The assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction by nation states is not inherently cosmopolitan. Rather, it is a double-edged sword. This is because extraterritorial jurisdiction is capable of being wielded for both cosmopolitan and non-cosmopolitan purposes: for empowerment, but also oppression; for rescue, but also retribution; for protection, but also unilateral political gain. In that context, this chapter introduces the law of extraterritorial jurisdiction, considers why states might wish to exercise it, and then identifies arguments both for (such as universalism, and the avoidance of impunity) and against (such as the undermining of meaningful multilateralism and the rights of an accused) exercises of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Ultimately, this chapter concludes that extraterritorial jurisdiction can only be considered capable of furthering cosmopolitan ideals if certain criteria are met.
|Title of host publication||The State and Cosmopolitan Responsibilities|
|Editors||Richard Beardsworth, Garrett Wallace Brown, Richard Shapcott|
|Publisher||Oxford University Press, USA|
|Publication status||Published - 13 Jun 2019|
Ireland-Piper, D. (2019). Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction and the Cosmopolitan: A Double-Edged Sword. In R. Beardsworth, G. W. Brown, & R. Shapcott (Eds.), The State and Cosmopolitan Responsibilities Oxford University Press, USA. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198800613.003.0008