurisdiction and identified possible problems thereof. This article offers solutions by making reference to the jurisprudences from human rights law. For the jurisdictional quasi-territorial jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, this article offers new criteria in establishing them.

This article considers two recent developments in Singapore private international law: the establishment of the Singapore International Commercial Court and the enactment of the Hague Convention on...

On 15 March 2019, a Facebook Live video was broadcast from Christchurch, New Zealand, documenting a terror attack which resulted in the death of fifty-one people. This attack highlighted a weakness in social media protections and a gap in legislation globally. In response, the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Act 2019 (Cth) seeks to make internet service and social media providers accountable for the removal of abhorrent and violent content. This legislation sent waves through the international community, attracting criticisms for its fast adoption, perceived unrealistic obligations and harsh penalties, as well as its broad extraterritorial reach. This article will explore these criticisms. It asks, how is the Act exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction? Is there an unrealistic burden created? And if there is a breach, who will be charged? The article concludes that if these challenges are not adequately addressed, the Act will not only fail to achieve its goal of reducing the accessibility of abhorrent violent material, but will also pose a serious threat to the protection of human rights.

This chapter examines the rise of French imperial expatriation in Egypt and the economic implications of French cultural dominance in Egyptian society. It then turns to the transformation of the capitulary regime, a traditional feature of the Ottoman plural legal system, into an imperial instrument that particularly benefited French nationals. Finally, the chapter analyses the crisis of the French-dominated system of extraterritoriality in the 1870s, which was solved by the internationalization of extraterritorial jurisdiction in 1876 and by British colonial occupation in 1882. After 1850, European — especially French — merchants and financiers captured a rising and disproportionate share of fast-growing exchanges of commodities and capital with Egypt. The object of the chapter is not to lament the iniquity of these new arrangements or the ensuing exploitation of Egypt, but to reappraise their significance as cultural and legal mechanisms of domination.

I study the impact of foreign anti-corruption laws using a setting that exploits US multinational firms' differential exposure to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the 2010 United Kingdom Bribery Act (UKBA). Results suggest that adoption of the UKBA, which raised public litigation costs associated with foreign bribery, induces US firms subject to its jurisdiction to curb their business exposure to countries with high corruption risk, relative to their unexposed US peers. The effect is more pronounced for firms with greater enforcement risk and bribery exposure, and is robust to a battery of placebo and additional analyses. This study is the first to provide empirical evidence of the impact of foreign anti-corruption laws on US firms, which are already subject to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This evidence supports extraterritoriality as a critical element of effective anti-corruption laws and highlights its important role in regulating multinational firms in the globalized economy.

Since the physical decay of Islamic State and other radical Islamic groups in Syria, a considerable number of European nationals who are held captive in Syria have expressed their will to return to their home country. Some of them have initiated cases before the national courts of their home country to enforce their repatriation. This paper primarily analyses relevant Belgian cases, revolving around human rights law and consular law. Second, it puts these cases in a comparative perspective to cases in other European states, namely the Netherlands, Germany and France. The paper finds that in all four legal systems, relevant cases were dealt with differently. Overall, it appears that in states where a constitutional duty or civil law standard of care for the state vis-a-vis its citizens is more entrenched, such as in Germany and the Netherlands, the legal framework to deal with nationals abroad in conflict areas is more straightforward. In states like Belgium and France, where this is less entrenched, cases have wavered between varying legal bases; from international to national, and human rights to consular law and criminal law. This has resulted in a standstill at the national level, with courts looking at the European Court of Human Rights to offer a way out.

Many States in the world such as China have no specific domestic laws providing for the crime of piracy, leading to the question whether these States have the competence to punish piracy as required by international law. This paper argues that the lack of a crime of piracy within a domestic legal system should not become an insurmountable obstacle for States to prosecute pirates. Prosecution of pirates without a crime of piracy is feasible in a State that has domestic criminal laws that deal with illicit activities similar to piracy by indicting perpetrators with other criminal offences. While it would be an ideal solution for that State to establish a specific crime of piracy in its domestic legal system, it is important to consider the difficulties in setting the definition of piracy and the degree of punishment appropriately, and realize that the major deficiencies in punishing pirates under other existing domestic crimes can be basically addressed within an existing domestic legal system. The main purpose of universal jurisdiction over piracy to punish criminals to the maximum extent and the changing situation of piracy also require States to always be ready to deal with piracy. Therefore, prosecuting pirates as another crime is a realistic compromise. Furthermore, for a State without a crime of piracy, it is more urgent for it to build up legal grounds for exercising universal jurisdiction over piracy and relevant procedural provisions on the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction over international crimes at sea.

Chapter 3 discusses the indiscriminate extension of extraterritoriality by British imperial agents as a defining feature of British imperial legal techniques. From 1843 onwards, it is possible to discern a boom in the legislation providing for the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction and for the creation of consular posts. The term ‘protection’ was an inherent part of the discourse of imperial agents when they referred to the need to extend extraterritorial jurisdiction. In the context of empire, ‘protection’ proved a flexible semiotic tool that often understated the vast extent of intervention that went hand in hand with its use in legal settings. At the same in the meaning of protection as a military alliance implying control over external relations continued to survive and referred to the physical protection of African polities in return for their exclusive relationship with Britain. The growth of extraterritoriality is directly related to the genesis of the ‘colonial’ protectorate as a form of imperial governance.

The question of any limits that a state's extraterritorial jurisdiction faces has not yet been fully addressed by international courts and tribunals. The aspect appears somewhat "entrapped" between the expansion of international criminal law - and the obligation to crack down on international crimes - and a "creeping restoration" in the form of a reaffirmation of the sovereignty and sovereign equality of states. Furthermore, the extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction is frequently associated with the practice of lawfare, a neologism that combines the words law and warfare and identifies the use (and abuse) of the law to achieve a political end or, in a more restricted sense , a military end. Two "collateral" aspects of extraterritorial jurisdiction have recently been examined in decisions of international courts and tribunals. The International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in the decision in the case of the MV Norstar (Panama v. Italy) provided an interpretation of the freedom of navigation which prohibits the exercise of the so-called "prescriptive" jurisdiction (that is, the form of jurisdiction that is alongside the "executive" jurisdiction and that of "ruling" on a specific issue and concerns the possibility of extending the scope of its laws and rules) by coastal States with respect to conduct (or parts of conduct) that take place in deep sea. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the decision on Preliminary Objections in the Immunities and criminal proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v France) - pending on May 31, 2020 - has incidentally dealt with the 2000 Palermo Convention on transnational organized crime - a aspect of the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction in an "indirect" form: the characterization of entirely foreign conduct as a "predicate crime" in order to judge an accessory crime such as money laundering. The paper analyzes the two decisions in the light of the positions of the parties and their respective decisions.

In Google LLC v. CNIL, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) held that the EU law only requires valid “right to be forgotten” “de-referencing” requests to be carried out by a search engine operator on search engine versions accessible in EU Member States, as opposed to all versions of its search engine worldwide. The ruling has been perceived as a “win” for Google and other interveners, such as Microsoft and the Wikimedia Foundation, who argued against worldwide de-referencing; while the Court has been praised for its restraint in finding that the current EU law on the “right to be forgotten” only applies within the EU. However, the CJEU went further and recognized the EU Parliament’s ability to extend the GDPR to apply extraterritorially and Member States’ ability to apply national de-referencing laws beyond their borders. Moreover, the CJEU appears to have reached these conclusions at the expense of the GDPR’s aims to harmonize the data protection framework across the EU. The decision allows Member States to decide individually the territorial scope of de-referencing obligations, thus creating the potential for different results based on where the requester resides. By creating the potential for national data protection authorities to apply stronger protections than those afforded by the GDPR, this decision could be seen as another brick in the “data privacy wall” which the CJEU has built to protect EU citizens. This note thus argues that Google LLC v. CNIL’s significance can only be understood by situating it in the broader context of CJEU’s recent data privacy decisions, which reveals the continued forcefulness of the CJEU’s stance on data protection after Snowden and Cambridge Analytica scandal.

On November 15, 2017, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court) rendered a historic advisory opinion (Advisory Opinion) on the relationship between human rights and the environment. The opinion was a response to a request from Colombia regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction of state parties to the American Convention, in particular their obligations under the rights to life and personal integrity, arising from the construction and operation of large-scale infrastructure projects in the Greater Caribbean region. Colombia's concern was that, due to their dimensions and permanence, such projects could cause significant environmental harm, that goes beyond national borders, and, as a consequence, adversely affect the inhabitants of the whole region and the enjoyment of their rights under the Convention (para. 2). One of the most important aspects of the Advisory Opinion is the Court's finding that in relation to large-scale transboundary infrastructure projects, state parties to the Convention can exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction under certain circumstances and thus be responsible for the human rights of the people in the affected area. Another significant finding of the Court is that Article 26 of the American Convention, which provides for the progressive realization of economic, social, and cultural rights, includes an autonomous right to a healthy environment—a right fundamental for the existence of humankind. Finally, the Court directly linked the rights to life and personal integrity with general principles of international environmental under a due diligence obligation. The Court's extensive use of international environmental law instruments, case law, and reasoning could pave the way for greater interconnection and integration between human rights and international environment law obligations.

A number of human rights have come to play a material role in UK extradition law. An exception is that found in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 protecting the right to a f...

The recent indictment of more than 40 individuals and entities in the FIFA corruption scandal demonstrates the expansive reach of the federal criminal law, raising important questions of extraterritorial jurisdiction and substantive law. This article argues that the existing law is sufficient to capture pervasive corruption in international organizations like Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) when their transactions reach domestic wires in the financial system. The principal charge in the FIFA case, for example, falls under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). But the extraterritorial application of RICO is far from settled law, and the dramatic scale of the racketeering conspiracy will have profound implications for the substantive law, presenting problems of legal specification and challenging the transactional model of crime. One of the indictment’s predicate offenses, moreover, is a novel honest services fraud charge that implicates the very nature of fiduciary duties in the international marketplace. This article suggests that the law should extend fiduciary protections against commercial bribery in the international sphere so long as the values underlying those protections accord with collectively shared norms. Finally, this article advances a conceptual understanding, informed by theories of global governance and development, of why the law should countenance international corruption. Federal prosecutors are becoming increasingly concerned with the integrity of globally integrated markets, and global prosecutions may carry the potential to strengthen deterrence, policy cohesion among decentralized stakeholders, and reinforce international norms of conduct.

Scholars have suggested that ‘home’ states of transnational corporations (TNCs) have a legal duty to protect against human rights abuses occurring in ‘host’ states that may be breached by failure to regulate TNCs’ extraterritorial activities. This article challenges the claim that such a duty of home states to regulate TNCs’ extraterritorial human rights impacts can be said currently to exist as a matter of law. The article first summarizes the general structure of arguments made in favour of such a ‘home state duty to regulate’. It then considers the foundations and meanings of extraterritorial jurisdiction in public international law and international human rights law; requirements and conditions of attribution and state responsibility for the conduct of non-state actors; and the scope and limits of ‘positive obligations’ to ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights, domestically and extraterritorially, as they relate to prevention of human rights abuses by TNCs.

Cross-border trade, industry outsourcing, and increased animal migration are becoming pressing issues for numerous states and fundamentally challenge our conceptions of animal law as territorial. Instead of proposing that nations try to solve these problems by coming to agreement on low and mostly ineffective standards, this essay opens an unexplored and promising avenue for animal law: extraterritorial protection. Using the example of trophy hunting, the essay reveals the many established jurisdictional options that can help animal law to overcome regulatory gaps, and showcases how animal issues can thereby gain visibility on the international plane.

Abu Hamza is serving a life sentence in an American prison, having been convicted of terrorist offences in 2014. He was previously imprisoned in the United Kingdom. Two central questions arise from his case; whether the UK and US acted lawfully under international law in applying their criminal law against Hamza, and whether that application of law was appropriate. The answers to these questions are that Hamza’s subjection to legal process was of dubious legality and not completely proper. The links between the UK and the US and Hamza, be they territory, nationality or otherwise, were in some instances insufficient per se and lacking relative to third states. His case is a story of justice imperfectly done. Keywords: Legality; Proper Law; Extraterritorial Jurisdiction; Extradition; Abu Hamza