Universal Jurisdiction - Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

International jurisdiction differs from "territorial jurisdiction", where justice is exercised by a state in relation to crimes committed on its territory (territorial jurisdiction). States can also exercise jurisdiction on crimes committed by their nationals abroad (extraterritorial jurisdiction), even if the act the national committed was not illegal under the law of the territory in which an act has been committed. As an example, the American law the Protect America Act of 2007 asserts special maritime jurisdiction over terror-suspects on a worldwide basis, i.e. Persons under the U.S. Protect America Act authorization are the moral equivalents of outlaw or hostis humani generis.

States can also in certain circumstances exercise jurisdiction over acts committed by foreign nationals on foreign territory. This form of jurisdiction tends to be much more controversial. Bases on which a state can exercise jurisdiction in this way:

• The least controversial basis is that under which a state can exercise jurisdiction over acts that affect the fundamental interests of the state, such as spying, even if the act was committed by foreign nationals on foreign territory. The Information Technology Act 2000 of India largely supports the extraterritoriality of the said Act. The law states that a contravention of the Act that affects any computer or computer network situated in India will be punishable by India – irrespective of the culprits location and nationality.

• Also relatively non-controversial is the ability of a state to try its own nationals from crimes committed abroad. Some nations such as France as a matter of law will refuse to extradite its own citizens, but will instead try them for crimes committed abroad.

• More controversial is the exercise of jurisdiction where the victim of the crime is a national of the state exercising jurisdiction. In the past some states have claimed this jurisdiction (e.g., Mexico), while others have been strongly opposed to it (e.g., the United States, except in cases in which an American citizen is a victim). In more recent years however, a broad global consensus has emerged in permitting its use in the case of torture, "forced disappearances" or terrorist offences (due in part to it being permitted by the various United Nations conventions on terrorism); but its application in other areas is still highly controversial. For example, former dictator of Chile Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London in 1998, on Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon's demand, on charges of human rights abuses, not on the grounds of universal jurisdiction but rather on the grounds that some of the victims of the abuses committed in Chile were Spanish citizens. Spain then sought his extradition from Britain, again, not on the grounds of universal jurisdiction, but by invoking the law of the European Union regarding extradition; and he was finally released on grounds of health. Argentinian Alfredo Astiz's sentence is part of this juridical frame.