Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction: Does the long arm of the law undermine the rule of law?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction have become increasingly frequent in the 21st century. Although a useful response to transnational crime, such assertions are often highly politicised and used by states to further unilateral foreign policy objectives. Further, some assertions of extraterritoriality undermine the rule of law and do not provide adequate procedural fairness. While principles such as comity and reasonableness may assist in protecting the rights of states, they do not adequately protect the rights of individuals. Therefore, this article argues that extraterritoriality should be treaty-based rather than unilateral, and domestic constitutional guarantees must apply equally to extraterritorial assertions of jurisdiction and territorial assertions. Further, principles to guide exercises of prosecutorial discretion in relation to an assertion of extraterritoriality need to be developed and made available in the form of a model law.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)122-157
Number of pages36
JournalMelbourne Journal of International Law
Volume13
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2012

Fingerprint

constitutional state
jurisdiction
reasonableness
Law
treaty
fairness
foreign policy
guarantee
offense

Cite this

@article{d4a07b2f3b3441429965829959fbcbae,
title = "Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction: Does the long arm of the law undermine the rule of law?",
abstract = "Assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction have become increasingly frequent in the 21st century. Although a useful response to transnational crime, such assertions are often highly politicised and used by states to further unilateral foreign policy objectives. Further, some assertions of extraterritoriality undermine the rule of law and do not provide adequate procedural fairness. While principles such as comity and reasonableness may assist in protecting the rights of states, they do not adequately protect the rights of individuals. Therefore, this article argues that extraterritoriality should be treaty-based rather than unilateral, and domestic constitutional guarantees must apply equally to extraterritorial assertions of jurisdiction and territorial assertions. Further, principles to guide exercises of prosecutorial discretion in relation to an assertion of extraterritoriality need to be developed and made available in the form of a model law.",
author = "Danielle Ireland-Piper",
year = "2012",
month = "5",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "122--157",
journal = "Melbourne Journal of International Law",
issn = "1444-8602",
number = "1",

}

Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction: Does the long arm of the law undermine the rule of law? / Ireland-Piper, Danielle.

In: Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 13, No. 1, 01.05.2012, p. 122-157.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction: Does the long arm of the law undermine the rule of law?

AU - Ireland-Piper, Danielle

PY - 2012/5/1

Y1 - 2012/5/1

N2 - Assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction have become increasingly frequent in the 21st century. Although a useful response to transnational crime, such assertions are often highly politicised and used by states to further unilateral foreign policy objectives. Further, some assertions of extraterritoriality undermine the rule of law and do not provide adequate procedural fairness. While principles such as comity and reasonableness may assist in protecting the rights of states, they do not adequately protect the rights of individuals. Therefore, this article argues that extraterritoriality should be treaty-based rather than unilateral, and domestic constitutional guarantees must apply equally to extraterritorial assertions of jurisdiction and territorial assertions. Further, principles to guide exercises of prosecutorial discretion in relation to an assertion of extraterritoriality need to be developed and made available in the form of a model law.

AB - Assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction have become increasingly frequent in the 21st century. Although a useful response to transnational crime, such assertions are often highly politicised and used by states to further unilateral foreign policy objectives. Further, some assertions of extraterritoriality undermine the rule of law and do not provide adequate procedural fairness. While principles such as comity and reasonableness may assist in protecting the rights of states, they do not adequately protect the rights of individuals. Therefore, this article argues that extraterritoriality should be treaty-based rather than unilateral, and domestic constitutional guarantees must apply equally to extraterritorial assertions of jurisdiction and territorial assertions. Further, principles to guide exercises of prosecutorial discretion in relation to an assertion of extraterritoriality need to be developed and made available in the form of a model law.

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 122

EP - 157

JO - Melbourne Journal of International Law

JF - Melbourne Journal of International Law

SN - 1444-8602

IS - 1

ER -