Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in International Law

Introduction

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction describes the authority claimed or exercised by a state over persons, conduct, property, transactions, or events located partly or wholly beyond its borders. It is not confined to criminal prosecution. The concept also covers legislation directed at foreign conduct, proceedings involving overseas events or defendants, regulatory measures affecting actors abroad, and attempts to compel compliance with domestic law. Its legal analysis depends on distinguishing prescriptive, adjudicative, and enforcement jurisdiction, since each form of state authority is subject to different limits (Kamminga, 2020; Colangelo, 2014).

Territorial sovereignty remains the doctrinal starting point. A state normally possesses primary authority within its own territory. At the same time, foreign officials may not arrest, search, seize property, or carry out other coercive acts there without consent or another lawful basis. The position is less rigid when a state applies its laws through its own courts or regulators. Foreign conduct may fall within domestic law where it has a substantial territorial connection, involves the state’s nationals, threatens essential governmental interests, affects protected victims, or falls within a treaty-based jurisdictional regime.

Cross-border activity has made such claims more frequent and harder to contain within a single territorial frame. A cartel formed abroad may distort prices in several markets. A multinational enterprise may act through subsidiaries, contractors, financial intermediaries, and digital platforms established in different states. Cyber operations can connect offenders, victims, servers, data, and economic harm across numerous jurisdictions. Terrorism, corruption, trafficking, international crimes, sanctions, and global supply chains create similar patterns of overlapping authority.

International law addresses these situations through recognized jurisdictional connections rather than through unrestricted regulatory freedom. Territoriality remains the principal basis, including conduct begun in one state and completed in another, or acts abroad producing a legally significant result within the forum. Nationality, passive personality, and the protective principle provide additional links in defined circumstances. Universal jurisdiction occupies a narrower position because it does not depend on the ordinary territorial or personal connections, and its precise scope remains contested outside established categories of international crime.

The continuing influence of the Lotus judgment reflects a deeper disagreement about the structure of jurisdiction. The Permanent Court of International Justice stated that states retain a broad measure of discretion beyond their territory unless international law prohibits the exercise concerned (PCIJ, 1927). Later practice and scholarship have placed greater emphasis on a genuine jurisdictional nexus, sovereign equality, non-intervention, and restraint where several states claim authority over the same conduct. Lotus remains important, but it does not resolve the legality of modern regulatory measures whose effects reach deeply into another state’s legal and economic order.

Several neighboring doctrines require separate treatment. Universal jurisdiction is only one possible basis of authority over foreign conduct. The extraterritorial application of human rights treaties concerns the circumstances in which individuals abroad fall within a state’s obligations because they are subject to its control or authority. Immunity addresses a different question again: a court may possess jurisdiction over conduct yet be unable to proceed against a foreign state, official, diplomatic agent, or protected asset.

The central legal task is to determine when a cross-border connection is strong enough to justify the assertion of state authority without displacing the lawful competence of another state. That inquiry turns on the form of jurisdiction exercised, the basis relied upon, the means of enforcement, and the independent constraints imposed by treaties, immunity, due process, and sovereign equality. Extraterritorial power is lawful only when those elements support the claim with sufficient precision.

1. The Meaning and Scope of Extraterritoriality

Extraterritoriality concerns the reach of state authority beyond the territorial setting in which that authority is ordinarily exercised. A dispute does not become extraterritorial simply because it involves a foreign company, an overseas transaction, a nonresident defendant, or evidence located abroad. The classification depends on the particular state power at issue and on the location of the conduct, person, property, legal relationship, or coercive measure to which that power is directed.

That distinction excludes many cases that are international in fact but territorial in law. A domestic court may decide a contractual dispute between companies incorporated in different states because the agreement was performed within the forum. A competition authority may investigate an arrangement concluded abroad because the arrangement was implemented in its domestic market. A criminal court may prosecute conduct that began abroad but was completed within the prosecuting state. Each case contains a foreign element, yet the jurisdictional basis may remain substantially territorial.

Extraterritoriality is also relational. A measure may appear domestic when viewed only from the forum state, but extraterritorial when assessed by reference to the conduct or property regulated abroad. A statute enacted at home, a judgment issued by a domestic court, or a regulatory order served on a locally established company may alter conduct in another state. The legal analysis must identify precisely what the measure governs and where its operative effects are intended to occur.

1.1 Jurisdiction as State Legal Authority

In public international law, jurisdiction means the legal competence of a state to prescribe rules, determine claims, and secure compliance with law. It concerns the distribution of public authority among states rather than the internal organization of a national court system. The central questions are which state may regulate particular conduct, which state may subject a person or dispute to legal process, and where coercive authority may be exercised (Kamminga, 2020; Colangelo, 2014).

This meaning differs from subject-matter jurisdiction. A domestic legal system may assign tax disputes, military offenses, or administrative claims to specialized courts. Such rules determine which national institution may hear a case; they do not establish the international reach of the state’s authority. A court can possess subject-matter competence under domestic law while the state lacks an adequate international basis for regulating the foreign conduct at issue.

The venue is also narrower. It selects the appropriate court or district within a system that already has jurisdiction. A transfer between courts for convenience, statutory compliance, or proximity to evidence does not alter the jurisdiction of the state under international law.

Admissibility concerns whether a claim that falls within a court’s jurisdiction should proceed. Standing, time limits, exhaustion of remedies, abuse of process, or parallel litigation may make a case inadmissible without negating the court’s underlying authority. Jurisdiction asks whether the tribunal has legal power; admissibility asks whether that power should be exercised in relation to the particular claim.

Choice of law addresses another question. A court may hear a dispute and apply foreign law, while another court may apply its own law to conduct with substantial foreign elements. Judicial competence and the selection of governing law can overlap, but neither automatically determines the other. Treating them as identical obscures the difference between authority over the parties and the territorial scope of the substantive rule.

The jurisdiction of an international court or tribunal must also be kept separate. International tribunals derive their authority from instruments such as treaties, compromissory clauses, special agreements, or declarations of consent. Their competence is commonly limited by subject matter, parties, time, and territory. State jurisdiction concerns powers exercised through national institutions. When the International Court of Justice considers its jurisdiction, it is examining state consent to adjudication; when a national court considers an offense committed abroad, it is examining the reach of state authority.

1.2 When Jurisdiction Becomes Extraterritorial

No single geographical test determines when jurisdiction is extraterritorial. The relevant location changes with the type of power exercised.

For prescriptive jurisdiction, the focus is on the conduct, person, transaction, property, or legal relationship governed by the rule. A law is plainly extraterritorial when it regulates acts performed abroad by persons outside the state. Harder cases arise when conduct spans several territories, when a foreign transaction produces domestic effects, or when a rule imposed on a domestic corporation changes the behavior of foreign subsidiaries and suppliers.

The place where legislation is enacted is not decisive. All national legislation is adopted through domestic institutions. What matters is the geographical reach of the obligations it creates. A statute enacted in the capital may still regulate payments made abroad, conduct by nationals overseas, or commercial practices occurring in foreign markets.

Adjudicative jurisdiction requires attention to the parties, the dispute, and the relief sought. Proceedings are not extraterritorial merely because a litigant is foreign or the facts arose abroad. Courts routinely hear cross-border disputes on the basis of domicile, incorporation, consent, local business activity, or property within the forum. The stronger extraterritorial issue appears when a court asserts authority over a defendant with a weak connection to the state or issues orders intended to control conduct or assets abroad.

The location of the courtroom does not settle the matter. A domestic order may require the transfer of foreign property, production of records held overseas, or cessation of conduct in another market. Such measures may remain adjudicative in form while producing regulatory or coercive consequences beyond the forum.

Enforcement jurisdiction has the clearest territorial reference. Arrest, detention, search, seizure, compulsory questioning, and execution against property are exercises of public power where they occur. A state may have a valid legal basis for prosecuting foreign conduct, yet it ordinarily cannot send officials into another state to arrest a suspect or seize evidence without consent or another lawful authorization. The distinction between regulating conduct abroad and enforcing law abroad is fundamental.

Legal geography must also be handled carefully. Embassies are not the territory of the sending state, although they enjoy inviolability. Ships and aircraft are not literally extensions of national territory, even though registration or flag jurisdiction creates significant regulatory authority. Occupied territory, military bases, maritime zones, and digital infrastructure each require analysis under the rules applicable to the particular setting rather than reliance on territorial metaphors.

1.3 Related Doctrines That Must Remain Separate

Extraterritorial jurisdiction intersects with several doctrines, but it does not replace them.

Diplomatic protection permits a state to invoke the responsibility of another state for injury to one of its nationals. The protecting state advances an international claim based on nationality and other conditions, including the possible exhaustion of local remedies. It is not, by that act alone, regulating foreign conduct or exercising coercive authority abroad.

Treaty territorial scope concerns the geographical application of treaty obligations. Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides a default rule that a treaty binds each party with respect to its entire territory unless a different intention appears (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art. 29). That question is distinct from the jurisdictional bases on which a state may apply domestic law to foreign conduct.

State responsibility concerns the consequences of a breach of international law attributable to a state. Jurisdiction concerns the prior question of legal competence. An excessive assertion of jurisdiction may violate sovereignty or a treaty obligation and thereby engage responsibility, but the two doctrines perform different functions.

Private international law addresses jurisdiction, applicable law, and recognition of judgments in cross-border civil and commercial disputes. It may overlap with public international law, especially where a forum asserts authority over foreign defendants or assets. Its rules, however, are often domestic, regional, or treaty-based and are directed toward the orderly resolution of private disputes rather than the general allocation of sovereign authority.

Extraterritorial human rights obligations use the language of jurisdiction differently. Human rights treaties may apply to individuals abroad when a state exercises effective control over territory or authority over persons. The question is whether those individuals fall within the state’s protective obligations, not whether the state may prescribe law for foreign conduct. The same facts can engage both doctrines, but they must be tested separately.

2. Prescription, Adjudication, and Enforcement

The three forms of jurisdiction describe different exercises of state power. Prescription determines the reach of legal rules. Adjudication concerns the authority to decide claims and issue binding decisions. Enforcement concerns the use of coercion to secure compliance. A state may possess one form without possessing the others to the same extent.

The distinction has practical consequences. A legislature may validly criminalize conduct by nationals abroad, but police officers cannot arrest the suspect inside another state without cooperation. A court may decide a dispute involving foreign assets, but the judgment may require recognition before those assets can be seized. A regulator may issue an order to a company established within the forum, yet enforcement against a foreign subsidiary may depend on the law and assistance of another state.

2.1 Prescriptive Jurisdiction

Prescriptive jurisdiction is the authority to make domestic law applicable to identified persons, conduct, transactions, property, or legal relationships. It is often described as legislative jurisdiction, although courts and administrative bodies also shape the scope of legal rules through interpretation.

Some statutes state expressly that they apply abroad. A state may regulate offenses committed by its nationals outside its territory, prohibit foreign bribery by domestic companies, or apply competition law to arrangements implemented in its market. Express wording resolves the domestic question of legislative intention, but not the international legality of the claim. A legislature cannot create international competence merely by declaring global application.

Other statutes contain no clear territorial clause. Courts must then decide whether general language extends to foreign conduct. Many legal systems use a presumption against extraterritoriality or a comparable interpretive rule requiring clear legislative intent. Such presumptions belong to domestic law. They may reflect concern for international comity and sovereignty, but they are not identical to the international rules governing jurisdiction.

The legal basis for prescription depends on the connection between the state and the regulated subject. Territory remains the strongest basis, including conduct begun within the state, completed there, or producing a sufficiently direct domestic result. Nationality may support the regulation of persons abroad. Victim nationality, threats to essential state interests, universal jurisdiction, presence of an alleged offender, and treaty obligations may provide additional grounds in defined circumstances.

Indirect regulation requires closer analysis. A law may bind a parent company established in the forum while requiring oversight of labor, environmental, or human rights risks within foreign subsidiaries and supply chains. The immediate duty is territorial or personal, but its commercial consequences extend abroad. The correct characterization depends on who bears the legal obligation, which conduct triggers liability, and whether foreign entities are regulated directly or affected through their relationship with a domestic company.

Market-access conditions present a similar difficulty. A state may require imported goods to satisfy environmental, safety, or disclosure standards. Such rules operate at the border or within the domestic market, but they may influence production methods abroad. Their foreign impact does not by itself make them unlawful. The relevant issues include the territorial connection, applicable treaty obligations, proportionality, discrimination, and the extent to which the measure attempts to control conduct reserved to another state.

2.2 Adjudicative Jurisdiction

Adjudicative jurisdiction is the authority of courts and tribunals to determine disputes, impose liability, and issue binding decisions. It includes criminal, civil, commercial, administrative, and regulatory proceedings.

A foreign party or overseas event does not automatically make judicial authority extraterritorial. Courts may obtain jurisdiction through domicile, incorporation, presence, consent, local business activity, the place of harm, or property situated within the forum. The legitimacy of these connections depends on the applicable domestic, treaty, regional, and international rules.

Adjudicative jurisdiction must be separated from the reach of substantive law. A court may have authority over the defendant but conclude that the statute invoked does not govern the foreign conduct. It may hear the case and apply foreign law. The reverse is also possible: domestic law may purport to govern the conduct, but the court may lack personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Public international law imposes clear limits on some forms of state authority, but the rules governing civil adjudication remain less settled than those governing enforcement. Scholarly approaches differ on whether adjudication is an independent category, an aspect of prescription because courts determine legal rights, or an aspect of enforcement. After all, judgments produce compulsory consequences (Mann, 1984; Colangelo, 2014).

Domestic and regional doctrines often control the practical exercise of judicial authority. Rules on forum non conveniens, lis pendens, service of process, due process, and recognition of foreign proceedings may restrain jurisdiction even where a formal basis exists. These doctrines should not automatically be treated as requirements of public international law, although they can reduce conflict between competing legal systems.

The relief ordered by a court may create a separate jurisdictional concern. An injunction directed at conduct abroad, a freezing order covering foreign assets, or a demand for records located in another state may affect foreign sovereignty and place the defendant under inconsistent obligations. The validity of the order within the forum does not guarantee that it will be recognized or enforced elsewhere.

2.3 Enforcement Jurisdiction

Enforcement jurisdiction is the authority to compel compliance through official coercion. It includes arrest, detention, search, seizure, surveillance, compulsory evidence gathering, punishment, confiscation, collection of penalties, and execution of judgments.

International law treats enforcement more restrictively than prescription. State officials may not ordinarily exercise police, investigative, or judicial powers within another state without consent. A valid basis for applying domestic law to conduct abroad does not authorize unilateral arrest, search, or seizure there.

Evidence collection follows the same principle. Investigators generally cannot enter foreign territory to compel witnesses, search premises, or seize records on their own authority. Extradition, mutual legal assistance, letters rogatory, joint investigations, and police cooperation provide lawful channels because the territorial state retains control over coercive acts conducted within its borders.

Enforcement remains territorial when directed against persons or assets located within the forum. A foreign national present in the prosecuting state may be arrested there for an offense committed abroad, provided that prescriptive jurisdiction and domestic authority exist. A foreign company may be fined or lose access to the domestic market. Assets located within the forum may be frozen or confiscated under applicable law. These measures may exert strong pressure on foreign conduct, but the coercive act occurs within the enforcing state.

Judgments illustrate the difference between adjudication and enforcement. A court may issue a valid decision concerning conduct or property abroad, yet execution usually depends on authorities in the state where the person or asset is located. Recognition may be granted under domestic law or treaty, or refused because of procedural defects, public policy, sovereign immunity, or conflict with local law.

The territorial rule becomes harder to apply when coercion is mediated through digital systems or globally integrated financial networks. A domestic order may require a platform to disclose data held abroad or direct a bank to block a transaction processed through foreign branches. The analysis should identify the addressee of the order, the location and control of the data or property, the legal effect of noncompliance, and any conflicting obligation under foreign law. Describing the order as domestic does not resolve its international consequences.

The stricter rule governing enforcement reflects the immediate displacement of another state’s authority. Competing legislation may create inconsistent obligations, and parallel proceedings may burden defendants, but unilateral coercion inside foreign territory directly replaces the territorial state’s public power. Consent, treaty mechanisms, and institutional cooperation are consequently indispensable when enforcement must cross a national border.

3. Sovereignty and the Legal Structure of Jurisdiction

Extraterritorial jurisdiction operates within an international order composed of formally equal states, each exercising legislative, judicial, and executive authority through its own institutions. Because no central authority routinely assigns every cross-border dispute to a single legal system, international law must accommodate overlapping national claims without allowing one state to displace another’s territorial authority.

Sovereign equality provides the basic legal setting. Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter affirms the equal status of member states, while territorial sovereignty gives each state primary authority over persons, property, and conduct within its borders (United Nations, 1945, art. 2(1)). Equality does not eliminate differences in economic or regulatory power, but it denies any state an inherent right to subordinate another state’s legal order.

An extraterritorial measure may still be lawful where the regulating state has a recognized connection to the conduct or person concerned. The difficulty often lies in concurrent jurisdiction rather than exclusive competence. A single transaction may connect the territory of one state, the nationals of another, the market of a third, and the financial system of a fourth. International law does not invariably select one forum and exclude the others.

The principle of non-intervention imposes a related but distinct limit. In Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice described prohibited intervention as coercive interference in matters that a state is legally entitled to decide freely (ICJ, 1986). Not every foreign regulation that influences conduct abroad reaches that threshold. The legal assessment depends on the regulated subject, the jurisdictional connection, the degree of compulsion, and the extent to which the measure seeks to control another state’s sovereign choices.

3.1 Territorial Sovereignty as the Starting Point

Territorial jurisdiction remains the strongest and least controversial basis of state authority. A state may ordinarily regulate conduct, adjudicate disputes, investigate offenses, and enforce judgments within its territory, subject to applicable international obligations such as immunities, treaty restrictions, and human rights guarantees.

The Island of Palmas arbitration expressed territorial sovereignty through the principle of exclusive state competence within national territory (PCA, 1928). The principle does not mean that every event occurring within a state is insulated from all foreign law. It establishes that public authority there belongs primarily to the territorial state and cannot be replaced unilaterally by foreign officials.

Primary competence may coexist with other jurisdictional claims. A national who commits an offense abroad may be subject both to the territorial state’s law and to the law of the state of nationality. A transnational transaction may be negotiated in one country, performed in another, and produce a regulated result elsewhere. Jurisdictional overlap is a normal consequence of cross-border activity.

Territorial sovereignty places its clearest restriction on enforcement. Foreign officials may not ordinarily arrest a suspect, search premises, seize documents, or execute a judgment inside another state without consent or another lawful basis. Cooperation through extradition, mutual legal assistance, joint investigations, and treaty procedures preserves the territorial state’s control over coercive acts carried out within its borders.

Prescription is less tightly confined. A state may apply its law to foreign conduct while limiting enforcement to persons, companies, or property found within its own territory. Such measures do not physically displace the foreign sovereign, but they may still interfere with its regulatory choices. Their legality depends on the strength of the asserted connection and any applicable rules limiting jurisdiction.

Territoriality also supports legal certainty. Persons and companies can normally expect conduct within a state to be governed by its law. That expectation weakens when foreign states attach consequences to the same conduct on distant or incidental grounds. A defensible extraterritorial claim requires a connection substantial enough to justify the additional exposure to foreign law.

3.2 The Lotus Debate

The 1927 Lotus judgment remains central to debates about the structure of jurisdiction. The case arose after a collision on the high seas between the French steamship Lotus and the Turkish vessel Boz-Kourt. Türkiye prosecuted the French officer on watch after Turkish nationals died in the incident. France argued that international law did not authorize the prosecution.

The Permanent Court of International Justice framed the issue in terms of prohibition rather than permission. It asked whether international law prevented Türkiye from exercising jurisdiction and held that restrictions on state independence could not simply be presumed (PCIJ, 1927). This reasoning is commonly associated with the proposition that states retain freedom unless an international rule forbids the conduct concerned.

The judgment drew an important distinction. A state could not ordinarily exercise coercive power within another state’s territory without a permissive rule. The Court did not, however, accept a general prohibition on extending national laws or judicial authority to conduct and persons outside the territory.

A strict Lotus approach places the burden on the state, challenging jurisdiction to identify a prohibitive rule. A competing approach requires the regulating state to establish an accepted jurisdictional connection, such as territory, nationality, victim nationality, protection of essential interests, universal jurisdiction, offender presence, or treaty authority.

State practice does not yield a simple answer. Governments usually justify extraterritorial claims by reference to an identifiable nexus rather than relying only on the absence of prohibition. That practice supports a connection-based method, but it does not establish that the recognized bases form a closed and exhaustive list under customary international law.

Later treaty law also narrowed the specific rule at issue in Lotus. Article 97 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea restricts penal and disciplinary proceedings arising from collisions or other navigational incidents on the high seas to the flag state or the state of nationality of the person concerned (United Nations, 1982, art. 97). Among parties to the Convention, the collision problem is no longer governed by the broad freedom accepted in 1927.

Lotus remains relevant because it exposes the central disagreement. One model begins with state freedom constrained by prohibitions. The other begins with territorial restraint and requires a recognized basis for authority beyond the border. Contemporary law contains elements of both. States retain significant latitude in prescription, but jurisdictional claims are normally defended through a substantial legal connection.

3.3 Permission Under International and Domestic Law

International competence and domestic authorization are separate requirements. International law determines whether a state may assert jurisdiction in relation to other states and affected persons. Domestic law determines whether a legislature, court, regulator, or prosecutor has authority to exercise that jurisdiction.

International law may permit a state to regulate conduct abroad by its nationals, yet the relevant statute may apply only within national territory. A domestic court cannot extend the law solely because international law would tolerate the broader claim. International permission establishes the outer boundary of lawful state action; it does not supply missing statutory authority.

Domestic systems often address territorial reach through rules of interpretation. A presumption against extraterritoriality may require clear legislative language before a statute is applied abroad. Other systems rely on statutory purpose, constitutional legality, foreseeability, or respect for foreign sovereignty. These doctrines may narrow domestic law even where the international legal basis would be sufficient.

The reverse problem also arises. A legislature may state that a law applies worldwide, but express wording cannot enlarge the state’s international competence. The statute must still comply with jurisdictional limits, treaty obligations, sovereign immunity, human rights standards, and the lawful authority of other states.

Treaties may require or permit particular jurisdictional claims. Conventions addressing torture, terrorism, corruption, and transnational crime commonly oblige states to establish jurisdiction on specified grounds. Depending on the domestic constitutional system, implementing legislation may still be necessary before national authorities can act.

A failure of domestic implementation does not remove the international obligation. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties prevents a state from invoking internal law to justify nonperformance of a treaty (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art. 27). The state may incur international responsibility even though its courts lack the legislation needed to exercise jurisdiction.

A complete legal assessment consequently requires two findings: an internationally permissible basis for jurisdiction and valid domestic authority for the institution acting. The absence of either is sufficient to defeat the claim.

4. Territorial Connections Beyond the Border

Territorial jurisdiction is not confined to conduct occurring entirely within one state. Many offenses, transactions, and regulatory events unfold across several countries. A state may rely on territoriality when a legally significant part of the conduct occurs within its borders, even though other elements take place abroad.

Such cases are sometimes described as extraterritorial because the factual sequence crosses a border. The description can obscure the legal basis. Jurisdiction remains territorial where the forum relies on conduct initiated, completed, implemented, or materially realized within its territory.

Subjective and objective territoriality identify the direction of the cross-border activity. Subjective territoriality concerns conduct begun inside the forum and continued abroad. Objective territoriality concerns conduct initiated abroad but completed, implemented, or realized through a legally relevant result within the forum. The effects doctrine extends further by relying on substantial domestic consequences even where the constituent conduct occurred elsewhere.

4.1 Subjective Territoriality

Subjective territoriality allows a state to regulate conduct initiated within its territory, although completion or harm occurs abroad. The domestic act must form a legally significant part of the regulated transaction or offense.

A fraudulent instruction sent abroad, a prohibited payment initiated through a domestic account, or a conspiracy formed within the forum may establish the necessary territorial link. The principle does not require the final consequence to occur inside the state.

Cross-border offenses involving several participants require a closer assessment. A meeting, instruction, financial contribution, or material step within the forum may support jurisdiction where it forms part of the offense. A trivial contact unrelated to the prohibited conduct should not convert an essentially foreign matter into a territorial one.

The same reasoning applies online. Operating a criminal service, transmitting malicious code, or directing an unlawful scheme through infrastructure located within the state may support subjective territoriality. The automatic passage of data through a domestic server, without knowledge or control by the actor, provides a much weaker connection.

The relevant question is whether the domestic conduct forms part of the act regulated by law. Territorial jurisdiction should rest on substance rather than on a technical or accidental contact with the forum.

4.2 Objective Territoriality

Objective territoriality applies when conduct begun abroad is completed by an act, element, or direct result within the forum. The domestic connection arises from the completion or realization of the prohibited event inside the territory.

Fraudulent instructions sent from abroad may cause the transfer of property within the state. Goods dispatched elsewhere may enter the forum in violation of customs, safety, or sanctions rules. An attack launched abroad may injure persons or damage property inside the territory. In each case, the event is not confined to the place where it began.

The domestic result must be closely linked to the legal rule invoked. A remote commercial loss, reputational injury, or secondary financial consequence does not automatically establish territorial completion. Without a limiting requirement, almost any transnational conduct could be treated as territorial wherever indirect harm later appears.

Objective territoriality must also be distinguished from passive personality. Harm to a national abroad may support jurisdiction based on the victim’s nationality, but it does not become territorial merely because the injured person belongs to the forum state. Objective territoriality requires a domestic act, completion, or result attributable to the conduct itself.

Several states may rely on territoriality in relation to the same event. The state where the conduct began may invoke subjective territoriality, while the state where it was completed may invoke objective territoriality. Neither basis necessarily excludes the other.

4.3 The Effects Doctrine

The effects doctrine supports jurisdiction over foreign conduct because of substantial consequences produced within the forum. It is most developed in competition law, where agreements concluded abroad may distort prices, output, consumer choice, or market access inside the regulating state.

The doctrine reaches beyond traditional objective territoriality. A cartel may be organized and administered entirely abroad, with no constituent act in the affected state. Jurisdiction then rests on the economic impact within the domestic market.

The rationale is practical. If firms could avoid competition law simply by coordinating outside the affected market, domestic regulation would be easily defeated. The danger lies in defining effects too broadly. Significant commercial decisions often produce consequences in many countries, and minor downstream impacts cannot justify universal regulatory authority.

European Union law illustrates two related approaches. In Wood Pulp, the Court of Justice relied on implementation within the common market. The foreign producers had put the alleged arrangement into effect through sales to customers in the Community, creating a territorial connection based on market conduct rather than consequence alone (CJEU, 1988).

Implementation is narrower than a pure effects test. It asks whether the foreign arrangement was carried out within the regulated market through sales, distribution, contractual performance, or comparable activity. A foreign decision that merely alters global commercial conditions may not meet that standard.

In Intel, the Court accepted the qualified effects test as a basis for applying European Union competition law. The conduct had to be capable of producing effects within the Union that were foreseeable, immediate, and substantial (CJEU, 2017). These cumulative conditions seek to exclude speculative, remote, or negligible consequences.

Foreseeability concerns whether the domestic impact could reasonably have been anticipated. Immediacy addresses the causal distance between the foreign conduct and the alleged effect. Substantiality requires a material influence on the market rather than an isolated or insignificant consequence. Directness performs a similar limiting function by testing the number and importance of intervening decisions.

Implementation and qualified effects may overlap, but they are not identical. Implementation identifies conduct carried out within the market and is consequently closer to ordinary territoriality. Effects-based jurisdiction applies where the territorial connection consists mainly of the domestic consequences of conduct undertaken elsewhere.

International law does not provide a universally agreed formula defining the necessary level of economic effect. National and regional systems use different thresholds, and disputes often concern the breadth of application rather than the existence of any effects-based jurisdiction. A cautious approach requires a foreseeable, substantial, and closely connected domestic consequence rather than a minor effect produced by global interdependence.

5. Personal and Protective Bases of Jurisdiction

Territoriality connects state authority to the place where conduct occurs or produces a legally relevant result. Personal and protective jurisdiction rely on different links: nationality of the alleged offender, nationality of the victim, registration of a ship or aircraft, corporate affiliation, or a threat to an essential governmental interest. These grounds should not be treated as interchangeable. Each rests on a distinct legal relationship and carries its own limits.

Several bases may apply to the same conduct. An attack abroad against a diplomat may engage territorial jurisdiction in the state where it occurred, passive-personality jurisdiction in the diplomat’s state of nationality, protective jurisdiction because an official function was targeted, and active-nationality jurisdiction if the offender is a national of another state. Concurrent authority is common, but each claim must be justified separately.

5.1 Active Nationality

The active-nationality principle permits a state to regulate conduct committed abroad by its nationals. It rests on the continuing legal bond between the individual and the state, which may impose obligations that follow the national beyond the territory. The principle is widely accepted in international law and appears frequently in domestic criminal statutes and multilateral conventions (Crawford, 2019; Kamminga, 2020).

Domestic systems differ in how broadly they use it. Some apply national criminal law to a wide range of offenses committed abroad. Others limit jurisdiction to serious crimes, require double criminality, or make prosecution conditional on the accused’s return. These restrictions arise mainly from domestic legislation and policy rather than from the international principle itself.

Double criminality can reduce conflict with the territorial state by requiring the conduct to be unlawful in both jurisdictions. It is particularly relevant where the forum criminalizes conduct that reflects domestic moral or regulatory choices rather than a widely shared prohibition. A state’s international competence to regulate its nationals may be broader than the jurisdiction its legislature has chosen to confer on domestic courts.

Nationality should ordinarily exist when the conduct occurs. A later acquisition of nationality does not provide the same pre-existing connection and may raise concerns about legality and foreseeability. Some states extend comparable rules to permanent or habitual residents, but residence-based authority should not be described as nationality jurisdiction without an independent legal foundation.

Dual nationality allows both states of nationality to assert jurisdiction. International law does not generally require one nationality to be treated as dominant for criminal prosecution. The effective-nationality doctrine, developed in other contexts such as diplomatic protection, does not automatically prevent either state from applying its law. Conflicting prosecutions must instead be managed through domestic safeguards, treaties, prosecutorial cooperation, or regional rules on double jeopardy.

Active nationality is often used to prevent nationals from exploiting weaker foreign enforcement. It supports prosecutions concerning foreign bribery, terrorism, trafficking, sexual offenses against children, participation in prohibited armed groups, and serious violations of international humanitarian law. The jurisdictional connection remains personal even when the territorial state is unwilling or unable to act.

Corporate nationality is less uniform. A company may be linked to a state through incorporation, registered office, principal place of business, central management, or another statutory test. In Barcelona Traction, the International Court of Justice emphasized incorporation and registered office for the purpose of diplomatic protection, but it did not establish a single nationality test governing every form of corporate regulation (ICJ, 1970).

A state ordinarily has a strong basis for regulating companies incorporated under its law. It may also impose obligations on parent companies headquartered or operating within its territory. That authority does not automatically extend to every foreign subsidiary in the group. A subsidiary incorporated abroad generally remains a separate legal entity, and ownership alone should not convert it into a national of the parent company’s state.

Domestic duties imposed on a parent may still influence foreign operations. Anti-corruption, sanctions, accounting, disclosure, and human rights due diligence laws may require oversight of overseas subsidiaries or business partners. The sounder jurisdictional analysis asks who bears the legal duty. Regulation of the domestic parent rests on a clearer personal connection than direct regulation of a foreign affiliate based only on group membership.

Ships and aircraft are governed through related registration-based connections. Under the law of the sea, ships possess the nationality of the state whose flag they are entitled to fly, and the flag state exercises extensive jurisdiction over them, particularly on the high seas (United Nations, 1982, arts. 91–94). Aircraft are linked to their state of registration under international civil aviation law. Neither ships nor aircraft should be described as portions of national territory.

Flag or registration jurisdiction is not always exclusive. Coastal, port, territorial, and landing states may exercise authority under the rules applicable to their territory and maritime or airspace jurisdiction. Registration supplies a continuing legal connection, but it does not displace the competence of every state through whose territory or regulated spaces the vessel or aircraft passes.

Active nationality is strongest where the legal bond is clear and pre-dates the conduct. Its use becomes more contestable when the claimed connection rests only on indirect ownership, economic influence, temporary residence, or a remote corporate affiliation.

5.2 Passive Personality

The passive-personality principle permits a state to assert jurisdiction over conduct abroad because the victim is its national. The connection lies with the injured person rather than the alleged offender.

The principle was once treated with considerable suspicion. Its critics argued that an offender acting abroad should be governed primarily by the law of the territorial state and could not reasonably anticipate the criminal law of every possible victim’s country. It was also feared that victim nationality would encourage interference with proceedings in states more closely connected to the offense.

Practice has changed, especially in relation to terrorism and serious transnational crime. Multilateral conventions and domestic legislation increasingly recognize victim nationality as an additional jurisdictional basis for offenses such as hostage-taking, terrorist bombings, attacks on internationally protected persons, and terrorist financing. Acceptance is strongest where victims are deliberately targeted because of their nationality or official association.

Foreseeability remains an important limit. A perpetrator who attacks an embassy, abducts a known foreign national, or targets passengers of a particular state can reasonably anticipate the interest of the victim state. The connection is weaker where nationality is unknown, accidental, or acquired after the offense.

Passive personality must be distinguished from objective territoriality. If a national is attacked entirely abroad, the offense does not become territorial merely because the victim or the victim’s family has ties to the forum. The legal basis is the nationality of the injured person unless some element or direct result also occurred within the state.

Mass-casualty attacks demonstrate the likelihood of overlap. A bombing on an international flight may affect nationals of numerous states, while the territorial state, the offender’s state of nationality, the flag or registration state, and states with security interests may also assert jurisdiction. Passive personality can close accountability gaps, but it can also multiply competing claims.

National laws commonly restrict the principle by requiring a serious offense, the accused’s presence, prosecutorial approval, or double criminality. These limitations recognize that victim nationality may be too weak a connection for ordinary offenses, particularly where the territorial state has already conducted a genuine investigation or trial.

The principle has its strongest justification where the offense is grave, the victim was selected because of nationality or state affiliation, and the territorial forum cannot provide an effective response. It is less persuasive when nationality is incidental and another state has a substantially closer connection to the conduct.

5.3 The Protective Principle

The protective principle permits a state to regulate foreign conduct by nonnationals where that conduct threatens its security or essential governmental functions. The connection is the public interest placed at risk rather than territory or nationality.

Established applications include espionage, counterfeiting national currency, falsification of passports and official documents, attacks on government institutions, interference with diplomatic or military functions, and organized schemes directed at immigration or customs controls. The foreign act may be regulated before the threatened harm is completed within the territory.

This preventive feature distinguishes the protective principle from objective territoriality. A state need not wait for forged currency to enter circulation, stolen security information to be used domestically, or falsified documents to reach its border. The jurisdictional basis lies in the direct threat to a governmental function.

The principle must remain confined to essential state interests. National security, institutional integrity, currency, borders, and core governmental processes fall within its accepted field. Ordinary commercial disadvantage, reputational injury, diplomatic criticism, or a broad claim of economic interest should not qualify merely because a government considers the matter important.

Purpose and direction strengthen the jurisdictional connection. Deliberate espionage against a state, manipulation of its official documentation, or an attack on its public institutions presents a clearer case than conduct producing an unforeseen administrative burden. A sufficiently close link is needed between the foreign act and the protected function.

Immigration offenses illustrate both the legitimate scope and the danger of expansion. Organized visa fraud, passport forgery, or schemes specifically designed to defeat border controls may support protective jurisdiction. A broader rule criminalizing remote conduct with only an indirect relationship to future irregular entry would require greater justification.

Comparable caution is needed in cyber operations. Foreign interference with military networks, government databases, election infrastructure, or classified systems may threaten essential functions. Claims based on general political influence, hostile commentary, or diffuse economic pressure are less secure because they depend heavily on the forum state’s own definition of national interest.

The protective principle is established but not unlimited. Its use should rest on a defined governmental function, a direct and substantial threat, and a proportionate exercise of jurisdiction. It cannot operate on a residual basis whenever territorial or personal connections are absent.

6. Universal and Treaty-Based Jurisdiction

Universal jurisdiction and treaty-based jurisdiction can both support proceedings concerning conduct committed abroad without the ordinary territorial or nationality links. Their legal foundations differ.

Universal jurisdiction rests on the nature of the offense and the interest of the international community in its suppression. Treaty-based jurisdiction arises because states have accepted specific duties to criminalize conduct, establish jurisdiction, cooperate, or act when an alleged offender is present. A jurisdictional clause in a multilateral treaty does not become universal merely because many states are parties to it.

This distinction affects the offenses covered, the states bound, the role of presence, and the existence of a duty to prosecute. A state may possess a right to exercise universal jurisdiction without being obliged to do so. A treaty may impose a duty to establish presence-based jurisdiction even though the offense is not universally prosecutable under customary international law.

6.1 Universal Jurisdiction

Universal jurisdiction permits a state to prosecute certain offenses without relying on the place of commission, the nationality of the alleged offender or victim, or a direct threat to the forum state. The asserted basis is that some offenses are of concern to the international community and should not escape prosecution solely because ordinary jurisdictional links are absent (O’Keefe, 2004; Kamminga, 2020).

Piracy on the high seas is the classic example. Because piracy occurs outside the territorial jurisdiction of any state and threatens international navigation, international law permits every state to act within the conditions governing seizure and prosecution. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea codifies duties of cooperation and rules concerning pirate ships, seizure, and adjudication (United Nations, 1982, arts. 100–107).

The grave-breaches regime of the four Geneva Conventions follows a different legal structure. Each state party must search for persons alleged to have committed, or ordered the commission of, grave breaches and must bring them before its own courts or hand them over for trial to another state party that has made out a prima facie case. The obligation applies regardless of nationality and supplies a treaty-based form of broad criminal jurisdiction (Geneva Conventions, 1949).

Other claims of universal jurisdiction concern genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes outside the grave-breaches regime, torture, and enforced disappearance. Their legal bases are not identical. Customary law, treaty provisions, domestic legislation, and national judicial decisions support different conclusions depending on the offense and the procedural setting.

The Genocide Convention does not itself contain a general universal-jurisdiction clause. Article VI refers to trial by a competent tribunal of the territorial state or by an international penal tribunal with jurisdiction (Genocide Convention, 1948, art. VI). A national court may possess wider jurisdiction under domestic legislation or another international rule, but it should not attribute that authority directly to Article VI.

Torture requires similar precision. The Convention against Torture obliges a state party to establish jurisdiction when an alleged offender is present in territory under its jurisdiction and is not extradited (Convention against Torture, 1984, art. 5(2)). This is a broad, presence-conditioned treaty jurisdiction. It is frequently discussed alongside universal jurisdiction, but its legal source and custodial requirement distinguish it from a pure claim based solely on the nature of the offense.

National courts applying universal jurisdiction remain domestic courts. Their competence derives from national law interpreted against relevant international rules. The International Criminal Court and other international tribunals exercise jurisdiction conferred by their constituent instruments. The international character of the offense does not transform national proceedings into international adjudication.

The presence of the accused is not conceptually necessary for every form of universal prescriptive jurisdiction, but it often controls the practical exercise of proceedings. Some states permit investigations or arrest warrants while the suspect remains abroad. Others require presence before an investigation, indictment, or trial can proceed. No uniform international rule governs every offense and procedural stage.

Universal jurisdiction does not authorize unilateral enforcement in another state’s territory. A forum may have prescriptive competence but still need extradition, surrender, or lawful entry before obtaining custody. It also remains subject to immunity, legality, fair-trial guarantees, and national procedural law.

Claims of universal civil jurisdiction are considerably less settled. The violation of a peremptory norm does not by itself establish a general customary entitlement for courts everywhere to hear damages claims without another connection to the forum. Domestic statutes may authorize civil litigation concerning conduct abroad, but the existence of such legislation does not prove a universal rule of civil adjudication.

Universal jurisdiction should be used as a precise legal category. A court must identify the offense, the international rule supporting jurisdiction, the domestic legislation giving effect to that rule, and any conditions concerning presence, immunity, and procedure.

6.2 Treaty Duties to Establish Jurisdiction

Multilateral criminal-law conventions frequently require states parties to establish jurisdiction over defined offenses. These provisions are designed to reduce safe havens and prevent jurisdictional gaps where criminal conduct crosses borders.

Territoriality usually forms the core. Treaties commonly require jurisdiction over offenses committed within the state’s territory or aboard ships and aircraft registered there. Offender nationality is also frequently mandatory. Victim nationality, habitual residence, attacks on state facilities abroad, and conduct intended to compel a government may appear as optional or additional grounds.

The Convention against Torture illustrates the structure. A state party must establish jurisdiction when torture is committed in territory under its jurisdiction, aboard a ship or aircraft registered there, or by one of its nationals. It may establish jurisdiction where the victim is its national. It must also provide jurisdiction where the alleged offender is present and is not extradited (Convention against Torture, 1984, art. 5).

Conventions addressing aircraft hijacking, hostage-taking, terrorist bombings, attacks on internationally protected persons, terrorist financing, corruption, and organized crime employ comparable formulas. Their wording is not uniform. The relevant instrument must be examined for the precise grounds, whether each ground is mandatory or optional, and what conditions activate the duty.

A treaty clause based on territory or nationality remains territorial or nationality jurisdiction. A victim-based clause remains passive personality. Presence-based jurisdiction derives from the treaty’s custodial mechanism. Multilateral agreements organize these bases but do not erase their differences.

Treaty obligations bind the states parties according to the instrument’s terms. The prosecuting state may exercise jurisdiction over a national of a nonparty, but its legal duty arises from its own treaty commitment, not from the consent of the offender’s state.

Domestic implementation may be needed before national courts can proceed. A state can be internationally obliged to criminalize conduct and establish jurisdiction while lacking the legislation necessary to prosecute. That legislative failure may breach the treaty, but domestic courts cannot always supply missing criminal offenses or jurisdictional rules without violating constitutional legality.

Treaty-based proceedings remain national proceedings. Domestic courts apply implementing legislation, procedural safeguards, evidentiary rules, and penalties, while the treaty establishes the minimum jurisdictional and cooperative framework.

6.3 Extradite or Prosecute

Aut dedere aut judicare refers to arrangements under which the state where an alleged offender is found must extradite that person or submit the case to its competent authorities for prosecution. The phrase describes a family of treaty obligations rather than a single rule with identical content in every convention.

Some treaties require submission for prosecution whenever extradition does not occur. Others activate the duty only after refusal of an extradition request or when surrender is denied because the requested state does not extradite its nationals. The relationship between the alternatives depends on the text of the instrument.

Submission to prosecuting authorities does not require a conviction. The authorities must assess the evidence under the same standards applied to comparable serious offenses. A genuine decision not to prosecute may be lawful where the evidence is insufficient or another valid procedural ground exists. The obligation prevents inaction based solely on the foreign location of the crime or the nationality of the accused.

In Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, the International Court of Justice held that Senegal was required under the Convention against Torture to conduct the necessary preliminary inquiry and submit the case concerning Hissène Habré to its competent authorities if it did not extradite him. The duty to submit the case was not postponed until Belgium made an extradition request; extradition was an alternative means of compliance (ICJ, 2012).

That judgment concerned the Convention against Torture. It does not establish a general customary obligation to extradite or prosecute every suspect accused of an international crime. A comparable duty must be derived from the relevant treaty or established through sufficient evidence of customary international law.

Human rights law may restrict extradition. A state must not surrender a person where substantial grounds show a real risk of torture or another prohibited treatment. Depending on the applicable convention, refusal may leave the custodial state with a duty to submit the case for domestic prosecution.

Aut dedere aut judicare is best analyzed through its legal source. The offense, triggering event, relationship between extradition and prosecution, evidentiary obligations, and degree of prosecutorial discretion must be determined from the particular treaty.

6.4 Presence-Based Jurisdiction

Presence-based jurisdiction applies when an alleged offender is found within the forum, and the governing treaty or domestic law authorizes proceedings concerning conduct committed abroad. The offense may have no territorial, offender-nationality, or victim-nationality connection to the state. Presence supplies custody and prevents the territory from becoming a refuge from prosecution.

Its principal function is practical. A state cannot ordinarily try or punish a person over whom it has no custody, and another state may be unable to secure extradition. Presence allows the forum to investigate, prosecute, and enforce a sentence within its own territory.

The legal basis is often treaty-specific. Under the Convention against Torture, a state party must establish jurisdiction when the alleged offender is present and is not extradited (Convention against Torture, 1984, art. 5(2)). Comparable provisions appear in several conventions addressing terrorism and transnational offenses. Their conditions must be read separately.

National legislation determines how much presence is required. Some systems demand physical presence before proceedings begin. Others permit preliminary investigation or an arrest warrant while the suspect remains abroad, but require presence before trial. Residence, habitual presence, or an expectation that the accused will enter the forum may also affect admissibility under domestic law.

Presence after the offense can activate jurisdiction without changing the foreign character of the crime. The accused’s later arrival creates a custodial connection; it does not make the original conduct territorial.

Nor does presence cure an unlawful seizure abroad. Abduction may violate the sovereignty of the territorial state even if the forum has jurisdiction over the offense and later obtains physical custody. The legality of the acquisition of custody and the authority to prosecute are distinct issues.

Presence-based proceedings should not automatically be called universal jurisdiction. The applicable authority may arise from a treaty limited to a particular offense and binding only on its parties. The better description identifies the treaty, the presence requirement, and the consequence of non-extradition.

A complete analysis asks four questions: which legal instrument establishes jurisdiction, what degree of presence it requires, when the duty to submit the case arises, and whether domestic law authorizes the court and prosecutor to proceed. This approach avoids using “universal jurisdiction” as a catch-all label for every foreign offense prosecuted after the suspect enters the forum.

7. The Territorial Limits of Enforcement

A state may lawfully apply its legislation to conduct abroad without acquiring authority to carry out coercive measures in the place where that conduct occurred. Prescriptive jurisdiction and enforcement jurisdiction must be assessed separately. Nationality, domestic effects, treaty obligations, or universal jurisdiction may support the application of domestic law, but none creates a general entitlement to exercise police powers inside another state.

Enforcement is territorial because coercion operates through control over persons, property, information, or legal processes. Arrest, detention, search, seizure, compulsory testimony, confiscation, and execution of judgments are exercises of public authority where they occur. When performed abroad without authorization, they intrude upon the territorial state’s sovereign competence.

Consent can supply the necessary legal basis. A state may permit foreign officers to participate in an investigation, authorize a joint operation, execute a foreign request through its own institutions, or allocate powers by treaty. The authorization must be specific enough to cover the activity undertaken. Permission to exchange intelligence, for example, does not necessarily include authority to search premises or arrest a suspect.

7.1 Arrests, Searches, and Seizures Abroad

Foreign officials may not ordinarily enter another state to arrest a person, search premises, seize property, compel testimony, or execute a judicial order. The prohibition applies even where the acting state has a strong basis for prescribing the relevant law and the territorial authorities have failed to investigate.

Less visible investigative acts may raise the same concern. Covert entry, interception of communications, remote access to devices, compulsory collection of evidence, and surveillance directed at targets abroad may engage the territorial state’s authority. The legal assessment depends on the location of the target, the coercive character of the act, the degree of foreign governmental control, and any applicable treaty framework.

Service of documents abroad requires more careful treatment. The transmission of notice does not invariably amount to prohibited enforcement, especially where the recipient accepts service voluntarily or a treaty authorizes the procedure. Compulsory service, official acts performed by foreign agents, or service contrary to the territorial state’s procedural law may require cooperation through local authorities or instruments such as the Hague Service Convention.

Voluntary disclosure also differs from compelled evidence gathering. A witness or company abroad may provide information without the direct use of state coercion. Such production may still violate local secrecy, privacy, blocking, data-protection, or professional-privilege rules. The absence of compulsion by the requesting state does not guarantee that the disclosure is lawful where it occurs.

Searches or seizures conducted by local authorities at another state’s request are not unilateral foreign enforcement. The territorial state retains legal control, applies its own procedure, and decides whether the request satisfies domestic and treaty requirements. Foreign investigators may observe or assist where local law permits, but they do not acquire independent police authority.

Joint operations require a defined allocation of powers. Agreements should identify which officers may interview witnesses, carry weapons, enter premises, collect evidence, or participate in arrests. Intergovernmental consent does not displace the procedural rights of suspects, witnesses, property owners, or data subjects.

International illegality and domestic admissibility remain separate. Evidence may have been obtained through a violation of foreign sovereignty yet still be admitted under the forum’s procedural law. Evidence collected with valid interstate consent may be excluded because investigators violated constitutional, statutory, or fair-trial guarantees.

7.2 Extradition and Legal Assistance

Extradition allows one state to surrender a person to another for prosecution or punishment through a legally regulated process. Arrest and transfer are carried out by the requested state’s institutions, preserving its control over coercive acts within its territory. Extradition usually depends on treaty obligations, domestic legislation, reciprocity, or a combination of these sources.

The requesting state must satisfy the conditions of the applicable framework. Common requirements include proper identification, a valid charge or sentence, sufficient seriousness, and supporting documentation. Double criminality ordinarily requires the essential conduct to constitute an offense in both states, although exact correspondence between statutory labels is rarely necessary unless the treaty provides otherwise.

The rule of specialty limits prosecution after surrender to the offense for which extradition was granted, subject to consent or recognized exceptions. It preserves the requested state’s control over the terms of the transfer and prevents the requesting state from using one charge to obtain custody for an unrelated case.

Political-offense exceptions have narrowed considerably. Modern treaties often exclude terrorism, attacks on internationally protected persons, war crimes, and comparable violence from the category. A request may still be refused where the proceedings are discriminatory, abusive, or directed at political opinion rather than genuine criminal conduct.

Human rights obligations impose independent limits. Extradition must not proceed where substantial grounds establish a real risk of torture or another prohibited form of treatment in the receiving state (ECtHR, 1989). Depending on the legal system, surrender may also be barred by a foreseeable flagrant denial of justice, the death penalty without adequate assurances, or serious threats to life and physical integrity.

Mutual legal assistance provides the principal mechanism for obtaining evidence abroad without violating sovereignty. The requested state may serve documents, compel testimony, search premises, identify accounts, freeze property, or transmit records under its own law. It may refuse assistance on grounds linked to sovereignty, security, public order, privilege, human rights, or absence of double criminality where the applicable instrument permits refusal.

Police cooperation operates more informally when coercive measures are unnecessary. Authorities may exchange intelligence, locate suspects, verify identities, or coordinate operational timing. Such cooperation does not itself provide legal authority for arrest, search, or seizure; local law remains necessary.

Joint investigative teams allow authorities from several states to coordinate evidence collection while preserving territorial control over compulsory acts. Transfer of proceedings offers another option where one state has jurisdiction, but another is better placed to prosecute because the suspect, evidence, victims, or principal conduct are concentrated there.

Refusal of cooperation does not authorize unilateral action. Double criminality, human rights concerns, political misuse, or procedural defects are legal limits within the cooperative system, not obstacles that may be bypassed through unauthorized enforcement.

7.3 Abduction and Irregular Transfer

Cross-border abduction removes a person from one state and delivers that person to another outside lawful extradition procedures. Where agents of the receiving state conduct, direct, or knowingly procure the seizure without valid territorial consent, the operation violates the authority of the state in which it occurs.

The Eichmann affair demonstrates the interstate dimension. Israel’s removal of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina led the Security Council to recognize the infringement of Argentine sovereignty, notwithstanding the extraordinary gravity of the alleged crimes (UN Security Council, 1960). Jurisdiction over the offenses did not authorize enforcement on Argentine territory.

A separate question is whether the unlawful transfer prevents the receiving state’s courts from trying the accused. Domestic legal systems have answered differently. In Alvarez-Machain, the United States Supreme Court allowed the prosecution to proceed despite the defendant’s forcible removal from Mexico, interpreting the applicable extradition treaty as not barring trial (US Supreme Court, 1992). By contrast, the House of Lords in Bennett accepted that proceedings could be stayed as an abuse of process where British authorities had procured an unlawful transfer in violation of foreign sovereignty and legal process (House of Lords, 1994).

These decisions address the domestic consequences of unlawful custody, not the international legality of the operation itself. A court may proceed even though the abduction engages state responsibility. Another court may terminate the case to protect judicial integrity despite having jurisdiction over the offense.

Irregular rendition can also occur through deportation, expulsion, immigration detention, or informal handover. Participation by local authorities may remove the specific objection of unauthorized foreign entry, but it does not guarantee legality. The transfer may still violate domestic law, an extradition treaty, non-refoulement, the prohibition of arbitrary detention, or the right to challenge removal.

Immigration procedures should not be used as disguised extradition. Where a person is detained at another state’s request and delivered directly for prosecution, the substance of the operation may matter more than the formal label applied by the authorities.

International law does not prescribe one universal domestic remedy for irregular transfer. Possible consequences include diplomatic reparation, release, exclusion of evidence, damages, a stay of proceedings, or no effect on the criminal trial. The lack of a domestic remedy does not make the initial seizure lawful.

7.4 Enforcement Against Domestic Persons and Assets

A state may enforce an extraterritorial rule against persons, companies, property, accounts, or transactions under its control. The underlying conduct may have occurred abroad, but arrest, asset seizure, license withdrawal, monetary penalties, or market restrictions remain territorial when implemented within the forum.

A national accused of an offense abroad may be arrested after returning home. A foreign corporation with assets or a branch in the state may face penalties under a law validly applicable to its conduct. Domestic banks may be ordered to block accounts, and regulators may suspend licenses or deny market access. These measures do not require foreign officials to exercise power inside another country.

Territorial enforcement may nevertheless reshape foreign conduct. A penalty imposed on a multinational parent can alter the operations of subsidiaries abroad. A domestic banking order can interrupt payments involving foreign counterparties. Exclusion from a major market may induce overseas producers to modify global practices.

The location of enforcement does not cure a defective jurisdictional claim. The state must still possess a valid basis for prescribing the rule and adjudicating the alleged violation. Control over a domestic office, account, or transaction cannot justify the regulation of unrelated foreign conduct.

Orders directed at domestic persons may also require action abroad. A company may be commanded to produce records held overseas, transfer foreign assets, or terminate a contract lawful under another state’s law. The penalty for noncompliance is imposed domestically, but the order may generate regulatory conflict abroad.

Conflicting-law problems are common in such cases. One state may compel disclosure while another prohibits it under privacy, secrecy, or blocking legislation. A bank may be required to freeze funds by one jurisdiction and forbidden to comply by another. Courts may respond through comity, proportionality, licensing, hardship defenses, narrowing of orders, or diplomatic negotiation.

Foreign state assets present a further limitation. Jurisdiction over the underlying claim does not automatically permit attachment of diplomatic accounts, central-bank property, military assets, or other property protected by state immunity. Adjudicative authority and enforcement immunity must be examined separately.

8. Concurrent Jurisdiction and Regulatory Conflict

Cross-border conduct often falls within the lawful jurisdiction of several states. International law does not generally make one claim exclusive merely because it is territorial or was asserted first. Territory, nationality, victim nationality, domestic effects, protected interests, offender presence, and treaty obligations may support simultaneous authority.

Concurrent jurisdiction is not unlawful by itself. Conflict arises when states impose inconsistent obligations, pursue duplicative proceedings, compete for custody, or disregard penalties and judgments already imposed elsewhere. The question then shifts from the existence of jurisdiction to its allocation and exercise.

No universal hierarchy resolves every conflict. The territorial state often has the closest factual connection, but nationality, custody, access to evidence, victim protection, or institutional incapacity may support another forum. In practice, priority is determined through treaties, consultation, prosecutorial discretion, judicial restraint, and control over suspects or assets.

8.1 Multiple Valid Jurisdictional Claims

A transnational bribery scheme may involve a company incorporated in one state, payments routed through another, an official in a third, and securities disclosures in a fourth. Territoriality, corporate nationality, financial-market protection, and domestic effects may each support jurisdiction over different aspects of the same conduct.

Cybercrime creates a comparable overlap. The offender, device, victim, server, service provider, and financial loss may all be located in different jurisdictions. Subjective and objective territoriality, nationality, passive personality, and treaty-based presence may operate simultaneously.

Terrorism can engage the state where an attack occurs, the national states of offenders and victims, the state of aircraft or vessel registration, and a state whose diplomatic facilities or government were targeted. Counterterrorism conventions often anticipate this multiplicity by requiring several jurisdictional grounds.

Competition and securities law also generate parallel authority. A cartel may be implemented in numerous markets, while a securities violation may connect the issuer, exchange, investors, communication, and transaction to different states. A valid claim depends on a substantial connection, not a nominal corporate presence, incidental currency conversion, or automatic digital routing.

International crimes may engage the territorial state, the offender’s national state, victim states, custodial states, states invoking universal jurisdiction, and the International Criminal Court. The existence of an international forum does not automatically extinguish national jurisdiction, although the relevant statute may regulate the relationship through complementarity, primacy, or admissibility rules.

8.2 Comity and Reasonableness

Comity refers to the restraint or respect shown by one legal system toward another. Courts may consider parallel proceedings, foreign judgments, conflicting laws, sovereign interests, and the comparative connection of each forum. The concept can reduce friction, but it does not constitute a single universal rule.

In domestic law, comity may influence statutory interpretation, forum selection, recognition of foreign decisions, or the scope of judicial orders. A court may narrow an injunction, stay proceedings, or decline to compel conduct that would breach foreign law. The legal basis and strength of comity vary across systems.

Comity should not be confused with binding international obligations. Treaty allocations, sovereign immunity, and specific rules of international law may require restraint. Comity usually operates through judicial discretion, domestic doctrine, or governmental policy.

Reasonableness tests perform a similar moderating function. They may consider the place and purpose of the conduct, nationality of the parties, foreseeability of regulation, location of harm, foreign sovereign interests, and the likelihood of conflicting legal duties. Such balancing can discipline overbroad claims, but it also reduces predictability and may reflect the forum’s preference for its own interests.

Proportionality may constrain particular measures, especially disclosure orders, penalties, sanctions, and worldwide injunctions. Its status depends on the applicable legal system or treaty. It is not a universally accepted customary test governing all exercises of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Subsidiarity is equally limited. It may support deference to a state with a closer connection or greater capacity to act, particularly in debates on universal jurisdiction. Outside specific treaty or institutional regimes, however, international law has not established a general rule requiring every state to yield to the territorially closest forum.

Prosecutorial discretion often provides the most practical form of restraint. Authorities may decline or narrow a case where another state has undertaken a genuine investigation, the evidence is concentrated elsewhere, extradition is unlikely, or additional proceedings would contribute little. Such decisions remain matters of policy or domestic law unless a treaty provides otherwise.

8.3 Forum Selection and Prosecutorial Coordination

When several states possess jurisdiction, authorities must determine which forum should lead, prosecute separate offenses, or transfer the case. No general international procedure governs that decision. Practical control over the suspect, evidence, witnesses, and assets often shapes the result.

The territorial state commonly has the strongest claim because it has access to the scene, victims, evidence, and local harm. Territorial priority is less convincing where institutions have collapsed, authorities are implicated, or proceedings are intended to shield the accused.

Custody is another major factor. A state holding the suspect can prosecute, extradite, or surrender that person, subject to treaty and human rights obligations. Custody does not make the forum legally superior, but it gives that state substantial practical influence.

Other relevant considerations include the nationality of the accused and victims, location of the principal harm, admissibility of evidence, seriousness of available charges, progress of existing investigations, witness protection, likely duplication, and capacity to conduct a fair trial.

Early consultation reduces conflict. Uncoordinated investigations may expose witnesses repeatedly, alert suspects, compromise covert techniques, or produce incompatible agreements. Liaison prosecutors, central authorities, joint investigative teams, and police networks can allocate tasks while preserving each state’s authority over measures taken within its territory.

Transfer of proceedings may consolidate a case in the forum best placed to prosecute. Alternatively, states may divide charges, with one addressing corruption and another prosecuting money laundering or securities violations. Division can be efficient, but fragmented proceedings increase the risk of cumulative punishment for substantially the same conduct.

Some treaties allocate priority directly. Status-of-forces agreements, for example, may distinguish offenses committed in official duty, offenses against the sending state, and offenses primarily affecting the receiving state. Most transnational cases lack such predetermined rules and require case-specific coordination.

Forum selection should turn on legal competence, evidentiary capacity, fairness, and the comparative strength of each connection, not on competition for the harshest penalty or broadest investigative powers.

8.4 Double Jeopardy Across Borders

Ne bis in idem protects individuals against repeated trial or punishment after a final acquittal or conviction. The principle is widely recognized within domestic legal systems, but it does not operate uniformly between separate sovereign states.

Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits repeat proceedings after a final judgment. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted the provision as applying within the same state rather than creating a general transnational bar (Human Rights Committee, 2007, para. 57). A final judgment in one country does not, under the Covenant alone, prevent another state from prosecuting the same person.

Treaties and regional systems may provide stronger protection. Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement restricts successive prosecutions among participating states where the case has been finally disposed of and the conditions concerning execution of the penalty are satisfied. European Union case law generally focuses on the identity of material acts rather than identical statutory classifications (CJEU, 2006).

The Rome Statute establishes a different, vertical form of ne bis in idem between the International Criminal Court and national courts. Article 20 generally prevents the Court from trying a person already tried for the same conduct, except where the national proceedings were intended to shield the accused or were otherwise inconsistent with an independent and impartial prosecution (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 20). This regime does not create a general horizontal prohibition between national jurisdictions.

Extradition treaties and domestic statutes may also recognize foreign judgments. Some bars surrender or prosecution following a final foreign decision, require prosecutorial authorization, or direct courts to credit punishment already served. The scope of protection differs substantially.

The meaning of “same” creates further difficulty. Some systems compare legal elements, while others focus on the historical facts or protected interests. A legal-elements test permits several prosecutions arising from one transaction; a factual-conduct test offers broader protection.

Parallel corporate proceedings are particularly common. The same conduct may attract competition, corruption, securities, tax, or sanctions penalties in several states. Regulators sometimes coordinate settlements, allocate fines, or credit penalties imposed elsewhere to avoid excessive cumulative punishment.

No complete global rule prevents successive prosecution by different states. The absence of a prohibition does not resolve questions of fairness or proportionality. The adequacy of the first proceedings, the distinct interests protected, penalties already imposed, and the added value of a second case remain central to the responsible exercise of concurrent jurisdiction.

9. Jurisdiction, Immunity, and Procedural Restraints

A valid jurisdictional basis does not authorize proceedings against every foreign defendant or permit coercive measures against every foreign asset. Jurisdiction identifies the forum’s authority over conduct, persons, or disputes. Immunity, legality, and fair-process guarantees determine how far that authority may be exercised.

These restraints perform different functions. Immunity protects specified states, officials, diplomatic agents, missions, and property against foreign proceedings or enforcement. Legality prohibits retroactive and insufficiently foreseeable criminal liability. Due process governs notice, evidence, representation, adjudication, and punishment. The seriousness of the alleged conduct does not remove the need to examine each constraint separately.

9.1 Jurisdiction and Immunity as Separate Questions

Jurisdiction and immunity address different legal questions. A court may possess territorial, nationality-based, universal, or treaty-based jurisdiction over the alleged conduct while remaining unable to proceed against an immune defendant. Immunity does not ordinarily deny that the conduct occurred, declare it lawful, or eliminate substantive responsibility. It prevents a particular forum from exercising its authority against a protected person or entity.

The procedural character of immunity means that another forum may remain available. Proceedings may be possible before the courts of the official’s own state, after a valid waiver, once a temporary personal immunity has ended, or before an international tribunal possessing the required competence. Immunity may nonetheless create a practical accountability gap where no alternative forum acts.

Different immunity regimes must remain distinct. State immunity governs proceedings against foreign states and certain state entities. Diplomatic and consular immunities arise under specialized treaty and customary rules. Official immunities protect individuals because of their status or the governmental character of their conduct. Immunity from adjudication must also be separated from immunity against attachment, seizure, or execution.

The International Court of Justice confirmed this distinction in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State. Italy argued that the peremptory status of the rules violated by Nazi Germany displaced German immunity in civil proceedings concerning wartime atrocities. The Court rejected the argument because the substantive rules prohibiting the conduct and the procedural rule of state immunity governed different matters (ICJ, 2012).

That reasoning does not place immunity above peremptory norms. It means that the existence of a grave substantive violation does not automatically create an exception to the procedural protection enjoyed before a foreign national court. An exception must be supported by treaty, customary international law, waiver, or another recognized rule.

9.2 State Immunity and Foreign Assets

Modern state-immunity law generally follows a restrictive rather than an absolute approach. Foreign states remain immune to sovereign or governmental conduct, commonly described as acta jure imperii, but may be subject to proceedings arising from commercial or private-law transactions, described as acta jure gestionis.

The commercial character of an activity is usually assessed by examining the nature of the transaction. Its governmental purpose may also be relevant where the applicable convention, statute, or established practice permits that inquiry. A contract does not become sovereign merely because public funds are involved, but an ordinary commercial form does not always remove the governmental character of the underlying act.

The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property reflects this restrictive structure. It identifies exceptions relating to commercial transactions, employment, property, intellectual property, company participation, commercial vessels, arbitration agreements, and specified territorial injuries (United Nations, 2004). The Convention is influential, but its provisions should not all be assumed to reproduce customary international law in identical form.

Commercial-activity exceptions require a close connection between the proceeding and the transaction relied upon. A court should identify the conduct forming the basis of the claim rather than treating any commercial contact with the forum as sufficient. State-owned enterprises may also possess legal personality separate from the state, although domestic legislation may permit attribution or attachment under defined circumstances.

Territorial-tort exceptions require particular caution. National statutes and treaty formulations differ in their treatment of personal injury and property damage occurring within the forum. Some require both the act and the injury to occur there, while others focus more heavily on the location of the damage or the presence of the responsible official. The exception cannot be treated as a uniform customary rule authorizing civil claims for all injuries caused by foreign states.

Military and armed-conflict conduct raises additional difficulties. In Jurisdictional Immunities, the International Court declined to apply a territorial-tort exception to acts of German armed forces during the Second World War, including conduct occurring on Italian territory (ICJ, 2012). The judgment does not settle every possible peacetime tort claim, but it confirms that territorial injury alone does not invariably remove immunity.

Immunity from enforcement is normally stronger than immunity from adjudication. A foreign state may be subject to suit under a commercial exception while its property remains protected against attachment or execution. Consent to a court’s jurisdiction does not automatically constitute consent to measures against assets.

Enforcement depends heavily on the use of the property. Assets employed for governmental and non-commercial purposes commonly receive protection, including diplomatic property, military assets, central-bank reserves, and funds used for official missions. Commercial property may be more exposed where the applicable rules require a connection between the asset, the judgment debtor, and the claim.

Corporate separation also matters. A judgment against the state does not ordinarily authorize execution against every enterprise it owns. Courts must examine ownership, legal personality, operational independence, the use of the property, and any statutory conditions for disregarding the entity’s separate status.

9.3 Personal and Functional Immunities

The immunity of state officials is commonly divided between immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae. Personal immunity attaches to the official’s status while a qualifying office is held. Functional immunity attaches to acts performed in an official capacity and may continue after the official leaves office.

Immunity ratione personae protects a narrow group of serving senior officials whose international functions require unrestricted communication and travel. Customary international law clearly covers heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers. During office, they enjoy broad immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction and personal inviolability, including for private conduct and acts committed before assuming office.

In Arrest Warrant, the International Court of Justice held that Belgium violated the immunity and inviolability of the serving foreign minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by issuing and circulating an international arrest warrant. The Court found no established customary exception before foreign national courts for allegations of war crimes or crimes against humanity against an incumbent foreign minister (ICJ, 2002).

Personal immunity is temporary. It may be waived by the official’s state and does not prevent proceedings before that state’s own courts. It may also operate differently before an international criminal tribunal whose constituent instrument lawfully removes or regulates official immunity. Once the qualifying office ends, foreign proceedings may continue for private acts, subject to the ordinary rules of jurisdiction and procedure.

Immunity ratione materiae is broader in personal scope but narrower in subject matter. It may protect current and former officials in relation to acts performed on behalf of the state. Its rationale is that official conduct is legally associated with the state and should not be converted automatically into the private conduct of the individual.

The classification of an official act does not resolve the disputed position of international crimes. Torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and enforced disappearance are often committed through state authority, yet international law also imposes individual criminal responsibility for such conduct. National courts and governments have not adopted a uniform position on the continued availability of functional immunity.

The Pinochet litigation is frequently cited as authority against functional immunity for torture. Its significance should not be overstated. The decisions arose within a particular treaty, statutory, and extradition framework, and the judges did not rely on a single common rationale capable of resolving every international crime case.

The International Law Commission’s work reflects the continuing disagreement. In 2026, its Drafting Committee adopted a second-reading text of draft articles on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. The text remains part of an unfinished codification process and does not bind states or establish that every provision reflects existing customary law (ILC Drafting Committee, 2026). ([United Nations Legal Affairs][1])

Official immunity must also be separated from attribution and responsibility. The same conduct may be attributable to a state and generate individual criminal liability. Neither proposition independently answers the procedural question of immunity before a foreign national court.

9.4 Legality and Fair Process

Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction remains subject to the principle of legality. Liability must rest on a sufficiently clear rule in force when the conduct occurred. A legislature cannot repair an absent jurisdictional basis by extending a criminal statute retroactively, and courts may not construct liability through unforeseeable analogy.

Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits conviction for conduct that was not criminal under national or international law when committed and bars the retroactive imposition of a heavier penalty (United Nations, 1966, art. 15). The reference to international law permits reliance on established international crimes, but it does not authorize retrospective prosecution based on uncertain or emerging norms.

Foreseeability concerns both the offense and the forum’s authority. A person acting abroad should have a reasonable basis for anticipating that the conduct may attract the law of another state. Nationality, deliberate activity directed at the forum, substantial domestic implementation, or an established international prohibition provides stronger notice than an incidental bank transfer, unknown server route, or remote economic consequence.

Fair-process guarantees remain applicable after jurisdiction is established. A foreign defendant must receive clear notice of the charges, access to legal representation and interpretation, adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense, and a meaningful opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s evidence. Nationality or immigration status cannot justify reduced procedural protection.

Cross-border evidence creates particular difficulties. Documents may be subject to foreign secrecy or privacy rules, witnesses may lie beyond compulsory process, and evidence may have been gathered under unfamiliar standards. The court must assess authenticity, translation, chain of custody, reliability, and the ability of the defense to test the material.

Equality of arms can be weakened where prosecutors obtain evidence through mutual legal assistance or intelligence cooperation, while the accused lacks an equivalent channel. Courts may need to facilitate defense requests, order disclosure, permit remote examination, or draw appropriate conclusions when relevant material cannot be produced.

Disclosure duties should not be avoided by formally locating evidence with a cooperating foreign agency. Material may fall within the prosecution’s effective control where investigators participated in a joint operation, directed the request, or could obtain the evidence through established cooperation.

Trials in absentia require adequate notice, representation, and a genuine opportunity for retrial or review. A defendant who deliberately evades proceedings after receiving notice stands differently from a person who was unaware of the case or unable to participate.

Jurisdiction identifies a state entitled to act. Legality and fair process determine if the state acts through an accountable legal procedure.

10. Extraterritorial Economic Regulation

Economic regulation frequently affects conduct abroad without involving foreign arrests, searches, or seizures. States extend regulatory influence through control over domestic markets, corporations, financial institutions, technology, licenses, and commercial infrastructure.

The resulting measures do not rely on one jurisdictional theory. Competition law commonly invokes domestic implementation or market effects. Foreign-bribery rules combine territory, nationality, issuer status, and corporate presence. Supply-chain legislation regulates domestic companies and qualifying market participants while influencing foreign business partners. Sanctions and export controls rely on territory, nationality, finance, technology, and access to economic benefits.

The relevant inquiry identifies the person subject to the legal duty, the conduct triggering liability, the connection to the forum, and the location of enforcement.

10.1 Competition Law

Competition law may apply to foreign cartels, mergers, and abusive practices capable of materially impairing a domestic market. Restricting jurisdiction to the place where an agreement was concluded would allow companies to avoid regulation by organizing anticompetitive conduct abroad.

Implementation provides the clearest territorial connection. A cartel formed overseas may be implemented through sales, pricing, distribution, or exclusionary practices inside the forum. The state regulates conduct carried into its market rather than relying solely on economic consequences.

Effects-based jurisdiction applies where the relevant conduct remains abroad but generates a direct, foreseeable, and substantial impact within the protected market. The detailed limits of that doctrine were addressed earlier. In competition cases, its principal function is to distinguish genuine domestic injury from incidental consequences of global commercial activity.

Merger control is preventive. A transaction between companies established abroad may require notification where domestic turnover, assets, customers, or competitive conditions exceed statutory thresholds. The place where the acquisition agreement was signed is less significant than the transaction’s capacity to alter competition within the forum.

Notification thresholds should preserve a meaningful local nexus. Extremely low turnover requirements or speculative theories of future harm may capture transactions with little connection to the jurisdiction. Domestic-sales thresholds, transaction-value rules, exemptions, and referral mechanisms are used to prevent both regulatory gaps and excessive filings.

Remedies require a separate jurisdictional assessment. A regulator may prohibit a transaction, require divestiture, impose access conditions, or demand changes to global business practices. A remedy extending beyond the forum should remain connected to the domestic competitive harm and should not restructure foreign markets more broadly than necessary.

Parallel proceedings can produce incompatible outcomes. One authority may approve a merger, another may impose conditions, and a third may prohibit it. Coordination, confidentiality waivers, and aligned remedies can reduce conflict, but they do not create a universal hierarchy among competition regulators.

10.2 Foreign Bribery and Corporate Conduct

Foreign-bribery legislation regulates the supply side of corruption by criminalizing improper advantages offered to foreign public officials. Jurisdiction may arise through territorial conduct, nationality of individuals or corporations, securities regulation, corporate presence, or obligations imposed on organizations operating within the forum.

The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention requires parties to establish jurisdiction where the offense is committed wholly or partly within their territory. States exercising nationality jurisdiction over offenses abroad must apply the same principle to foreign bribery. Where several parties possess jurisdiction, they must consult, at the request of one of them, on the most appropriate forum for prosecution (OECD, 1997, art. 4).

A territorial connection may arise through approval of a payment, preparation of false accounts, use of a domestic bank, a meeting, communication, or transfer occurring within the state. The contact should constitute a meaningful element of the conduct. Automatic financial routing or an incidental communication unrelated to the corrupt agreement provides a weaker basis.

Nationality supports jurisdiction over citizens and domestically incorporated companies acting overseas. Foreign issuers may also become subject to accounting, disclosure, and internal-control duties because their securities are admitted to the forum’s market. Those obligations may apply even where the underlying payment occurred elsewhere.

Multinational groups complicate attribution. A domestic parent may be liable for its own authorization, direction, accounting failures, deficient controls, or failure to prevent bribery where the statute creates such liability. Ownership of a foreign subsidiary does not by itself prove that the parent committed, directed, or knew of the offense.

Intermediaries do not necessarily break responsibility. Agents, consultants, distributors, joint ventures, and shell companies may be used to conceal the route of payment. Liability must still be established through the applicable standards of knowledge, authorization, control, benefit, or organizational failure.

Failure-to-prevent offenses address the difficulty of proving direct senior-management involvement in decentralized groups. They place responsibility on the organization for inadequate prevention while usually allowing a defense based on reasonable or adequate procedures. The standard should reflect the company’s size, risk exposure, structure, and ability to control the associated person.

The United Nations Convention against Corruption combines territorial and registration-based jurisdiction with optional nationality, victim-based, and protective grounds. It also addresses cases involving alleged offenders present in the forum and not extradited (United Nations, 2003, art. 42).

Foreign bribery investigations often overlap with money laundering, tax, procurement, accounting, and securities proceedings. Coordinated settlements and credit for penalties imposed elsewhere can limit duplication. Negotiated resolutions should still rest on disclosed legal grounds, provable facts, and meaningful judicial or independent review.

10.3 Supply Chains and Due Diligence

Supply-chain regulation can operate through three legally distinct models. A state may impose governance duties on a company incorporated or headquartered within its territory. It may regulate access to its market by foreign companies. It may also require a regulated company to exercise contractual and commercial influence over suppliers and subsidiaries abroad.

The first model is primarily personal or territorial. A domestic parent may be required to identify risks, adopt policies, monitor subsidiaries, revise purchasing practices, establish complaint procedures, and address adverse impacts. The legal duty falls on the parent even though the relevant risks arise in foreign operations.

The second model applies direct obligations to qualifying foreign companies because of substantial economic activity within the forum. Market-generated turnover, a branch, or another defined commercial presence may supply the jurisdictional connection. This approach is more direct than merely regulating a domestic buyer that contracts with foreign suppliers.

The third model operates indirectly. A regulated company may require suppliers to provide information, accept contractual standards, permit audits, implement corrective plans, or modify production. The supplier may not be formally subject to the forum’s public law, but the buyer’s commercial leverage transmits the regulatory standard abroad.

The European Union Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive combines these approaches. As amended by Directives (EU) 2025/794 and 2026/470, it imposes risk-based obligations concerning companies’ own operations, subsidiaries, and relevant business partners in their chains of activities. It also covers specified third-country companies according to turnover generated within the Union (Directive (EU) 2024/1760, as amended by Directives (EU) 2025/794 and 2026/470). ([EUR-Lex][2])

This structure should not be described simply as direct regulation of every foreign supplier. The immediate duties concerning policies, risk assessment, prevention, mitigation, complaints, and monitoring fall on covered companies. Foreign business partners are commonly affected by contractual requirements and changes in commercial practice.

Direct regulation is clearer where a third-country company independently falls within the statutory scope because of its Union activity. Contractual influence over an overseas supplier is different: the supplier responds to the regulated buyer rather than to an enforcement order issued directly by the forum.

Due diligence is not necessarily strict liability for every adverse impact in a corporate group or supply chain. Responsibility depends on the applicable statute, the company’s contribution to the harm, its relationship to the entity causing it, the measures reasonably available, and the legal consequences attached to noncompliance.

Formal compliance may be insufficient. A company that collects contractual assurances while maintaining prices, deadlines, or purchasing practices that contribute to abuse has not necessarily addressed the relevant risk. Effective due diligence may require changes to the regulated company’s own decisions rather than transferring every obligation to smaller suppliers.

Jurisdictional conflict may arise where compliance requires disclosure prohibited by foreign law, interference with employment relations governed by the host state, or operational changes inconsistent with local regulation. Trade, investment, privacy, labor, and procedural rules can constrain how the due diligence obligation is designed and enforced.

10.4 Sanctions and Export Controls

Sanctions and export controls project regulatory power through territory, nationality, banking, technology, licensing, and market access. Their external impact may be substantial even where penalties and asset restrictions are imposed solely within the regulating state.

Primary sanctions apply to persons and property within the forum’s lawful reach. They may bind nationals abroad, companies incorporated under domestic law, persons physically present in the territory, local financial institutions, or foreign entities engaging in transactions with a sufficient domestic connection.

Nationality-based restrictions can follow citizens and domestic corporations overseas. Territorial jurisdiction may arise when payments are processed by institutions in the forum, goods pass through its territory, local services are used, or regulated technology is exported there. The connection must be assessed factually rather than inferred solely from the economic importance of the forum.

Financial infrastructure can create a substantial territorial link. A transaction processed through a domestic correspondent bank may involve conduct inside the state and property under its control. A brief or automatic clearing event may present a weaker case, especially where the parties neither selected nor anticipated the domestic route.

Secondary sanctions operate differently. They impose or threaten disadvantages against foreign persons because of transactions with a targeted state, sector, or entity, even where the underlying dealing lacks the ordinary territorial or nationality links to the sanctioning state. The consequence may include designation, exclusion from markets, restricted financing, or loss of access to domestic institutions.

The formal legal structure may present the foreign company with a choice rather than a direct prohibition: continue the third-country transaction or preserve access to the sanctioning state’s financial system and market. Where that market is economically indispensable, the distinction between legal choice and practical compulsion becomes narrow.

The international legality of secondary sanctions remains disputed. The sanctioning state may invoke its authority over market access, licenses, domestic institutions, and property within its territory. Objecting states may characterize the same measure as an attempt to control lawful commerce between foreign persons and third countries. International law has not produced a single rule resolving every form of secondary sanction.

Blocking legislation illustrates the conflict. One state may prohibit compliance with specified foreign sanctions, deny recognition to resulting judgments, or permit recovery of losses. A company may then face inconsistent commands: compliance with one legal system creates liability under another.

Export controls regulate the transfer, reexport, and use of goods, software, and technology according to origin, classification, destination, end user, and end use. Jurisdiction is strongest over domestic exporters, national-origin items, and technology released within the forum.

More extensive systems may regulate certain foreign-made products because they contain controlled national content or were produced using specified national technology or software. Such claims require careful examination of statutory reach, the continuing connection to the original export, foreseeability, and the regulatory interests of other states.

Enforcement commonly occurs through license denial, monetary penalties, asset restrictions, restrictions on domestic persons, or exclusion from controlled technology and markets. These mechanisms remain territorial at the point of enforcement while exerting significant influence over foreign production and trade.

Procedural safeguards are essential because designation or license denial may freeze assets and end commercial relationships before a full judicial hearing. Affected persons require sufficient notice, access to an effective review procedure, and a realistic process for seeking correction, delisting, or authorization. Sensitive intelligence may justify limited disclosure, but it should not eliminate meaningful review.

Humanitarian exceptions may also be undermined by private overcompliance. Banks, insurers, carriers, and suppliers sometimes reject lawful transactions because the cost of assessing sanctions risk exceeds the value of the business. The resulting restrictions on food, medicine, remittances, and humanitarian operations may extend beyond the legal prohibition itself.

Economic leverage increases a state’s practical reach but does not settle the legal analysis. The measure must still rest on an adequate jurisdictional connection, comply with treaty obligations, preserve procedural fairness, and account for competing sovereign authority.

11. Digital Networks and Cross-Border Data

Digital activity disperses the facts on which territorial jurisdiction usually depends. An online transaction may involve an actor in one state, a victim in another, a platform established elsewhere, and data processed or stored across several jurisdictions. These contacts do not carry equal legal weight.

The relevant connection depends on the rule being applied. The actor’s location may support subjective territoriality, while the location of a targeted system or direct result may support objective territoriality. Nationality, corporate establishment, directed services, domestic users, and control over electronic evidence may provide additional bases.

Technical contact alone should not establish jurisdiction. Automatic server routing, temporary storage, incidental payment processing, and worldwide accessibility may connect activity to a state without creating a meaningful relationship to the conduct regulated. Digital jurisdiction requires more than the technical architecture of the internet.

11.1 Locating Online Conduct

The location of the person directing the activity is often the strongest starting point. A person who sends fraudulent communications, deploys malicious code, operates an illegal marketplace, or manages an unlawful service acts where the relevant decisions and instructions are made. Foreign hosting, encryption, or anonymization may conceal that location without removing its jurisdictional significance.

Devices and infrastructure can reinforce the connection, but their physical location is not always decisive. A computer may be controlled remotely, a server may be selected automatically, and an innocent device may be incorporated into a botnet. Equipment supports territorial jurisdiction when it forms a substantial part of the conduct attributable to the actor, rather than serving as an accidental or unknown technical route.

The location of the targeted system may support objective territoriality. An intrusion directed at a hospital network, government database, financial institution, company system, or private device inside the forum can complete an element of the offense there. The connection is particularly strong where the actor deliberately selects the target and alters, copies, disables, or damages a system within the state.

The location of the victim or harm requires closer analysis. Theft from a domestic account, disruption of infrastructure, or alteration of locally controlled data may constitute a direct territorial result. Economic, emotional, or reputational injury experienced by a person in the forum may instead support passive personality, effects-based jurisdiction, or a domestic civil-forum rule. Victim presence alone cannot convert every online statement or transaction into territorial conduct.

Server location is relevant to evidence and enforcement, but should not serve as a universal test. Cloud providers may divide, replicate, or move data without the user knowing where individual records are held. A server chosen deliberately to host unlawful activity offers a stronger connection than storage assigned temporarily through automated network management.

The legal significance of data location is weakened further by replication and remote access. A record may exist simultaneously in several states, while the provider capable of retrieving it is incorporated or administered elsewhere. Jurisdiction over electronic evidence increasingly turns on provider control, legal presence, and authority to compel access rather than on the physical location of individual data fragments.

Targeting offers a more reliable connection where the operator lacks a physical establishment. Relevant factors may include advertising directed at domestic users, local-language promotion, prices or payments adapted to the market, regular dealings with persons in the forum, systematic collection of their data, or deliberate attacks against domestic systems.

Mere accessibility is insufficient. A public website may be visible in almost every state without its operator directing activity toward each of them. Treating accessibility as a complete jurisdictional basis would expose nearly every online service to the simultaneous laws of every connected country.

11.2 Platform Regulation

A state may regulate a foreign platform where the service maintains a substantial connection to its territory, users, or market. That connection may arise through a local establishment, employees, a subsidiary, a legal representative, significant commercial activity, or services deliberately directed at persons within the forum.

Local establishment supplies the clearest basis. The state may impose duties on an entity operating within its territory and enforce those duties against local revenues, licenses, personnel, or property. Foreign incorporation and global infrastructure do not remove the platform’s domestic legal presence.

Physical establishment is not always required. The European Union’s Digital Services Act applies to intermediary services offered to recipients located or established within the Union, including services supplied by providers established outside it. Its design relies on a substantial connection to the Union, such as significant user numbers or activity directed toward the Union, rather than technical availability alone (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, recitals 7–8 and art. 2(1)).

The General Data Protection Regulation uses a related but distinct approach. It applies to specified processing by non-Union controllers or processors where they offer goods or services to persons in the Union or monitor their behavior there. Jurisdiction rests on the directed activity and related processing, not on the fact that a foreign website can be opened by a European user (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, art. 3(2)).

Establishing jurisdiction over the platform does not determine the lawful geographic scope of every remedy. A regulator may require protection of domestic users, removal or restriction of unlawful content within the forum, changes to locally directed advertising, or compliance with national consumer and data rules. A worldwide removal order affects users and legal interests in states that may classify the same content differently.

Google v CNIL and Glawischnig-Piesczek illustrate the distinction. In Google v CNIL, the Court of Justice held that Union law did not require de-referencing on every global version of a search service, although Union-wide measures could be necessary for effective protection (CJEU, 2019a). In Glawischnig-Piesczek, the Court found that the E-Commerce Directive did not itself prevent an order extending to identical or equivalent unlawful information, including an order with worldwide reach (CJEU, 2019b). Neither judgment establishes a general rule that global remedies always comply with public international law.

Worldwide orders may interfere with freedom of expression, privacy standards, political regulation, or judicial decisions in other states. Geographic scope should consequently be examined separately from the platform’s amenability to jurisdiction. Relevant considerations include the location of affected users, technical capacity to limit the measure, necessity, proportionality, and conflict with foreign law.

Design obligations create comparable issues. A state may regulate age assurance, recommendation systems, advertising, complaint procedures, default settings, or risk assessments for services supplied within its market. A platform may apply the change globally because operating separate systems is costly or inefficient. That private decision does not establish that the state possessed legal authority to compel worldwide implementation.

Platform regulation is strongest where it protects a substantially connected domestic market or user community. It becomes more contentious when a state uses that connection to determine the content, architecture, or data practices available to users with no meaningful relationship to the forum.

11.3 Electronic Evidence Abroad

Electronic evidence differs from conventional physical evidence because its location may be temporary, distributed, or unknown. An account may belong to a person in one state, be administered by a provider in another, and contain records replicated across several data centers.

Preservation and production orders perform separate functions. Preservation requires identified data to be retained temporarily so that they are not deleted or altered while lawful access is pursued. It does not authorize investigators to inspect or receive the material. Production compels disclosure and interferes more directly with privacy, confidentiality, and potentially the sovereign interests of another state.

Real-time interception is more intrusive than access to stored records. It collects communications or traffic information as they are generated and may subject persons abroad to continuing surveillance. Such powers require a clear legal basis, independent authorization, limited duration, necessity, proportionality, and protection for privileged or unrelated communications.

Traditional mutual legal assistance preserves territorial control. The requesting state asks the state connected to the provider or evidence to execute the measure under its own law. Local authorities can examine privacy, privilege, procedural rights, and the permissible scope of the request. The weakness is delay, particularly where records are routinely deleted or modified.

Direct orders to service providers seek to reduce that delay. Their jurisdictional basis may rest on the provider’s establishment, a designated legal representative, substantial activity within the forum, or control over the requested data. Provider control offers a more workable connection than attempting to identify the storage location of every record, but it does not eliminate the interests of the state where the provider, user, or infrastructure is located.

The European Union electronic-evidence framework creates European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders capable of being transmitted directly to providers or their designated establishments in participating member states. Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 includes rules on competent authorities, necessity, proportionality, notification, enforcement, conflicting obligations, and remedies. It will apply from 18 August 2026 (Regulation (EU) 2023/1543, arts. 4–7, 17 and 34).

A direct order may expose a provider to inconsistent legal duties. The issuing state may require disclosure, while another jurisdiction prohibits it through privacy, secrecy, national security, blocking, or professional privilege rules. An effective conflict mechanism should permit the provider and affected persons to challenge the order before penalties are imposed.

Particularity is especially important for digital evidence. Demands based on broad search terms, geographical areas, or categories of users may reveal information concerning large numbers of persons unrelated to the investigation. Account identifiers, time limits, data categories, relevance requirements, and independent review reduce the risk of generalized surveillance.

Voluntary disclosure remains legally constrained. A provider may be permitted to disclose subscriber information or emergency data without compulsion, but privacy law, contractual duties, privilege, and restrictions on governmental access may still apply. Absence of a compulsory order does not make the disclosure lawful in every connected jurisdiction.

Remote access raises a sharper sovereignty concern. Investigators who enter a foreign account or system, copy stored information, or install investigative software may exercise state power over data and infrastructure connected to another country. The fact that the officers remain physically within their own territory does not resolve the issue.

Article 32 of the Budapest Convention permits only narrow forms of transborder access without prior authorization: access to publicly available data and access with the lawful and voluntary consent of a person authorized to disclose the information. It does not establish a general right to search foreign systems remotely (Convention on Cybercrime, 2001, art. 32).

Procedural equality must accompany faster access. Prosecutors may obtain material through provider cooperation that is unavailable to the accused. Courts must examine authenticity, completeness, chain of custody, automated selection, translation, exculpatory content, and the defense’s ability to test evidence gathered under foreign procedures.

11.4 Cybercrime Cooperation

Cybercrime cooperation reconciles the speed of digital investigation with the territorial limits of enforcement. Offenders, victims, infrastructure, and evidence are often spread across several states, but globally connected networks cannot be treated as territory open to unilateral police action.

The Budapest Convention combines substantive offenses, procedural powers, jurisdictional rules, extradition, mutual assistance, and a permanent network of national contact points. Parties must establish jurisdiction over offenses committed within their territory and aboard registered ships and aircraft. The Convention also addresses nationality jurisdiction, subject to permitted reservations, and consultation where several parties claim jurisdiction (Convention on Cybercrime, 2001, art. 22).

Its procedural provisions cover expedited preservation, production orders, search and seizure of stored data, collection of traffic data, and interception of content. These powers apply not only to the offenses defined by the Convention but also to other crimes involving computer systems and electronic evidence, subject to domestic safeguards (Convention on Cybercrime, 2001, arts. 14–21).

The international cooperation regime includes preservation requests, disclosure of traffic information needed to identify providers, mutual assistance for stored data, extradition, emergency cooperation, and the 24/7 contact network (Convention on Cybercrime, 2001, arts. 24–35).

The Second Additional Protocol expands cooperation involving subscriber and domain-registration information, service providers, emergency disclosure, audiovisual testimony, and joint investigations. Its provisions are accompanied by data-protection safeguards, while its practical reach depends on ratification, implementation, and the domestic laws of participating states (Second Additional Protocol, 2022).

Faster cooperation should not weaken legal restraint. Preservation must remain temporary, emergency procedures should be confined to genuine urgency, and direct provider cooperation should not bypass privilege, judicial control, or defense rights. Uncertainty about data location makes transparent authority and effective remedies more necessary.

12. Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations

Extraterritorial human rights jurisdiction is related to, but distinct from, jurisdiction as authority to legislate, adjudicate, or enforce. The main question is whether a person or territory outside the state falls within its treaty obligations because the state exercises legally relevant control or authority.

Treaties formulate this connection differently. Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires states to secure Convention rights to everyone within their jurisdiction. Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refers to individuals within a state’s territory and subject to its jurisdiction, although the Human Rights Committee has interpreted the Covenant to protect persons within a state’s power or effective control abroad (Human Rights Committee, 2004, para. 10).

The International Court of Justice has also accepted that human rights treaties may apply outside national territory, including during occupation and foreign military control (ICJ, 2004; ICJ, 2005). Jurisdiction determines whether the treaty applies. Attribution and substantive breach remain separate questions.

12.1 Effective Control Over Territory

A state exercising effective control over foreign territory may be required to secure human rights there despite lacking a lawful title. The inquiry is factual. Formal annexation, recognition, or a declaration of occupation is unnecessary where military or governmental power gives the state practical authority over an area.

Control may arise through direct occupation, sustained military presence, territorial administration, or decisive support for a subordinate local authority. Relevant factors include troop deployment, command capacity, control over institutions, dependence of local authorities, and the practical ability to secure protected rights.

Under the European Convention, effective control creates spatial jurisdiction. The controlling state may owe obligations throughout the area rather than only toward persons encountered directly by its agents. The geographical and temporal limits must still be identified; control over one region does not establish jurisdiction across an entire foreign state.

The European Court has applied this approach to occupied territory and to areas administered by entities dependent on external military and political support. Financial assistance, diplomatic backing, or military cooperation alone is insufficient unless the relationship demonstrates decisive influence and effective authority over the territory or administration (ECtHR, 1996; ECtHR, 2004).

The International Court of Justice applied human rights obligations alongside international humanitarian law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in territory occupied by Uganda in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Armed conflict did not displace human rights law where the necessary jurisdictional connection existed (ICJ, 2004; ICJ, 2005).

Spatial jurisdiction does not make the controlling state automatically responsible for every harmful event in the area. The claimant must still establish attribution, the content of the relevant obligation, and the state’s capacity to prevent or respond to the alleged violation.

12.2 Authority Over Individuals

Human rights jurisdiction may arise through direct authority over an individual abroad without control of the surrounding territory. Arrest, detention, interrogation, physical restraint, forced transfer, and custody aboard a state vessel are the clearest examples.

A person held at an overseas military base or detained during a foreign operation remains under the power of the detaining state. Locating custody outside the national territory does not allow the state to avoid obligations concerning life, liberty, treatment, transfer, and procedural protection.

Al-Skeini confirmed that jurisdiction under the European Convention can arise through the authority and control of state agents abroad. The case concerned deaths linked to British security operations in Iraq and recognized jurisdiction where state agents exercised public powers and authority over individuals (ECtHR, 2011).

Personal control can also arise at checkpoints, during transport, aboard aircraft, or through maritime interception. Command, custody, restraint, and the power to determine the individual’s treatment carry greater weight than the formal designation of the place where the encounter occurs.

In Hirsi Jamaa, migrants intercepted on the high seas and placed aboard Italian military vessels were within Italy’s jurisdiction because Italian personnel exercised continuous and exclusive control over them until their transfer to Libya (ECtHR, 2012). The operation’s location outside Italian territorial waters did not remove that authority.

Flag-state jurisdiction reinforced the connection, but physical control was central. A person harmed by a state’s action without being detained or otherwise placed under its authority does not necessarily satisfy the same test.

The scope of the obligation may correspond to the power exercised. A state controlling detention must secure the rights connected to custody and transfer, even if it lacks the capacity to guarantee every treaty right available within its territory under full governmental administration.

12.3 Military Operations Abroad

Military operations expose the unsettled boundary between authority and harmful effects. Occupation and detention fall within established control tests. Airstrikes, artillery, missiles, and other remote attacks may injure persons whom the acting state has never detained and whose territory it does not control.

In Banković, the European Court rejected the argument that civilians affected by a NATO airstrike in Belgrade entered the respondent states’ jurisdiction solely because the attack caused harm. The decision resisted a general effects-based model under which every use of force abroad would bring those affected within Convention jurisdiction (ECtHR, 2001).

Georgia v Russia (II) also declined to find spatial jurisdiction during the active phase of the 2008 conflict. The Court considered the intense fighting and disorder incompatible with effective control during that period, while recognizing jurisdiction after active hostilities ended and territorial control became established (ECtHR, 2021).

Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia marked an important development. In 2025, the Grand Chamber accepted jurisdiction in relation to a coordinated campaign of Russian military attacks across Ukraine, emphasizing the exceptional scale, organization, continuity, and asserted authority involved (ECtHR, 2025a). The judgment cannot be reduced to a rule that any extraterritorial attack establishes jurisdiction over every person harmed.

The ruling narrows the distance between personal authority and remote military force without replacing control with simple causation. The character of the operation, the power asserted over the affected population, and the broader territorial context remain central.

The Human Rights Committee has adopted broader language concerning the right to life. General Comment No. 36 includes persons outside national territory whose enjoyment of that right is affected by a state’s military or other activities in a direct and reasonably foreseeable manner (Human Rights Committee, 2018, paras. 22 and 63).

The European Convention and the Covenant should not be presented as applying identical jurisdictional tests. European Court doctrine remains centered on territorial control, state-agent authority, and exceptional factual configurations. The Human Rights Committee’s approach to Article 6 is more receptive to direct and foreseeable extraterritorial effects.

International humanitarian law applies independently where the operation occurs during armed conflict. Failure to establish jurisdiction under a particular human rights treaty does not remove obligations concerning distinction, proportionality, precautions, detention, occupation, and humane treatment.

12.4 Migration Control Beyond the Border

Migration control increasingly occurs before a person reaches the state’s territory. Maritime interception, offshore detention, foreign processing centers, joint patrols, funding, training, and operational support allow states to influence migration routes beyond their borders.

Direct authority over migrants supplies the clearest jurisdictional basis. Persons taken aboard a state vessel, detained by its officials, guarded in a facility it controls, or transferred under its command fall within its human rights jurisdiction for the rights affected by that power.

Hirsi Jamaa established that interception on the high seas does not create a legal vacuum. Italy’s continuous control over the migrants aboard its military vessels engaged obligations concerning non-refoulement and collective expulsion (ECtHR, 2012).

Offshore detention may produce the same result where the sending state operates the facility, controls admission and release, directs personnel, or determines transfer decisions. Formal ownership of the site is less significant than actual authority over the detainees.

The position is more difficult where a state funds, equips, trains, or exchanges information with foreign authorities that carry out interception. Such support may influence the operation without giving the assisting state control over the vessel, officials, territory, or persons concerned.

In S.S. and Others v Italy (dec.), the European Court declared inadmissible a claim concerning migrants rescued by a Libyan vessel after communications involving the Rome Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre. Italian funding, technical support, and cooperation with Libya did not establish effective control over the maritime area or authority over the applicants on the facts of the case (ECtHR, 2025b).

The absence of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the European Convention does not resolve every legal issue. Refugee law, maritime rescue obligations, non-refoulement under other instruments, and rules on aid or assistance may still apply.

Operational involvement may cross the jurisdictional threshold where the assisting state selects interception targets, directs foreign units, places its agents aboard the vessel, determines the migrants’ destination, or controls detention and release. General funding, equipment, or training remains further removed from direct authority.

A state cannot avoid human rights obligations by outsourcing an operation while retaining command over the persons affected. At the same time, financial or technical influence alone does not place every migrant encountered by a partner state within the donor state’s treaty jurisdiction.

Also read

• Principles of Jurisdiction in International Law

• Enforcement Jurisdiction in International Law

• Prescriptive Jurisdiction in International Law

• Adjudicatory Jurisdiction in International Law

• Effects Doctrine in International Law

• Protective Principle in International Law

• Passive Personality Jurisdiction in International Law

13. Assessing Extraterritorial Claims

Extraterritorial claims should be examined through a sequence of legal questions rather than by asking only whether a measure operates beyond national borders. The same foreign conduct may be lawfully regulated, improperly adjudicated, and unlawfully enforced, depending on the authority exercised and the location of each state act.

A sound assessment begins by classifying the measure, identifying its jurisdictional basis, and testing the strength of the connection. It must then account for consent, immunity, individual rights, competing legal systems, and the practical means of enforcement. This method applies to criminal prosecutions, civil proceedings, sanctions, competition decisions, platform orders, corporate due diligence duties, electronic evidence demands, and extraterritorial human rights claims.

13.1 Classify the State Power Being Exercised

The first question is what the state is actually doing. A measure may prescribe legal duties, adjudicate liability, enforce an order, or combine several forms of authority. The classification matters because international law imposes different limits on each.

Prescription concerns the reach of substantive law. A statute may prohibit foreign bribery by nationals, require domestic companies to examine overseas supply chains, or apply competition rules to conduct affecting the domestic market. The relevant inquiry is whether international law permits the state to regulate the person or conduct and whether domestic legislation gives the rule the claimed geographic scope.

Adjudication concerns the authority of courts and tribunals to hear a dispute, determine liability, and issue remedies. A court may possess procedural authority over a defendant while being required to apply foreign substantive law. It may also lack authority to hear a claim even though the legislature could lawfully regulate the underlying conduct.

Enforcement concerns coercive implementation. Arrest, search, seizure, compulsory production, asset attachment, license withdrawal, and execution of judgments must be located geographically and legally. A valid prescriptive claim does not authorize officers to act inside another state. Enforcement abroad ordinarily requires consent, treaty authority, or action by the territorial state’s institutions.

Many measures are hybrid. A production order directed at a domestic service provider may be issued and enforced within the forum while requiring disclosure of data stored abroad. A sanctions rule may prescribe conduct for nationals worldwide but rely on domestic banks and assets for enforcement. A global content-removal order combines adjudicative authority over a platform with a remedy affecting users in other jurisdictions.

Hybrid measures should be divided into their constituent acts. The location and legal basis of the order, the regulated duty, the coercive response, and the foreign consequences may differ. Describing the entire measure as either territorial or extraterritorial can conceal the stage at which the legal difficulty arises.

13.2 Identify the Claimed Legal Connection

Once the state power is classified, the next task is to identify the connection offered to justify it. A policy interest is not itself a jurisdictional basis. The state must explain why the particular person, conduct, transaction, property, or effect falls within its legal authority.

Territorial connections may arise where conduct begins, continues, is implemented, or produces a constituent result inside the forum. Digital activity, financial transactions, and multinational offenses often contain several territorial elements. The analysis should identify which domestic act or result forms part of the legal violation rather than relying on incidental contact.

Effects-based jurisdiction requires a domestic consequence sufficiently connected to the foreign conduct. Competition law provides the clearest example, but similar reasoning appears in securities, environmental, digital, and economic regulation. The asserted effect must be distinguished from a remote loss, an indirect market response, or a consequence produced through several independent decisions.

Nationality may support the regulation of individuals and corporations abroad. The precise relationship must still be established. Natural-person nationality, corporate incorporation, headquarters, registration, residence, ownership, and control are not equivalent. A domestic parent’s legal duties cannot automatically be attributed to every foreign subsidiary.

Passive personality relies on the nationality of the victim. It is most persuasive where the offense is serious, and the victim’s nationality was known or relevant to the conduct. A purely incidental nationality connection may not justify an extensive assertion of authority.

The protective principle requires a direct threat to an essential governmental function. National security, official documentation, currency, diplomatic functions, and core public institutions may qualify. A general economic interest or political disagreement should not be relabeled as a protected state interest merely because the forum considers the matter important.

Universal jurisdiction requires identification of the offense and the international rule authorizing prosecution without an ordinary territorial or personal connection. The seriousness of the allegation alone is insufficient. The legal basis may arise under customary international law, a treaty regime, or domestic legislation operating within internationally accepted limits.

Treaty-based jurisdiction must be traced to the wording of the relevant instrument. Treaties may rely on territory, nationality, victim status, registration, offender presence, or non-extradition. The existence of a multilateral convention does not make every jurisdictional clause universal.

Presence may supply custody and activate a treaty obligation to investigate, prosecute, or extradite. It does not retrospectively make the foreign offense territorial. Registration of ships and aircraft provides another continuing connection, but it coexists with the authority of coastal, port, territorial, and landing states.

The claimed connection should be stated precisely. A vague reference to national interest, market impact, global responsibility, cyber risk, or corporate control cannot replace identification of the legal basis on which jurisdiction depends.

13.3 Test the Strength of the Nexus

The existence of a recognized category does not settle whether the particular connection is strong enough. Jurisdictional principles can be expanded until their limiting function disappears. The quality of the nexus must be assessed through the facts of the case.

A substantial connection links the forum to an important element of the conduct, offender, victim, market, or protected interest. A central payment authorization differs from the automatic passage of funds through a correspondent account. Deliberate targeting of domestic infrastructure differs from data temporarily routed through a server in the forum.

Foreseeability asks whether the person could reasonably anticipate the forum’s regulatory interest. A national acting abroad can normally expect some continuing exposure to national law. A company deliberately entering a market can anticipate compliance with its core regulatory rules. A foreign actor whose only contact is an unknown technical route has a weaker claim to notice.

Causation and directness are particularly important where jurisdiction rests on effects. The more independent decisions separating the foreign conduct from the domestic consequence, the weaker the nexus becomes. A material domestic effect should arise from the conduct regulated rather than from a speculative chain of commercial or social reactions.

The connection must also relate to the purpose of the law. A domestic securities transaction may justify disclosure and market-integrity rules, but it does not necessarily support regulation of every foreign activity of the issuer. A local subsidiary may justify obligations concerning its operations without establishing authority over the entire multinational group.

Nominal contacts deserve little weight. A letterbox company, a momentary digital connection, a minor transaction, or a deliberately manufactured forum link should not support regulation of conduct otherwise centered abroad. Courts and regulators should examine substance rather than treating any formal contact as sufficient.

In regulatory regimes that assess several connecting factors, a combination of meaningful contacts may establish a substantial relationship even where no single factor is decisive. Domestic users, targeted advertising, local revenue, a representative, and systematic data collection may collectively support jurisdiction over a foreign platform. Several nominal or incidental contacts, however, cannot be aggregated into a sufficient jurisdictional nexus.

The scope of the measure should correspond to the connection relied upon. A state with jurisdiction over domestic market effects may regulate those effects without necessarily acquiring authority to restructure foreign markets. A state protecting local users may impose localized platform duties without automatically obtaining a right to dictate worldwide content standards.

13.4 Check Consent, Immunity, and Individual Rights

A sufficient jurisdictional nexus does not remove independent legal barriers. Consent, treaty allocation, immunity, legality, privacy, and fair-process guarantees may restrict or prevent the exercise of otherwise valid authority.

Consent is central where officials seek to act abroad. It may be given through a treaty, an ad hoc authorization, a joint investigative arrangement, or execution of a foreign request by local authorities. Its scope and source must be established. General cooperation does not authorize every arrest, search, surveillance operation, or data-access measure.

Treaties may allocate jurisdiction, require consultation, impose procedural conditions, or restrict available remedies. A treaty obligation to establish jurisdiction does not necessarily require immediate prosecution. A jurisdiction clause must be read alongside provisions on extradition, evidence, immunity, human rights, and dispute settlement.

State and official immunity must be addressed separately from jurisdiction over the conduct. A court may possess authority over the alleged act yet be unable to proceed against a foreign state, a serving senior official, an official acting in a protected capacity, or property used for sovereign functions.

Immunity from adjudication does not automatically determine immunity from enforcement. Foreign state property may receive stronger protection against attachment than the state receives against suit. Courts must identify the owner, use, and legal status of the particular asset rather than treating all property associated with a foreign government alike.

The principle of legality requires a clear offense and jurisdictional rule in force when the conduct occurred. Retrospective legislation, unforeseeable statutory interpretation, and analogy cannot be justified by the transnational character or seriousness of the allegation.

Fair-process requirements include notice, representation, interpretation, disclosure, access to evidence, equality of arms, and an effective opportunity to challenge foreign material. Cross-border investigations should not permit prosecutors to obtain evidence through state cooperation while leaving the defense without a realistic means of testing or obtaining comparable information.

Privacy and data-protection rules may constrain digital investigations even where a provider is subject to the forum’s jurisdiction. Direct production orders, bulk demands, interception, and remote access require attention to necessity, particularity, proportionality, privilege, and conflicting foreign duties.

A jurisdictional claim may consequently be valid at the level of state competence but unlawful in its execution. The state must satisfy both sets of rules.

13.5 Evaluate Conflict and Enforcement

The final stage examines how the measure can be implemented and how it interacts with other legal systems. Jurisdiction existing in principle may be difficult or impossible to exercise lawfully without foreign cooperation.

The location of suspects determines the available custody options. A person abroad may need to be extradited, surrendered, deported through lawful procedures, or prosecuted by another competent state. Abduction cannot be justified by the strength of the underlying jurisdictional claim.

Evidence may require mutual legal assistance, direct provider cooperation, joint investigation, or voluntary disclosure. The appropriate mechanism depends on the type of information, its location, the provider’s control, foreign restrictions, urgency, and the degree of compulsion involved.

Property and accounts require separate analysis. A court may enter a judgment without possessing assets against which it can be enforced. Property located abroad generally requires recognition and execution through the territorial state. Domestic assets may be subject to enforcement, but immunity, ownership, and conflicting-law issues may limit attachment.

The position of regulated companies can create indirect enforcement power. A state may impose penalties on a domestic parent, threaten a license, deny market access, or order a local bank to block a transaction. These measures are enforced territorially but may produce substantial foreign consequences. The territorial location of the sanction does not remove the need for a valid prescriptive nexus.

Competing jurisdictional claims should then be compared. Relevant considerations include the place of the main conduct, nationality of the accused and victims, location of harm, custody, evidence, progress of existing proceedings, treaty obligations, and capacity to provide a fair and effective remedy.

The existence of several valid claims does not require every state to proceed. Consultation, transfer of proceedings, coordinated investigations, sequencing of cases, recognition of prior penalties, and narrowing of remedies may reduce conflict. Some forms of restraint are legally required by treaty; others arise under domestic doctrine, comity, prosecutorial policy, or practical necessity.

Conflicting legal duties deserve particular attention. A disclosure order may violate foreign secrecy law. Compliance with one sanctions system may breach another state’s blocking statute. A global content order may prohibit expression protected elsewhere. The issuing state should consider whether the measure can be localized, narrowed, licensed, delayed, or executed through cooperation.

The final assessment should identify not only whether the forum has jurisdiction, but what it may lawfully do with that jurisdiction. A broad legal entitlement exercised through a restrained remedy may be more defensible than a narrow connection used to justify worldwide control.

Conclusion

Extraterritorial jurisdiction is not governed by a single rule permitting or prohibiting state authority beyond national borders. Its legality depends on the form of power exercised, the connection between the forum and the regulated matter, the applicable treaty framework, and the method through which the measure is implemented.

Territorial sovereignty remains the starting point, but modern conduct rarely fits within one legal system. Transactions, communications, corporate groups, digital networks, security threats, international crimes, and human rights operations may connect several states at once. International law consequently permits overlapping jurisdiction in many circumstances while imposing its strongest territorial restraint on coercive enforcement.

The accepted jurisdictional bases do not operate as interchangeable labels. Territorial conduct, nationality, victim nationality, domestic effects, protected governmental interests, universal concern, offender presence, registration, and treaty authority differ in legal strength and purpose. Each claim requires a genuine connection to the conduct or person regulated.

A valid nexus is only part of the inquiry. Consent, immunity, legality, privacy, fair-trial guarantees, non-refoulement, and other procedural protections remain independently applicable. The gravity of an allegation cannot authorize foreign enforcement, remove an official immunity, cure retroactive criminal liability, or justify defective proceedings.

The growth of economic and digital regulation has also blurred the line between territorial enforcement and foreign regulatory impact. States can influence conduct abroad through market access, corporate duties, financial infrastructure, data control, and technology licensing without placing officials in another country. These mechanisms may remain territorial at the point of enforcement while creating effects comparable to direct regulation abroad.

The central task is not to choose between unrestricted extraterritorial power and rigid territorial isolation. It is to distinguish regulation supported by a substantial legal connection from claims based on nominal contacts, economic leverage, technical accessibility, or an undefined national interest. Lawful jurisdiction must remain connected to the forum’s legitimate authority, limited by the rights of affected persons, and exercised with regard to the equal sovereignty of other states.

Recommended Book

Readers seeking a deeper doctrinal foundation should continue with International Law Book Review: Is Malcolm Shaw Worth Buying?. Shaw’s textbook places extraterritorial jurisdiction within the broader law of sovereignty, nationality, immunity, enforcement, treaties, and state responsibility, making it especially useful for understanding how jurisdictional rules interact across different fields of public international law.

References

1. Colangelo, A.J. (2014) ‘What is extraterritorial jurisdiction?’, Cornell Law Review, 99(6), pp. 1303–1352.

2. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987, 1465 UNTS 85.

3. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) (1950) signed 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953, ETS No. 5.

4. Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at Their Common Borders (1990) signed 19 June 1990, OJ L 239, 22 September 2000, pp. 19–62.

5. Convention on Cybercrime (2001) opened for signature 23 November 2001, entered into force 1 July 2004, ETS No. 185.

6. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) adopted 9 December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951, 78 UNTS 277.

7. Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (1965) concluded 15 November 1965, entered into force 10 February 1969, 658 UNTS 163.

8. Court of Justice of the European Union (1988) A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Wood Pulp), Joined Cases 89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85, 117/85 and 125/85–129/85, judgment, 27 September, ECLI:EU:C:1988:447.

9. Court of Justice of the European Union (2006) Criminal Proceedings against Leopold Henri Van Esbroeck, Case C-436/04, judgment, 9 March, ECLI:EU:C:2006:165.

10. Court of Justice of the European Union (2017) Intel Corporation Inc. v European Commission, Case C-413/14 P, judgment, 6 September, ECLI:EU:C:2017:632.

11. Court of Justice of the European Union (2019a) Google LLC v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL), Case C-507/17, judgment, 24 September, ECLI:EU:C:2019:772.

12. Court of Justice of the European Union (2019b) Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland Limited, Case C-18/18, judgment, 3 October, ECLI:EU:C:2019:821.

13. Crawford, J. (2019) Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. 9th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14. Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and Amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859 (2024) adopted 13 June 2024, OJ L, 2024/1760, 5 July 2024.

15. Directive (EU) 2025/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directives (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as Regards the Dates from Which Member States Are to Apply Certain Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Due Diligence Requirements (2025) adopted 14 April 2025, OJ L, 2025/794, 16 April 2025.

16. Directive (EU) 2026/470 of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directives 2006/43/EC, 2013/34/EU, (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as Regards Certain Corporate Sustainability Reporting Requirements and Certain Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Requirements (2026) adopted 24 February 2026, OJ L, 2026/470, 26 February 2026.

17. European Court of Human Rights (1989) Soering v United Kingdom, Application no. 14038/88, judgment, 7 July, Series A No. 161.

18. European Court of Human Rights (1996) Loizidou v Turkey (Merits), Application no. 15318/89, judgment, 18 December, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI.

19. European Court of Human Rights (2001) Banković and Others v Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], Application no. 52207/99, decision, 12 December, ECHR 2001-XII.

20. European Court of Human Rights (2004) Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia [GC], Application no. 48787/99, judgment, 8 July, ECHR 2004-VII.

21. European Court of Human Rights (2011) Al-Skeini and Others v United Kingdom [GC], Application no. 55721/07, judgment, 7 July, ECHR 2011.

22. European Court of Human Rights (2012) Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy [GC], Application no. 27765/09, judgment, 23 February, ECHR 2012.

23. European Court of Human Rights (2021) Georgia v Russia (II) [GC], Application no. 38263/08, judgment, 21 January.

24. European Court of Human Rights (2025a) Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia [GC], Applications nos. 8019/16, 43800/14, 28525/20 and 11055/22, judgment, 9 July [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-244292 (Accessed: 8 July 2026).

25. European Court of Human Rights (2025b) S.S. and Others v Italy (dec.), Application no. 21660/18, decision, 20 May [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-244024 (Accessed: 8 July 2026).

26. Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1949) adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950, 75 UNTS 31, 85, 135 and 287.

27. House of Lords (1994) R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Bennett, judgment, 24 June 1993, [1994] 1 AC 42.

28. House of Lords (1999) R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3), judgment, 24 March, [1999] UKHL 17; [2000] 1 AC 147.

29. Human Rights Committee (2004) General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, 26 May.

30. Human Rights Committee (2007) General Comment No. 32: Article 14: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial, CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August.

31. Human Rights Committee (2018) General Comment No. 36: Article 6: Right to Life, CCPR/C/GC/36, 30 October.

32. International Court of Justice (1970) Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Second Phase, judgment, 5 February, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 3.

33. International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, judgment, 27 June, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.

34. International Court of Justice (2002) Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), judgment, 14 February, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 3.

35. International Court of Justice (2004) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, advisory opinion, 9 July, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 136.

36. International Court of Justice (2005) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda), judgment, 19 December, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 168.

37. International Court of Justice (2012a) Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), judgment, 3 February, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 99.

38. International Court of Justice (2012b) Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal), judgment, 20 July, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 422.

39. International Law Commission, Drafting Committee (2026) Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction: Texts and Titles of the Draft Articles Adopted by the Drafting Committee on Second Reading, A/CN.4/L.1034, 12 May [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/docs/?symbol=A/CN.4/L.1034 (Accessed: 10 July 2026).

40. Kamminga, M.T. (2020) ‘Extraterritoriality’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [online]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1040 (Accessed: 10 July 2026).

41. Mann, F.A. (1984) ‘The doctrine of international jurisdiction revisited after twenty years’, Recueil des cours de l’Académie de droit international de La Haye, 186, pp. 9–116.

42. O’Keefe, R. (2004) ‘Universal jurisdiction: Clarifying the basic concept’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2(3), pp. 735–760.

43. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1997) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, adopted 21 November 1997, entered into force 15 February 1999.

44. Permanent Court of Arbitration (1928) Island of Palmas (Netherlands/United States of America), award, 4 April, 2 RIAA 829.

45. Permanent Court of International Justice (1927) The Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey), judgment, 7 September, PCIJ Series A No. 10.

46. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation) (2016) adopted 27 April 2016, OJ L 119, 4 May 2016, pp. 1–88.

47. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act) (2022) adopted 19 October 2022, OJ L 277, 27 October 2022, pp. 1–102.

48. Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders for Electronic Evidence in Criminal Proceedings and for the Execution of Custodial Sentences Following Criminal Proceedings (2023) adopted 12 July 2023, OJ L 191, 28 July 2023, pp. 118–180.

49. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002, 2187 UNTS 90.

50. Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on Enhanced Co-operation and Disclosure of Electronic Evidence (2022) opened for signature 12 May 2022, CETS No. 224.

51. United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations, signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.

52. United Nations (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171.

53. United Nations (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994, 1833 UNTS 3.

54. United Nations (2003) United Nations Convention against Corruption, adopted 31 October 2003, entered into force 14 December 2005, 2349 UNTS 41.

55. United Nations (2004) United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 59/38, 2 December, UN Doc. A/RES/59/38, Annex.

56. United Nations Security Council (1960) Resolution 138: Question Relating to the Case of Adolf Eichmann, S/RES/138 (1960), 23 June.

57. United States Supreme Court (1992) United States v Alvarez-Machain, judgment, 15 June, 504 U.S. 655.

58. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331.