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

Danielle Ireland-Piper

doi:10.1093/oso/9780198800613.003.0008

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

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter › Research › peer-review

Abstract

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 language	English
Title of host publication	The State and Cosmopolitan Responsibilities
Editors	Richard Beardsworth, Garrett Wallace Brown, Richard Shapcott
Publisher	Oxford University Press, USA
Chapter	7
ISBN (Electronic)	9780198800613
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198800613.003.0008
Publication status	Published - 13 Jun 2019

Access to Document

10.1093/oso/9780198800613.003.0008

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

Related Activities

1 Invited talk
1 Visiting an external institution

Cosmopolitanism and Extraterritoriality

Danielle Ireland-Piper (Speaker)

Mar 2017

Activity: Talk or presentation › Invited talk

Utrecht University

Danielle Ireland-Piper (Visitor)

1 Mar 2017 → 30 Mar 2017

Activity: Visiting an external institution

Cite this

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

@inbook{031c79645f734030ac784adb8131ec91,

title = "Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction and the Cosmopolitan: A Double-Edged Sword",

abstract = "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.",

author = "Danielle Ireland-Piper",

year = "2019",

month = jun,

day = "13",

doi = "10.1093/oso/9780198800613.003.0008",

language = "English",

editor = "Richard Beardsworth and Brown, {Garrett Wallace} and Shapcott, {Richard }",

booktitle = "The State and Cosmopolitan Responsibilities",

publisher = "Oxford University Press, USA",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction and the Cosmopolitan: A Double-Edged Sword

AU - Ireland-Piper, Danielle

PY - 2019/6/13

Y1 - 2019/6/13

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1093/oso/9780198800613.003.0008

DO - 10.1093/oso/9780198800613.003.0008

M3 - Chapter

BT - The State and Cosmopolitan Responsibilities

A2 - Beardsworth, Richard

A2 - Brown, Garrett Wallace

A2 - Shapcott, Richard

PB - Oxford University Press, USA

ER -