Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction and the Cosmopolitan: A Double-Edged Sword

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review


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.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationThe State and Cosmopolitan Responsibilities
EditorsRichard Beardsworth, Garrett Wallace Brown, Richard Shapcott
PublisherOxford University Press, USA
ISBN (Electronic)9780198800613
Publication statusPublished - 13 Jun 2019


Dive into the research topics of 'Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction and the Cosmopolitan: A Double-Edged Sword'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this