Prescriptive Jurisdiction in International Law

Introduction

Prescriptive jurisdiction is the authority of a state, under international law, to make its laws applicable to persons, conduct, property, legal relationships, or events. It defines the permissible reach of national regulation, including rules applied to conduct outside the state’s territory. The doctrine becomes most significant when more than one state can claim a connection to the same activity, such as a cross-border transaction, an offence committed abroad, a multinational corporate decision, or conduct carried out through digital infrastructure located in several countries.

Prescriptive authority must be distinguished from adjudicative and enforcement jurisdiction. Adjudicative jurisdiction concerns the competence of courts or tribunals to hear a dispute. Enforcement jurisdiction concerns coercive acts such as arrest, search, seizure, detention, or compulsory investigation. A state may lawfully apply its legislation to foreign conduct while remaining unable to enforce that legislation within another state without consent or a separate legal basis. The distinction is central to disputes involving extraterritorial criminal law, universal jurisdiction, taxation, sanctions, and regulatory proceedings (O’Keefe, 2004).

Territoriality remains the most widely accepted basis of prescription, but territorial links are often divided across jurisdictions. Conduct may begin in one state, be directed through servers or corporate entities in another, and cause legally relevant effects elsewhere. Nationality, passive personality, the protective principle, and universal jurisdiction provide additional grounds in defined circumstances. Treaties may also require states to criminalize particular conduct and establish jurisdiction over it, especially in relation to terrorism, torture, corruption, trafficking, and other transnational offences.

The SS Lotus judgment remains a reference point because the Permanent Court of International Justice rejected a general rule prohibiting states from applying their laws to foreign conduct in the absence of a specific restriction (PCIJ, 1927). That proposition has never produced complete agreement. Contemporary analysis usually asks whether a recognized connection exists, whether a treaty authorizes or requires regulation, and whether the assertion conflicts with sovereign equality, non-intervention, human rights, foreseeability, or the principle of legality. Lotus offers firmer guidance on enforcement, since coercive acts within foreign territory ordinarily require the territorial state’s consent.

The practical difficulty lies less in identifying a single permissible basis than in managing overlapping claims. Competition law, securities regulation, taxation, export controls, data protection, corporate due diligence, cybercrime, and environmental regulation regularly engage several states at once. International law does not supply a general rule assigning priority among all valid claims. The analysis must identify the domestic rule, the asserted jurisdictional connection, the international source supporting it, any applicable limitation, and the consequences imposed on other states and regulated persons. Prescriptive jurisdiction thus operates as a framework for testing the legal reach of national law within an international order of concurrent sovereign authority.

1. Prescriptive Jurisdiction as Lawmaking Authority

Prescriptive jurisdiction identifies the circumstances in which a state may make its law applicable to a person, act, transaction, status, property interest, or legal relationship. Its function is to allocate regulatory competence among states that remain legally equal but frequently have connections to the same activity. The relevant question is not where a statute was enacted or where the regulating authority is located. It is whether international law permits the state to attach its legal rules to the matter concerned.

This inquiry must be distinguished from the domestic validity of the rule. A statute may have full effect within the constitutional order of the enacting state while exceeding the authority that international law recognizes. The reverse is also possible: international law may permit regulation on a particular jurisdictional basis, but the state may not have enacted the legislation required to exercise that authority. International law defines the external limits of state competence; domestic law determines which national institutions possess that competence and how they may use it.

The term “lawmaking authority” should not be understood as referring only to legislation adopted by a parliament. Prescription is functional. It occurs whenever a state organ determines that a domestic legal rule governs specified conduct, persons, property, or relationships. Legislatures perform that function directly, but executive agencies, administrative regulators, and courts may also define or extend the substantive and geographical scope of national law. The identity of the institution does not settle the jurisdictional classification of its act.

Prescriptive authority also differs from a claim to territorial control. A state may regulate conduct occurring outside its borders without asserting sovereignty over the foreign territory where the conduct occurred. Nationality-based criminal legislation, taxation of certain foreign income, and regulation of overseas conduct by corporations incorporated in the regulating state are familiar examples. Their legality depends on the jurisdictional connection and any applicable international restriction, rather than the physical location of the institution that adopted the rule.

1.1 Prescription, Adjudication, and Enforcement

The conventional division between prescriptive, adjudicative, and enforcement jurisdiction separates three forms of state authority. Prescription concerns the applicability of the law. Adjudication concerns the competence of a court or tribunal to determine legal claims. Enforcement concerns the use of public power to compel compliance. The distinction is necessary because international law does not impose identical conditions on each form of authority (O’Keefe, 2004; Ryngaert, 2015).

Prescriptive jurisdiction is exercised when a state declares that its criminal law applies to an offence committed abroad, that its tax rules cover specified foreign income, or that its competition law governs an arrangement formed outside the country but connected with its market. At this stage, the state is defining the substantive reach of its legal order. No court proceeding, arrest, seizure, or other coercive act is required for an exercise of prescription to occur.

Adjudicative jurisdiction concerns the legal competence of a judicial or quasi-judicial body to hear and decide a case. It includes questions of personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, admissibility, and procedural authority. A court may possess jurisdiction over the defendant while the substantive law invoked does not lawfully govern the underlying conduct. Conversely, a state may possess a valid basis for making its law applicable even though its courts cannot hear the dispute because the defendant is absent, immune, or beyond the forum’s procedural reach.

The separation is particularly significant where a court applies international law rather than domestic conduct-regulating law. Entertaining a claim concerning foreign events does not always amount to prescribing national rules for those events. The applicable norm may derive from a treaty, customary international law, or foreign law selected by the forum’s conflict rules. Treating every judicial decision concerning foreign conduct as an exercise of prescriptive jurisdiction obscures the source of the substantive rule and the precise authority exercised by the court (Colangelo, 2013).

Enforcement jurisdiction is more closely tied to territorial sovereignty. Arrest, detention, search, seizure, compulsory questioning, physical inspection, and confiscation involve the exercise of coercive governmental power. International law ordinarily prohibits a state from carrying out such acts within another state’s territory without consent or a separate legal authorization. A state’s authority to regulate an individual’s conduct abroad does not give its police officers authority to enter the foreign state and arrest that person.

Consider a state that criminalizes bribery committed abroad by its nationals. Nationality may provide a basis for making the prohibition applicable. If the suspect later enters the regulating state, domestic authorities may be able to arrest and prosecute that person. They may not send officers into the territorial state to execute a search or detention without its consent. Evidence gathering, extradition, transfer of proceedings, and service of process must instead operate through cooperation agreements, mutual legal assistance, or procedures accepted by the territorial state.

The three categories are analytically distinct, but the acts of state institutions do not always fall neatly into a single box. A judicial ruling may interpret an offence broadly enough to determine the law’s prescriptive reach. An administrative penalty may combine adjudication with enforcement. A freezing order may declare legal consequences and restrain the use of property. Classification should depend on the legal effect of the act, not the formal title of the institution responsible for it.

This functional approach also prevents the strict territorial rule governing enforcement from being transferred automatically to prescription. Extraterritorial enforcement generally requires a specific legal basis because it intrudes directly upon another state’s territorial authority. Prescriptive jurisdiction has developed through a wider range of territorial, personal, protective, and universal connections. Applying the enforcement rule to lawmaking would incorrectly suggest that national law can never regulate conduct abroad without the territorial state’s permission.

1.2 Forms and Objects of Prescription

Primary legislation is the most visible form of prescription. Criminal codes define offences and specify when they apply outside the state. Tax statutes identify the persons and income subject to national taxation. Competition, securities, environmental, and data protection legislation may extend to foreign conduct that has defined domestic connections or consequences. These rules are prescribed because they identify the facts, persons, or relationships governed by national law.

Delegated legislation and administrative regulation can exercise the same authority. A legislature may authorize a ministry or regulatory agency to establish reporting obligations, licensing conditions, technical standards, export controls, financial restrictions, or corporate compliance duties. When those measures apply to foreign entities, overseas transactions, or conduct carried out abroad, they raise questions of prescriptive jurisdiction even though they were not enacted directly by the legislature.

Executive measures may also be prescribed. Economic sanctions, asset restrictions, trade controls, immigration rules, and emergency regulations can determine which conduct is prohibited and which transactions carry legal consequences. An executive order directed at dealings with designated foreign persons, for example, defines the reach of national law before any agency seeks to investigate or penalize a violation. Its international legality cannot be assessed solely by calling the measure executive rather than legislative.

Courts contribute to prescription when they interpret the geographical, personal, or material scope of legal rules. A statute may be silent or ambiguous about foreign conduct. By deciding that the rule covers overseas corporate conduct, foreign transactions, or acts producing domestic effects, a court helps determine the range of conduct governed by the forum’s law. Judicial interpretation may remain constrained by the statutory text, but its prescriptive effect is real where it fixes the substantive reach of the rule.

The objects of prescription extend beyond conduct. States regulate personal status, nationality, marriage, parentage, inheritance, corporate existence, ownership, contractual relations, and property interests. A nationality law determines who belongs to the state. A corporation's statute establishes the legal personality and internal governance of entities formed under national law. Property legislation may regulate rights in ships, aircraft, securities, or intangible assets associated with a national registry. These exercises of authority concern legal status or relationships rather than a discrete physical act.

Criminal jurisdiction receives extensive attention because it exposes individuals to prosecution and punishment, but prescriptive jurisdiction is equally relevant to civil, commercial, fiscal, and administrative regulation. Taxation may attach to residence, nationality, income source, or business activity. Competition law may address agreements concluded abroad. Financial regulation may apply to securities offered across borders. Environmental law may regulate activities within national control that risk causing transboundary harm. Digital services regulation may rely on the location of users, data subjects, establishments, infrastructure, or targeted markets.

Prescriptive jurisdiction should also be kept separate from private international law, although the two fields overlap. Public international law asks whether a state is entitled to make its law applicable. Conflict-of-laws rules determine which law a domestic court will apply to a dispute involving more than one legal system. A court’s selection of foreign law does not amount to an exercise of foreign sovereign power by the forum state. Likewise, a domestic choice-of-law rule cannot conclusively determine whether the forum’s own legislature acted within the limits imposed by international law.

2. Sovereignty and the Legal Basis of Prescription

Jurisdiction gives legal form to state sovereignty. Within its territory, a state ordinarily possesses comprehensive authority to regulate persons, property, institutions, and events. Territorial competence is not the whole doctrine, however. Nationality, security interests, foreign effects, treaty obligations, and certain internationally protected interests may support regulation beyond national borders.

Sovereignty does not operate in isolation. Article 2(1) of the UN Charter affirms the sovereign equality of states, which means that each state’s authority exists alongside the corresponding authority of every other state (United Nations, 1945). A broad jurisdictional claim may affect conduct occurring within another state, alter the decisions of foreign corporations, or impose obligations that conflict with foreign law. The law of jurisdiction must account for the regulating state’s connection while preserving the legal independence of other states.

Sovereign equality does not establish a simple rule against extraterritorial legislation. Such a rule would be inconsistent with the long-standing acceptance of nationality jurisdiction, objective territoriality, the protective principle, and treaty-based criminal jurisdiction. Nor does every foreign objection establish that a regulatory claim is unlawful. The legal issue is whether the assertion rests on an accepted basis and complies with any applicable customary, treaty-based, or peremptory limitation.

Non-intervention may become relevant where regulation is directed coercively at matters reserved to another state, but it is not a general substitute for the law of jurisdiction. The prohibition of intervention has its own requirements, including coercion and interference in a field in which the affected state is legally free to decide. A jurisdictional claim may be excessive or unsupported without satisfying those requirements. Precision requires identifying the particular rule allegedly breached rather than invoking sovereignty as an undefined objection.

2.1 The Continuing Debate over Lotus

The SS Lotus case arose from a collision on the high seas in 1926 between the French vessel Lotus and the Turkish vessel Boz-Kourt. Eight Turkish nationals died. When the Lotus later entered Constantinople, Turkish authorities instituted criminal proceedings against Lieutenant Demons, the French officer on watch at the time of the collision. France argued that Türkiye could not prosecute him without an international rule granting jurisdiction over the foreign conduct.

The Permanent Court of International Justice rejected France’s approach. It reasoned that international law governs relations between independent states and that restrictions upon their independence could not be presumed. The decisive question was whether international law prohibited Türkiye from instituting the proceedings, not whether a rule expressly authorized them. Finding no applicable prohibition, the Court concluded that Türkiye had not acted unlawfully (PCIJ, 1927).

This reasoning supports a permissive account of prescriptive jurisdiction. On that view, states retain freedom to regulate foreign conduct unless a treaty or customary rule removes that freedom. Recognized jurisdictional principles do not constitute a closed list of permissions. They describe the grounds most consistently accepted in practice and may help determine when regulation is lawful, but the absence of a conventional category does not by itself establish a prohibition.

A different approach treats territoriality, nationality, passive personality, protection, and universality as legal bases that must justify an extraterritorial claim. Jurisdiction is then understood as competence conferred or recognized by international law rather than residual freedom limited only by prohibitions. This interpretation places greater weight on sovereign equality, foreseeability, the principle of legality, and the need to prevent states from projecting their regulatory preferences on weak or remote connections (Mills, 2014; Trapp, 2019).

The disagreement should not be reduced to a choice between unlimited freedom and a rigid catalogue of jurisdictional grounds. Even under the permissive reading, treaty rules, customary prohibitions, human rights obligations, immunities, non-intervention, and specialized regulatory regimes can restrict prescription. Under the nexus-based reading, the accepted grounds are themselves capable of development as state practice changes. Both positions require evidence concerning the content of the applicable law.

Lotus is clearer on territorial enforcement. The Court stated that international law generally prohibits a state from exercising its power in the territory of another state without a permissive rule. This proposition reflects the exclusivity of territorial sovereignty and remains more widely accepted than the judgment’s broader language concerning prescription. The decision did not authorize Turkish officials to act within French territory; it addressed proceedings conducted by Turkish institutions after the accused had entered Türkiye.

Later treaty law also prevents the Lotus from being treated as a permanent rule for every maritime collision. Article 97 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea limits penal or disciplinary proceedings arising from a collision or other navigational incident on the high seas to the authorities of the flag state or the state of nationality of the person concerned (United Nations, 1982). This treaty rule replaces the permissive position between its parties for the circumstances it covers. It does not settle the general theory of prescription outside that specialized regime.

Lotus retains importance because international law still lacks a comprehensive convention governing all forms of state jurisdiction. Its language captures one conception of a decentralized legal order based on sovereign freedom. Yet the judgment cannot answer every modern dispute concerning digital regulation, corporate groups, economic sanctions, transnational crime, or global markets. Those questions require examination of subsequent custom, treaty obligations, field-specific practice, and the particular connection claimed by the regulating state.

2.2 Custom, Treaties, and Jurisdictional Entitlements

The legal bases and limits of prescriptive jurisdiction derive from the recognized sources of international law. Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice identifies treaties, customary international law, and general principles of law, with judicial decisions and scholarly writings serving as subsidiary means for determining legal rules (United Nations, 1945). Jurisdictional law remains dispersed across these sources rather than codified in a single universal instrument.

Custom is especially important because the principal jurisdictional bases developed through state practice. Relevant practice includes legislation asserting or limiting extraterritorial authority, criminal prosecutions, administrative action, national judgments, official legal opinions, diplomatic correspondence, treaty negotiations, and responses to foreign claims. A consistent pattern of legislation may support a customary rule, but legislation alone is not conclusive. States may act from policy preference, constitutional authority, convenience, or comity without claiming that international law authorizes or requires the same conduct.

Opinio juris is often difficult to identify. A government may refrain from asserting jurisdiction because prosecution is impractical, evidence is unavailable, or diplomatic costs are high. Such restraint does not necessarily establish a belief that international law forbids the claim. Conversely, a broad statute may remain unenforced and unchallenged for years, providing weak evidence of acceptance. The weight of practice depends on how states explain their conduct and how other states respond.

Diplomatic protest is particularly relevant where one state challenges another’s extraterritorial regulation. A protest may show that the affected state rejects the asserted entitlement, especially when it identifies a specific international rule and is followed by consistent opposition. Silence may support acquiescence only when the state knew of the claim, had a direct interest in contesting it, and could reasonably have been expected to respond. Routine silence cannot be treated automatically as acceptance.

Treaties perform several jurisdictional functions. Some require states to establish prescriptive jurisdiction. Article 5 of the Convention against Torture obliges each party to establish jurisdiction over torture committed in territory under its jurisdiction, aboard its registered ships or aircraft, or by its nationals. It also requires jurisdiction where an alleged offender is present, and the state does not extradite that person, while allowing the victim's nationality to serve as an additional basis where the state considers it appropriate (United Nations, 1984).

Comparable provisions appear in conventions addressing aircraft offences, hostage-taking, attacks against internationally protected persons, terrorist bombings, financing of terrorism, and other transnational crimes. Such treaties seek to prevent jurisdictional gaps by requiring parties to criminalize conduct and establish specified grounds of competence. The resulting authority is treaty-based. Its existence does not prove that every required ground already forms part of customary international law.

Other agreements restrict or allocate jurisdiction. Article 97 of the Law of the Sea Convention narrows the states entitled to institute penal or disciplinary proceedings after high-seas collisions. Status-of-forces agreements may divide criminal jurisdiction between sending and receiving states. Tax treaties allocate taxing rights and reduce double taxation. Specialized regulatory agreements may establish flag-state, coastal-state, territorial, nationality, or institutional competence. These rules displace more general principles between the parties for the matters they govern.

Treaties may also coordinate jurisdiction without granting exclusive authority. Mutual legal assistance agreements, extradition treaties, competition cooperation arrangements, and information-sharing regimes enable states to act on concurrent claims while reducing duplication or conflict. Cooperation does not eliminate the need for a prescriptive basis. It supplies procedures through which lawfully asserted authority can be investigated, adjudicated, or enforced.

A treaty binds its parties and cannot, by itself, create obligations for third states without their consent. Its jurisdictional provisions may still contribute to customary law if they are widely accepted, reflected in consistent practice, and accompanied by opinio juris. Repetition across many treaties can be significant, but numerical frequency is insufficient. States may accept a jurisdictional clause as a negotiated obligation while denying that general international law independently requires or permits the same rule.

International and domestic judicial decisions help clarify these sources but do not replace them. International judgments on prescriptive jurisdiction are relatively limited and often tied to specific treaties or facts. National courts generate a larger body of practice, although their reasoning may rely on domestic statutory interpretation, constitutional doctrine, or private international law rather than public international law. A judgment is most probative when it expressly addresses the international legality of the jurisdictional claim.

The legal basis of prescription must consequently be identified with care. A state may rely on a customary jurisdictional principle, a treaty entitlement, a treaty obligation, or a special allocation rule. It may also act within a space that international law has not clearly prohibited, invoking the permissive logic associated with Lotus. These positions are not interchangeable. The source determines which states are bound, what connection is required, whether jurisdiction is optional or mandatory, and which competing claims remain available.

3. Territorial Connections

Territoriality is the most firmly established basis of prescriptive jurisdiction. A state ordinarily possesses authority to regulate conduct, persons, property, and legal relationships located within its territory because territorial sovereignty gives it primary responsibility for maintaining public order there. The territorial principle applies across criminal, civil, administrative, fiscal, and regulatory law, although its precise operation depends on the subject being regulated.

Territorial jurisdiction is often described as straightforward, but many activities cannot be assigned to a single physical location. A contract may be negotiated, executed, performed, and breached in different states. A corporation may be incorporated in one country, directed from another, and sell products through subsidiaries operating elsewhere. Electronic communications can pass through infrastructure in several jurisdictions without the participants knowing the route taken. A harmful act may occur abroad while its legally relevant result appears within the regulating state.

These conditions have not displaced territoriality. They have made the identification of territory more dependent on the elements of the legal rule being applied. The relevant location may be where the conduct occurred, where a transaction was implemented, where the property was situated, where a regulated service was supplied, or where a result necessary to complete an offence arose. International law does not require every part of an activity to occur within the state before territorial jurisdiction becomes available.

Territoriality can also coexist with other jurisdictional bases. Conduct within a state may involve a foreign national, affect victims abroad, threaten another government, or produce consequences in several markets. Each state may rely on a different connection to regulate the same event. Territorial jurisdiction usually carries considerable weight because of the regulating state’s proximity to the conduct and evidence, but international law does not establish an automatic priority rule in every case.

Ships and aircraft require separate treatment. They are sometimes described as extensions of the flag or registration state’s territory, but that metaphor is legally imprecise. A ship has the nationality of the state whose flag it is entitled to fly, and an aircraft has the nationality of the state in which it is registered. Flags and registration create specific jurisdictional relationships; they do not convert a vessel or aircraft into sovereign territory in the full legal sense (United Nations, 1982; ICAO, 1944).

3.1 Conduct, Events, and Results Within the Territory

Subjective territoriality permits a state to regulate conduct initiated, undertaken, or partly performed within its territory, even when the activity is completed elsewhere. The principle may apply where a person sends fraudulent communications abroad, directs a cyber intrusion against a foreign system, arranges an unlawful export, or participates domestically in a conspiracy carried out across borders. The territorial connection lies in the conduct forming part of the prohibited activity.

The doctrine does not usually require the entire offence or transaction to occur within the state. A meaningful constituent act may be sufficient, particularly where the domestic conduct forms part of a coordinated course of action. The existence of a minor or accidental physical contact with the territory is more difficult to defend. Routing an electronic message automatically through a server, for example, may provide a technical connection without establishing that the regulated conduct was meaningfully performed there.

Objective territoriality applies where conduct begins outside the state but is completed within it, or where a result constituting an element of the legal wrong occurs there. A foreign actor who sends a prohibited substance into the state, causes property to be damaged there, or completes a fraudulent transaction through the domestic receipt of funds may fall within this principle. The domestic result must ordinarily be part of the offence or regulated activity, rather than a remote consequence experienced later.

The distinction between subjective and objective territoriality is clearest in criminal law. An offence may contain conduct, circumstance, and result elements situated in different states. A cross-border fraud can involve misrepresentations made abroad, reliance by a victim within the regulating state, and the transfer of money through a third jurisdiction. Each state containing a constituent element may claim territorial authority, subject to the wording of the applicable offence and any specialized international rule.

The same reasoning operates outside criminal law. A securities offering may be designed abroad but directed to investors within a domestic market. A foreign company may agree elsewhere and implement it through sales or distribution inside the regulating state. Environmental harm may result from conduct on one side of a border while damaging land, water, or health on the other. Territoriality can attach to the domestic component without requiring the state to characterize the entire activity as local.

Digital conduct makes the analysis more difficult because data, users, equipment, and corporate decision-making may be geographically separated. The location of a server may be relevant when the rule protects stored data or regulates infrastructure, but it should not control every question involving online activity. The residence of users, the market deliberately targeted, the place where a service is supplied, and the location of the legally relevant harm may provide stronger connections. A single universal test would disregard the different purposes of criminal, commercial, privacy, and communications law.

Objective territoriality must also remain distinct from jurisdiction based solely on effects. Under objective territoriality, an element necessary to complete the prohibited conduct or legal wrong occurs within the state. The effects doctrine becomes relevant where all constituent conduct and elements remain abroad, but the activity produces consequences within the regulating state. The difference is narrow in some cases, yet it affects the strength and characterization of the asserted jurisdictional basis (O’Keefe, 2004).

The fragmentation of conduct across borders frequently produces concurrent territorial claims. International law does not assign the entire matter exclusively to the state in which the first act, final act, or greatest harm occurred. Treaty regimes may establish more precise rules, and states may coordinate investigations or proceedings. Outside such arrangements, each claim must be assessed according to the part of the conduct, event, or result situated within the regulating state.

3.2 The Effects Doctrine

The effects doctrine permits a state to regulate conduct occurring outside its territory because that conduct produces consequences within the state. It extends beyond objective territoriality where no constituent element of the regulated act takes place domestically. The asserted connection consists of the domestic effect itself, which must be sufficiently significant to justify the application of national law.

The doctrine developed most visibly in competition law. Agreements between foreign companies, mergers involving foreign undertakings, or exclusionary practices carried out abroad may alter prices, output, market access, or competitive conditions within the regulating state. Requiring the conduct itself to occur domestically would allow firms to avoid regulation by organizing anticompetitive arrangements offshore while directing their consequences toward the protected market.

The existence of some domestic consequence cannot be enough. Almost any major commercial decision can generate indirect effects in multiple economies through supply chains, investment flows, exchange rates, or consumer behavior. An effects-based claim is more defensible when the consequences are substantial, foreseeable, and closely connected to the conduct. The Court of Justice of the European Union has used a “qualified effects” test requiring foreseeable, immediate, and substantial effects when assessing the international reach of EU competition law. That formulation illustrates a limiting approach, but it is not a universal codification of customary international law (Court of Justice of the European Union, 2017).

Foreseeability asks whether the domestic consequence could reasonably have been anticipated when the conduct occurred. Substantiality excludes effects that are trivial or economically insignificant. Immediacy addresses the causal distance between the conduct and the asserted domestic impact. These requirements reduce the risk that states will rely on speculative chains of consequence to regulate activities centered in another jurisdiction.

Competition law provides the clearest example, but effects reasoning also appears in securities and financial regulation. A state may regulate a foreign securities scheme directed at its investors or a foreign transaction that materially affects its regulated market. Such claims often rely on several connections at once, including domestic offers, investor location, use of market infrastructure, or intentional access to the financial system. Describing every such rule as a pure effects claim can conceal stronger territorial or market-participation links.

Economic sanctions raise similar classification problems. A sanctions measure may apply because a transaction involves nationals, companies incorporated in the regulating state, property subject to domestic control, or payments processed through its financial institutions. The economic consequence of foreign conduct may be relevant, but effects alone do not explain the full jurisdictional claim. The applicable basis must be identified from the persons, assets, transactions, and infrastructure actually covered by the measure.

Digital regulation increasingly relies on the location of users, targeted markets, and monitored behavior. Article 3 of the General Data Protection Regulation, for example, reaches some processing by entities outside the European Union where it relates to offering goods or services to persons in the Union or monitoring their behavior there. The rule does not depend merely on any effect within Europe. It requires a defined relationship between the processing activity and persons or conduct located in the regulated area (European Union, 2016).

This distinction is significant. A foreign website may be technically accessible within a state without directing services toward that state or producing a substantial regulatory effect there. Treating accessibility as sufficient would expose nearly every online service to the law of every connected jurisdiction. Targeting user location, commercial orientation, language, currency, delivery options, and behavioral monitoring may help establish a more concrete link, depending on the regulatory regime.

The effects doctrine is also invoked where foreign activity threatens environmental, public health, or financial interests within the state. Transboundary pollution can cause physical harm across a border, while foreign market manipulation can destabilize domestic financial conditions. Some cases may fit objective territoriality because the harm completes the legal wrong domestically. Others rely more directly on the effects principle. The classification should follow the elements and purpose of the rule rather than the label preferred by the regulating authority.

A credible effects claim requires more than a governmental declaration that foreign conduct affects national interests. The state should identify the domestic consequence, demonstrate a sufficiently close causal connection, and explain why the effect falls within the purpose of the legislation. A remote loss, generalized economic concern, or strategic assertion of regulatory influence supplies a weaker basis. Broad effects claims can provoke overlapping duties, blocking legislation, diplomatic protests, and disputes over sovereign equality.

The doctrine remains valuable because territorial borders cannot insulate states from conduct deliberately organized abroad but directed toward their markets, institutions, or residents. Its legitimacy depends on disciplined use. Substantial and foreseeable domestic consequences can support a prescription; incidental contact or diffuse global impact should not become a pretext for unlimited regulatory reach.

4. Personal and Protective Connections

Territory is not the only legally relevant relationship between a state and foreign conduct. Nationality links the state to the person or entity acting abroad. Passive personality focuses on the nationality of the victim. The protective principle addresses threats to essential governmental interests. These bases become especially important when no constituent conduct occurs within the regulating state.

The three principles protect different relationships and should not be merged. Nationality jurisdiction rests on membership in the state’s legal community. Passive personality rests on the state’s connection to the injured person. Protective jurisdiction rests on the nature and target of the threat. A single event may satisfy more than one basis, but each requires its own legal justification.

Personal and protective claims also raise concerns about foreseeability. A person acting entirely abroad may face legal consequences under a law that differs from the law of the territorial state. The legitimacy of the claim is stronger when the connection existed at the time of the conduct and could reasonably have been known. Later presence in the regulating state does not retroactively transform foreign conduct into territorial conduct, nor should a later-acquired nationality ordinarily create a jurisdictional nexus that was absent when the act occurred (O’Keefe, 2004).

4.1 Nationality and Corporate Affiliation

The active nationality principle permits a state to regulate the conduct of its nationals outside its territory. It is one of the least disputed bases of extraterritorial prescriptive jurisdiction. Nationality creates a continuing legal relationship through which the state grants rights, imposes duties, and may require compliance with certain laws even while the individual is abroad.

States use nationality jurisdiction in different ways. Some criminal laws apply broadly to offences committed abroad by nationals, while others limit extraterritorial application to specified crimes or require dual criminality. Taxation, military service, anti-corruption duties, export controls, and restrictions concerning armed groups or sexual offences abroad may also rely on nationality. International law generally permits such regulation, but it does not require every state to exercise the authority available to it.

Dual nationality does not ordinarily prevent either state of nationality from prescribing rules for the individual. Each state possesses its own legal connection. Questions governing diplomatic protection between states should not be transferred automatically to prescriptive jurisdiction. The Nottebohm judgment concerned the opposability of nationality for diplomatic protection in unusual circumstances; it did not create a general rule that every exercise of nationality-based legislative jurisdiction requires proof of a dominant or “genuine” social connection (ICJ, 1955).

The nationality nexus should ordinarily exist when the relevant conduct occurs. If a person acquires nationality only afterward, applying criminal legislation retroactively on that basis can undermine foreseeability and the principle of legality. The position may differ where the conduct was already criminal under international law or another valid basis of jurisdiction existed, but later naturalization alone should not be treated casually as a substitute for a contemporaneous connection.

Corporate nationality is less uniform. States commonly rely on incorporation, registered office, statutory seat, principal place of business, or a combination of these factors. International law does not prescribe one universal test for every regulatory purpose. A company may be incorporated in one state, managed in another, and conduct most of its business elsewhere. The applicable criterion often depends on the field of law and the domestic rule being applied.

The Barcelona Traction judgment treated incorporation and registered office as central connections for diplomatic protection of a corporation (ICJ, 1970). That holding should not be converted into a complete code of corporate prescriptive jurisdiction. States may regulate companies incorporated under their law, entities headquartered or managed within their territory, and corporate conduct connected to their markets. The legal basis and limits may differ according to taxation, competition, securities, environmental, or corporate governance law.

Corporate groups present a further difficulty because subsidiaries possess separate legal personality. A parent company’s nationality does not automatically make every foreign subsidiary a national of the parent’s state. A state may impose duties on a domestic parent concerning group-wide risk management, reporting, due diligence, or control, but that approach regulates the parent’s own conduct or obligations. Directly treating the foreign subsidiary as a domestic national requires a separate legal basis and may generate conflict with the law of the place of incorporation.

Control can still be relevant. A state may regulate decisions made by a parent company within its territory, benefits received by the corporate group, or conduct directed through entities under effective control. Yet corporate ownership should not become an unlimited mechanism for extending domestic law through every tier of a multinational enterprise. The rule must specify whose conduct is regulated, which relationship establishes jurisdiction, and whether the obligation is imposed on the parent, subsidiary, or both.

Residence and domicile are distinct from nationality. They may support taxation, family law, civil jurisdiction, social regulation, and, in some systems, criminal jurisdiction over residents abroad. Their acceptance and scope vary across legal fields. Presence is weaker still as a basis for prescription: the fact that an alleged offender later enters a state may permit arrest or trigger a treaty obligation to prosecute or extradite, but presence alone does not make earlier foreign conduct territorial.

Economic participation is also not identical to nationality. A foreign corporation that enters a domestic market may become subject to rules governing that activity because of territorial conduct, targeted services, market effects, licensing, or consent to regulatory conditions. Calling the corporation a functional national would obscure the actual jurisdictional connection. Accurate classification is particularly important where different legal limits apply to nationality and market-based regulation.

Ships and aircraft possess nationality through registration. Under Article 91 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, ships have the nationality of the state whose flag they are entitled to fly. Article 17 of the Chicago Convention provides that aircraft have the nationality of the state in which they are registered (United Nations, 1982; ICAO, 1944). These rules support flag-state and registration-state authority over vessels and aircraft operating outside national territory, subject to the specialized regimes governing the sea and international aviation.

Nationality jurisdiction remains important because nationals, corporations, ships, and aircraft can operate beyond territorial borders while maintaining an enduring legal connection to a state. Its application becomes less convincing when nationality is asserted through artificial, retrospective, or remote affiliations. The analysis must identify the relevant legal person and the precise relationship on which the state relies.

4.2 Passive Personality

Passive personality permits a state to prescribe criminal law for offences committed abroad against its nationals. The offender may be a foreign national, the conduct may occur entirely outside the regulating state, and no domestic territorial effect may be required. The jurisdictional connection lies in the nationality of the victim.

The principle was historically controversial because it allowed the victim’s national law to follow foreign offenders into another state’s territory. Critics argued that a person could not reasonably be expected to know the criminal laws of every possible victim’s country. It also appeared to weaken the territorial state’s primary authority over conduct occurring within its borders.

State practice has changed, particularly in relation to terrorism and serious transnational violence. In their joint separate opinion in Arrest Warrant, Judges Higgins, Kooijmans, and Buergenthal observed that passive personality had entered the legislation of numerous states and encountered relatively little opposition for certain categories of offences. That statement was not part of the Court’s majority holding, but it remains influential evidence of the doctrine’s increased acceptance (ICJ, 2002).

Multilateral criminal conventions also recognize victim nationality as a jurisdictional connection. The Convention against Torture allows a state party to establish jurisdiction where the victim is its national if the state considers it appropriate. Counterterrorism conventions contain comparable provisions concerning offences against nationals or specified state interests (United Nations, 1984). These clauses support the legitimacy of passive personality within their fields without proving that every victim-based assertion is permissible for every offence.

The modern acceptance of passive personality is strongest for serious offences whose transnational character makes exclusive reliance on territorial prosecution inadequate. Hostage-taking, terrorist attacks, attacks on civil aviation, torture, and violence deliberately directed at nationals abroad provide recurring examples. The principle is more difficult to defend when extended to minor offences or conduct whose criminality differs sharply between the territorial state and the victim’s state.

The victim’s nationality should exist when the offence occurs. Allowing a later change of nationality to create jurisdiction retrospectively would deprive the offender of any possibility of anticipating the applicable legal connection. The same concern arises when legislation defines victim status broadly to include residents, corporate affiliates, or persons with remote family links. Those categories may support other jurisdictional arguments, but they should not be presented as nationality without qualification.

A passive personality can expose one to several legal systems. An attack involving victims of multiple nationalities may generate jurisdictional claims by the territorial state, the offender’s state, each victim’s state, and any state relying on a treaty-based presence rule. International law contains no general rule giving the victim’s state priority. Prosecutorial coordination, extradition, transfer of proceedings, evidentiary access, and the interests of justice become necessary to manage concurrent authority.

Foreseeability remains a legitimate constraint, but it should not be overstated. Conduct such as murder, hostage-taking, or bombing is criminal across legal systems, making the possibility of prosecution by another connected state less surprising. The concern is greater where offences depend on distinctive domestic policies, speech restrictions, morality rules, or regulatory standards. A broad victim-based claim in such fields can project national preferences into conduct centered elsewhere.

Passive personality must also be distinguished from universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction does not depend on the nationality of the offender or victim. A passive personality always requires a particular personal connection to the injured individual. Describing victim-based prosecution as universal jurisdiction conceals the actual basis of the claim and confuses the rules governing each doctrine.

The principle now forms a recognized part of jurisdictional practice, but its strongest applications remain tied to serious offences and a clear contemporaneous nationality link. It should not become a general authority to regulate any foreign conduct that adversely affects a national.

4.3 The Protective Principle

The protective principle permits a state to regulate foreign conduct by nonnationals when that conduct threatens the state’s security, territorial integrity, constitutional order, currency, public institutions, or other essential governmental functions. Unlike territoriality, the principle does not require conduct or a constitutive result within the state. Unlike passive personality, it protects the state as an institution rather than an individual victim.

Classical applications include espionage, counterfeiting national currency, falsification of official documents, attacks intended to overthrow the government, and conspiracies directed against state security. These offences are aimed at the functioning or independence of the regulating state, even when prepared and carried out abroad. Territorial jurisdiction alone may be inadequate because the targeted state may suffer the principal institutional threat without containing any part of the conduct.

The principle does not cover every foreign act that affects governmental policy. States routinely experience economic competition, political criticism, migration pressures, market losses, and diplomatic opposition. Treating such effects as threats to essential interests would remove any meaningful limit from protective jurisdiction. The protected interest must be sufficiently fundamental, and the conduct must be directed against or seriously endanger that interest.

Immigration control illustrates the difficulty. A state may invoke protection to regulate foreign conduct designed to defeat border controls, forge immigration documents, smuggle persons, or organize unlawful entry. Some of these offences also contain territorial elements or fall under treaty regimes concerning trafficking and migrant smuggling. The protective principle becomes more controversial when used against conduct abroad that merely facilitates migration without threatening national security or a core governmental function.

Economic security presents a similar risk of expansion. Counterfeiting currency has long been associated with protective jurisdiction because it attacks the integrity of a basic state institution. Ordinary commercial harm, reduced tax revenue, or competitive disadvantage is different. Those concerns may support territorial, effects-based, nationality, or treaty-based regulation, but they do not automatically qualify as threats to the state itself.

Cyber operations can fall within the protective principle when directed against government networks, electoral systems, military infrastructure, central banking functions, or other critical institutions. An ordinary cyber offence affecting a private company does not become a protective-principle case merely because digital security is a national concern. The analysis must identify the governmental interest targeted and the seriousness of the threat.

The principle may apply even when the conduct is not criminal under the law of the place where it occurred, particularly where that state tolerates or sponsors activity directed against the prescribing state. Such an application remains subject to legality, clarity, foreseeability, immunities, and other human rights obligations. A vague statute criminalizing conduct “against national interests” would not gain legitimacy merely by being labeled protective.

Protective jurisdiction must also be separated from the effects doctrine. Effects jurisdiction focuses on consequences arising within the state, commonly in markets or regulated sectors. Protective jurisdiction focuses on a threat to essential state functions and may apply before the threatened harm materializes. A planned attack on a government institution can support protective jurisdiction even if it is intercepted abroad and causes no completed domestic effect.

The principle is accepted in general form, but its outer boundaries remain uncertain. Its strongest applications involve conduct widely understood as directed against the security or institutional integrity of the prescribing state. Its weakest applications rely on broad assertions of economic welfare, political convenience, or administrative preference. Restricting the doctrine to serious and identifiable threats preserves its protective function without converting it into a general justification for foreign regulation.

5. Universal and Treaty-Based Jurisdiction

Universal jurisdiction differs from territorial, personal, and protective jurisdiction because it does not depend on a direct connection between the offense and the prescribing state. Its asserted legal basis lies in the character of the prohibited conduct and the interest of the international community in its repression. Seriousness alone is not enough, however. An offense attracts universal jurisdiction only where customary international law or an applicable treaty supports that consequence.

The expression is often used too broadly. National proceedings concerning an international crime may rest on the offender’s nationality, the victim’s nationality, territorial effects, the suspect’s presence, or a treaty obligation. The international character of the offense does not make the jurisdiction universal when one of those connections supplies the actual legal basis. Accurate classification requires examining the jurisdictional rule enacted and the facts that activate it.

Universal jurisdiction must also be separated from the substantive source of the offense. Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, and piracy are prohibited by international law, but the existence of an international prohibition does not automatically establish the authority of every state to prosecute every alleged violation. The substantive norm identifies the prohibited conduct. A jurisdictional rule identifies the states entitled or required to apply criminal law to it.

A further distinction concerns prescription and exercise. A state may enact legislation authorizing universal jurisdiction while making investigation or prosecution conditional on the suspect’s presence, authorization by a prosecutor, the absence of proceedings elsewhere, or another procedural requirement. Those conditions regulate when national institutions may act. They do not necessarily alter the underlying basis on which the offense was brought within the state’s criminal law.

5.1 Universal Jurisdiction under General International Law

Universal jurisdiction, in its strict form, permits a state to prescribe criminal law for an offense committed abroad by a foreign national against foreign victims, without requiring injury to the state’s security or another conventional nexus. The state acts because international law recognizes the offense as one for which jurisdiction is not reserved exclusively to territorially or personally connected states.

Piracy provides the clearest example. The historical rule developed because piracy was committed on the high seas, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any state, and threatened navigation shared by all. Articles 100 and 105 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea require cooperation in suppressing piracy and permit every state, on the high seas or another place outside state jurisdiction, to seize pirate ships, arrest persons on board, and determine penalties through its courts (United Nations, 1982). The regime combines universal prescriptive authority with carefully delimited enforcement powers outside the territory of other states.

Piracy also demonstrates why universal jurisdiction cannot be detached from the definition of the offense. UNCLOS limits piracy to specified illegal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft and directed against another ship, aircraft, persons, or property in a place outside state jurisdiction. Violence within territorial waters, politically motivated maritime attacks, and offenses confined to a single vessel may fall under other legal regimes rather than piracy jurisdiction.

The position of genocide is less straightforward. The prohibition of genocide has a peremptory character, and the crime affects the interests of the international community as a whole. Article VI of the Genocide Convention, however, provides for trial by a competent tribunal of the territorial state or an international penal tribunal accepted by the relevant parties. It does not itself confer universal jurisdiction on national courts, and the drafting history indicates that a proposal for such jurisdiction was not adopted (United Nations, 1948). Any broader national authority must consequently rest on customary law, another jurisdictional basis, or domestic legislation compatible with international law.

State practice supports universal jurisdiction over genocide in a number of legal systems, but the practice is not uniform in its conditions. Some states require the accused to be present. Others require prosecutorial authorization, residence, a connection to the forum, or proof that no other state is conducting a genuine investigation. These differences do not disprove the existence of every customary entitlement, but they make it difficult to claim that international law recognizes one unrestricted model of universal jurisdiction over genocide.

War crimes require differentiation between grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Each Convention requires states parties to enact legislation providing effective penal sanctions for grave breaches, search for alleged offenders, and bring them before their courts or hand them over for trial. The obligation applies regardless of the offender’s nationality and has long been treated as a treaty-based system of universal jurisdiction (Geneva Conventions, 1949).

The jurisdictional position of war crimes outside the grave-breaches regime is broader in modern state practice than it was when the Geneva Conventions were adopted. National legislation, military manuals, prosecutions, and international instruments support jurisdiction over many war crimes committed in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Disagreement remains over the precise customary scope, the necessity of presence, and the extent to which proceedings may begin before the suspect enters the forum state.

Crimes against humanity present a similar evidentiary problem. Their prohibition and individual criminality under customary international law are established, but the scope of universal national jurisdiction is not defined by a single generally applicable treaty regime comparable to the grave-breaches provisions. Domestic laws increasingly authorize prosecution without a territorial or nationality nexus, yet practice differs regarding presence, subsidiarity, immunities, prosecutorial discretion, and the temporal reach of national legislation.

Torture is frequently described as subject to universal jurisdiction, but that proposition must be stated with precision. The Convention against Torture requires states parties to establish jurisdiction where torture occurs in territory under their jurisdiction, where the alleged offender is their national, and, if considered appropriate, where the victim is their national. It also requires a state to establish jurisdiction where an alleged offender is present in territory under its jurisdiction and the state does not extradite that person (United Nations, 1984).

The final ground is sometimes called conditional universal jurisdiction because it does not require a territorial, nationality, or protective connection to the original offense. It does require the alleged offender’s presence. The treaty does not establish an unrestricted authority to prosecute absent foreign suspects throughout the world. Nor does the peremptory status of the prohibition of torture, by itself, answer every question concerning national jurisdiction, procedure, or immunity.

The International Court of Justice has not issued a general ruling approving or rejecting universal jurisdiction in absentia. In Arrest Warrant, the Democratic Republic of the Congo initially challenged Belgium’s universal jurisdiction but later confined its final submissions to the immunity of its incumbent foreign minister. The Court decided the immunity issue and did not determine the legality of Belgium’s jurisdictional basis. Several separate and dissenting opinions addressed universal jurisdiction, but they did not constitute the Court’s holding (ICJ, 2002).

The case nonetheless clarified that jurisdiction and immunity are different questions. A state may possess jurisdiction over an offense while being temporarily barred from exercising it against an official who enjoys immunity ratione personae. Immunity does not legalize the underlying conduct or extinguish criminal responsibility. It restricts proceedings before particular national courts while the immunity applies. Questions concerning former officials, official-act immunity, treaty exceptions, and international tribunals require separate analysis.

Presence must also be kept distinct from the legal basis of prescription. If national law authorizes jurisdiction solely because an alleged offender is found within the state under a treaty clause, presence forms part of the jurisdictional entitlement. If national law already prescribes universally but postpones trial until the accused is present, presence is a procedural condition. The same fact can perform different legal functions under different statutes and treaties.

Prosecution is another separate stage. International law may permit a state to establish universal jurisdiction without requiring it to prosecute every case. Domestic authorities may consider evidence, limitation periods, fair-trial guarantees, immunities, competing proceedings, and the availability of an appropriate forum. A treaty may convert permission into an obligation, but the content of that obligation must be derived from the treaty rather than from the label “universal jurisdiction.”

Enforcement remains subject to territorial limits. Universal prescriptive jurisdiction does not authorize police officers to enter another state, seize evidence, arrest suspects, or compel witnesses without consent. Extradition, mutual legal assistance, evidence-sharing, and transfer arrangements remain necessary. The international interest in repressing serious crimes does not erase the territorial sovereignty of states where suspects and evidence are located.

Universal jurisdiction is consequently neither a single procedure nor an automatic consequence of classifying conduct as an international crime. Its legal scope differs by offense, source, and treaty regime. Piracy represents the clearest customary model. Grave breaches and torture are governed by strong treaty obligations. The customary reach of national jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and the wider category of war crimes continues to require careful assessment of legislation, prosecutions, official positions, and international judicial practice.

5.2 Treaty Duties to Establish Jurisdiction

Criminal suppression treaties frequently require states to regulate conduct that may have little connection with their territory at the time it occurs. These agreements respond to offenses whose transnational character creates opportunities for offenders to escape prosecution by crossing borders or exploiting differences between national laws. Their jurisdictional provisions distribute responsibility among states parties and reduce the likelihood of a safe haven.

Three legal steps should be distinguished. First, a treaty may require each state party to criminalize defined conduct in its domestic law. Second, it may require the state to establish jurisdiction on specified grounds. Third, it may impose duties concerning investigation, extradition, or submission of a case for prosecution when an alleged offender is present. A state does not fulfill all three duties merely by enacting an offense.

Mandatory jurisdictional grounds commonly include territory, ships or aircraft registered in the state, and the nationality of the alleged offender. Some conventions allow or encourage jurisdiction based on the victim’s nationality, habitual residence, attacks against state facilities abroad, or attempts to compel governmental action. The precise combination reflects the offense addressed and the negotiated choices of the parties.

A further provision often requires jurisdiction when an alleged offender is present and the state does not extradite that person. This structure appears in the Convention against Torture and numerous conventions addressing terrorism and other transnational offenses. It closes a jurisdictional gap that could otherwise arise when the territorial or nationality state cannot obtain custody of the suspect.

The formula aut dedere aut judicare is commonly translated as “extradite or prosecute,” but the treaty language often requires the custodial state to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Submission does not predetermine the outcome. Prosecutors may assess the evidence according to the same standards applied to comparable serious domestic offenses. The state must create a genuine legal route to prosecution rather than guarantee a charge or conviction.

In Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, the International Court of Justice interpreted the Convention against Torture as requiring the territorial state to make the necessary preliminary inquiry and, if it did not extradite the alleged offender, submit the case to its competent authorities for prosecution. The Court treated the duties to establish jurisdiction, investigate, and submit the case as distinct obligations that had to be performed within the treaty framework (ICJ, 2012).

The obligation is not identical in every treaty. Some instruments give extradition and prosecution equal status. Others prioritize prosecution, require cooperation with an international tribunal, or permit surrender to a competent foreign or international court. The phrase aut dedere aut judicare should not conceal differences in wording, conditions, evidentiary thresholds, and available destinations for transfer.

The International Law Commission’s work on the obligation to extradite or prosecute documented its extensive treaty use but did not establish a general customary duty requiring every state to prosecute or extradite suspects for every serious international crime. The existence and content of the obligation ordinarily depend on the treaty applicable to the offense and the states concerned (International Law Commission, 2014).

Treaty-based jurisdiction must also be distinguished from customary universal jurisdiction. A convention may require its parties to exercise presence-based jurisdiction even where general international law would merely permit, or might not independently recognize, the same claim. The treaty entitlement exists within the legal relations of the parties. It cannot automatically be asserted against a nonparty or converted into a universal customary rule.

Repeated jurisdictional clauses across many conventions may contribute to the formation or evidence of customary law, but repetition is not conclusive. States may accept broad jurisdiction as part of a reciprocal treaty bargain while withholding the view that all states possess the same authority outside the treaty. Custom requires sufficiently general practice accompanied by acceptance of that practice as law.

The opposite error is also possible. A treaty may codify or supplement an authority already recognized by customary international law. The piracy provisions of UNCLOS largely reflect an older customary regime. Grave-breaches clauses created specific duties that operate alongside wider developments in war-crimes jurisdiction. Determining the source remains necessary because custom and treaty law may differ in parties, conditions, remedies, and temporal application.

Treaty duties do not remove procedural and human rights constraints. Extradition may be prohibited where the requested person faces torture, a flagrantly unfair trial, persecution, or another legally recognized risk. Immunities may restrict proceedings against certain officials. Evidence obtained abroad must satisfy applicable standards. Limitation periods, legality, and non-retroactivity may also affect prosecution, subject to the relevant international rules.

International tribunals add another layer but should not be treated as exercises of national universal jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and other international criminal tribunals derives from their constitutive instruments, Security Council authority where applicable, and state consent or other recognized legal bases. Their institutional competence is legally distinct from a national court’s authority to prosecute foreign crimes.

Treaty-based jurisdiction is best analyzed through the text of the particular instrument. The offense must be identified, the parties determined, the mandatory and optional grounds separated, and the role of presence established. Only then can the duty to criminalize, the authority to prescribe, and the obligation to extradite or submit the case be stated accurately.

6. Concurrent Claims and Jurisdictional Restraint

Transnational conduct often engages several states at the same time. One state may contain part of the conduct, another may experience the result, a third may be the offender’s state of nationality, and additional states may have links to victims, corporate entities, financial infrastructure, or threatened institutions. Each claim can be legally plausible even though the combined regulatory burden is severe.

Concurrent jurisdiction is not an exceptional defect in the international system. It follows from the fact that territorial, personal, protective, effects-based, universal, and treaty-created grounds protect different relationships. International law generally recognizes these grounds without assigning each transnational event to a single sovereign.

No comprehensive international rule establishes a fixed hierarchy among valid claims. Territorial jurisdiction often has practical advantages because evidence, witnesses, victims, and the accused may be located in the territorial state. Nationality may offer a stronger basis where the territorial state cannot act. A treaty may give priority to custody or require consultation. These considerations do not amount to a universal rule that one basis always defeats the others.

The absence of a hierarchy does not leave states without constraints. Particular treaties may allocate authority, customary rules may prohibit specific assertions, human rights may limit enforcement, and principles of sovereign equality or non-intervention may become relevant. States also use comity, prosecutorial discretion, cooperation, and negotiated arrangements to reduce conflict between claims that remain legally available.

6.1 Overlap Without a General Priority Rule

A cross-border cyberattack illustrates how jurisdictional grounds accumulate. The operator may act in one state, possess the nationality of another, target servers in a third, steal data concerning residents of several others, and threaten a government institution elsewhere. Territoriality, objective territoriality, nationality, passive personality, effects, and the protective principle may all be invoked by different states.

Corporate regulation produces a similar overlap. A company may be incorporated in one jurisdiction, managed in another, operate through foreign subsidiaries, process data in several locations, and sell into numerous markets. States may regulate different parts of the same corporate activity through company law, taxation, competition law, securities rules, data protection, environmental duties, and supply-chain obligations.

Overlap does not necessarily create legal incompatibility. Several states may prohibit the same bribery scheme, terrorist offense, cartel, or fraudulent transaction. A corporation may comply with multiple reporting standards, and different states may investigate the same conduct. The duplication may be costly, but simultaneous regulation is not unlawful merely because more than one state acts.

Direct conflict arises when compliance with one legal order entails violation of another. One state may require disclosure of records that another state requires the holder to keep confidential. Sanctions may prohibit a payment that foreign law or a judgment requires. Data-transfer rules may mandate localization, while another regulator demands access to the same information abroad. Export controls and blocking legislation can impose opposite commands on a single company.

A distinction should also be drawn between contradictory legal duties and competing policy expectations. Two states may apply different standards without making simultaneous compliance impossible. A company can sometimes satisfy the stricter standard, restructure its operations, or segregate activities by market. Such burdens may justify coordination, but they do not constitute a direct legal conflict.

Negative jurisdictional conflict occurs where no state acts because each assumes another forum is responsible or because domestic legislation does not cover the conduct. Suppression treaties attempt to reduce this risk by requiring multiple jurisdictional grounds and presence-based duties. Positive conflict occurs where several states seek to investigate, prosecute, tax, penalize, or regulate the same activity.

Criminal proceedings reveal the limits of concurrency most sharply. Several states may seek the extradition of the same suspect. The custodial state may consider territorial links, nationality, victim interests, the location of evidence, the sequence of requests, the gravity of charges, fair-trial concerns, and the prospect of effective prosecution. Extradition treaties sometimes identify relevant criteria but rarely create a universal order of priority.

International law does not contain a comprehensive transnational rule of ne bis in idem preventing different states from prosecuting the same person for the same conduct. Human rights instruments and regional legal systems provide protections within their fields, and treaties may require credit for penalties already served or consultation between authorities. Outside those regimes, a prior foreign judgment does not invariably bar a second state from exercising its own jurisdiction.

Parallel regulatory proceedings may also produce cumulative penalties. Competition authorities, financial regulators, tax administrations, and data-protection bodies can address different legal injuries arising from the same facts. The possibility of cumulative sanctions raises questions of fairness and proportionality, but it does not establish that only one regulator possesses prescriptive authority.

Jurisdictional claims must consequently be evaluated individually before their interaction is assessed. A strong claim by one state does not automatically invalidate another state’s claim. The legal analysis should identify each basis, determine whether the relevant source permits or requires it, and then ask whether a specific allocation rule or prohibition limits concurrent exercise.

6.2 Reasonableness, Proportionality, and Genuine Connection

Reasonableness is frequently proposed as a means of limiting extraterritorial jurisdiction. A reasonableness inquiry may consider the strength of the regulating state’s connection, the foreseeability of regulation, the interests of other states, the likelihood of conflict, the importance of the regulated activity, and the availability of another effective forum. Its attraction lies in its flexibility, but that flexibility also makes its legal status uncertain.

Some domestic legal systems and scholarly restatements have treated reasonableness as a requirement of jurisdiction or as a basis for judicial restraint. State practice has not established a single customary test that all states accept as legally binding across criminal, fiscal, economic, environmental, and digital regulation. Reasonableness is better understood cautiously unless a treaty, specialized regime, or established rule gives it a defined legal function (Mills, 2014; Ryngaert, 2015).

Proportionality can address the relationship between a regulatory measure and the legitimate interest asserted by the state. A rule reaching foreign conduct may be considered excessive where its scope extends far beyond the domestic interest, imposes unnecessary burdens, or disregards less intrusive alternatives. Proportionality has clear legal force in some human rights, regional, and treaty regimes, but it has not become a uniform jurisdictional formula governing every assertion of prescriptive authority.

The idea of a genuine connection performs a related function. Territorial conduct, nationality, targeted market participation, substantial domestic effects, and threats to essential state institutions can each provide a meaningful link. A purely technical, accidental, retrospective, or strategically manufactured contact is less persuasive. Yet international law has not converted “genuine connection” into a precise, free-standing test applicable identically to all fields.

The Nottebohm judgment is sometimes invoked to support a universal genuine-link requirement, but that case concerned the opposability of nationality for diplomatic protection in exceptional circumstances (ICJ, 1955). It does not establish that nationality-based prescription always requires proof of social attachment beyond formal nationality, nor does it provide a general test for corporate, territorial, or effects-based jurisdiction.

Foreseeability is especially relevant where regulation carries criminal penalties or severe administrative consequences. The principle of legality requires offenses and penalties to be sufficiently accessible and predictable. A person should be able to understand, within reasonable limits, which conduct exposes them to liability. Foreseeability does not require knowledge of every foreign statute, but remote or obscure jurisdictional connections weaken the legitimacy of punitive regulation.

In civil and economic regulation, foreseeability may arise through deliberate market entry, targeted services, contractual relationships, use of regulated infrastructure, or control over an affiliated entity. A corporation that intentionally serves a national market can more readily anticipate compliance obligations than one whose only connection is an automatic internet transmission or an indirect economic consequence.

Abuse of rights is sometimes invoked where a state relies formally on a jurisdictional entitlement for an improper purpose or exercises it in a manifestly excessive manner. The doctrine is recognized in international legal reasoning but remains difficult to apply. Establishing an abuse generally requires more than showing that another state disagrees with the regulation or suffers adverse consequences. The asserted right, improper use, and resulting injury must be identified with precision.

Non-intervention supplies a legal limit only under its own conditions. Extraterritorial regulation may influence decisions within another state without constituting prohibited intervention. The rule becomes relevant where coercion is directed at another state’s choice in an area that international law leaves for that state to decide. Regulatory pressure on private persons, economic effects, or policy disagreement does not automatically satisfy that standard.

Sovereign equality also resists use as an undefined balancing clause. It explains why one state cannot claim general superiority over another and why territorial enforcement remains restricted. It does not prohibit every law affecting foreign conduct. A claim of breach must be tied to a more specific jurisdictional restriction, treaty rule, immunity, non-intervention obligation, or other applicable norm.

The legal analysis should keep the three questions apart. The first is whether a recognized basis or treaty entitlement supports prescription. The second is whether a prohibitive rule limits that authority. The third is whether the state should decline or narrow an otherwise lawful exercise because of conflict, fairness, or institutional competence. Reasonableness and proportionality may influence all three questions in particular regimes, but they should not be used to blur the difference between illegality and restraint.

6.3 Comity and Regulatory Coordination

Comity describes respect or deference shown by one state to the laws, interests, institutions, or decisions of another without treating that deference as a mandatory rule of international law. It allows a legislature, regulator, prosecutor, or court to moderate the exercise of jurisdiction even where an international legal basis exists.

A decision based on comity does not concede that the original jurisdictional claim was invalid. A court may interpret legislation narrowly, stay proceedings, recognize a foreign judgment, or decline relief because another forum has a closer connection. A regulator may exempt conduct already subject to equivalent supervision abroad. These responses manage overlap while leaving the underlying jurisdictional entitlement intact.

Comity may be prescribed by domestic law, developed through judicial doctrine, or exercised administratively. In that form, it is legally binding within the national system because domestic law requires it, not because public international law independently compels deference. The source of the obligation remains important.

Consultation and notification are basic coordination mechanisms. A state planning regulatory action with substantial foreign consequences may notify affected authorities, exchange information, or discuss the scope of proposed measures. Early consultation can identify direct conflicts, protect confidential material, and reduce duplicative proceedings before formal enforcement begins.

Competition regimes use forms of positive and negative comity. Positive comity allows one authority to request that another investigate conduct centered in the latter’s territory but affecting the requesting state. Negative comity asks an authority to consider important foreign interests before applying its own law. The effectiveness of either mechanism depends on cooperation, compatible enforcement priorities, and confidence in the other authority’s procedures.

Mutual recognition permits one state to accept a foreign license, judgment, certification, professional qualification, or regulatory determination. Equivalence goes further by treating a foreign regulatory system as sufficiently comparable to satisfy domestic objectives, even where its rules are not identical. Both methods reduce duplicative compliance without requiring complete legal harmonization.

Waivers and exemptions can address individual conflicts. A regulator may excuse a reporting duty where disclosure would violate foreign law, permit alternative compliance, or limit a rule to entities with stronger domestic connections. Such mechanisms preserve regulatory objectives while recognizing that uniform application may impose contradictory duties.

Conflict rules also allocate applicable law. In private disputes, choice-of-law principles identify which legal system governs a contract, tort, status, or property relationship. Public regulatory regimes may contain their own conflict provisions, priority clauses, or territorial limitations. These rules do not eliminate public international law questions, but they can prevent institutions within one state from applying every available domestic rule simultaneously.

Treaties provide more stable coordination where recurring overlap cannot be managed on a case-by-case basis. Tax treaties allocate categories of income and provide relief from double taxation. Status-of-forces agreements distribute criminal jurisdiction over visiting personnel. Maritime and aviation treaties assign authority according to territory, flag, registration, and the nature of the incident. Extradition agreements establish procedures for competing requests.

Regulatory cooperation may include joint investigations, evidence-sharing, coordinated settlements, supervisory colleges, common standards, and division of enforcement tasks. Cooperation is especially valuable where no authority can obtain a complete factual picture alone. It can also reduce the risk that regulated persons will exploit gaps between national systems.

Coordination does not always favor reduced regulation. States may agree that one authority will lead an investigation while others preserve their own proceedings. They may divide offenses, defendants, periods, or forms of relief. An arrangement can increase effective enforcement by combining evidence and closing jurisdictional gaps.

Blocking statutes represent a more confrontational response. They may prohibit compliance with specified foreign measures, restrict transfer of documents, deny recognition of foreign judgments, or authorize recovery of damages imposed abroad. Such laws express rejection of another state’s regulatory reach, but their enactment does not itself prove that the foreign claim violates international law. They can also intensify direct conflict by placing private actors under incompatible commands.

Comity should not become a substitute for legal analysis. A weak or unlawful jurisdictional claim cannot be validated merely because another state chooses not to object. A lawful claim does not become unlawful because a foreign government refuses cooperation. The underlying entitlement and the discretionary decision to exercise it remain separate.

Effective coordination requires attention to the interests of regulated persons as well as states. Parallel proceedings can impose duplicated disclosure, inconsistent deadlines, cumulative penalties, and high litigation costs. Agreements between authorities should preserve procedural fairness, confidentiality, access to remedies, and clarity about which decisions resolve which issues.

The decentralized character of international law makes restraint and coordination indispensable. Legal rules identify the jurisdictional claims available to states, but they do not resolve every collision between them. Comity, treaties, and institutional cooperation supply practical methods for deciding when several lawful powers should be exercised, sequenced, limited, or deferred.

7. Prescriptive Reach in Transnational Regulation

The jurisdictional principles discussed above acquire practical meaning when domestic rules address activity distributed across several states. Modern regulation rarely relies on a single connection. A criminal investigation may combine territorial conduct, offender nationality, victim nationality, and treaty obligations. Economic regulation may rely on domestic market participation, corporate organization, financial infrastructure, and substantial effects. The legality of each claim depends on the rule applied and the connection used to justify it.

Comparative practice also shows why labels can mislead. A statute described politically as “extraterritorial” may regulate a domestic parent company’s management of foreign operations. A rule presented as territorial may reach conduct abroad because the legally relevant transaction or result occurs in the domestic market. The analysis must identify the persons subject to the rule, the conduct regulated, and the facts that activate its application.

7.1 Criminal Law and Transnational Security

Transnational criminal law is organized around overlapping jurisdiction rather than exclusive territorial competence. Treaties concerning terrorism, corruption, trafficking, organized crime, and cybercrime generally require states to establish jurisdiction on several grounds. Territoriality and registration of ships or aircraft are commonly mandatory. Nationality, victim nationality, threats to governmental interests, and the presence of an alleged offender may provide additional bases.

The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime illustrates this structure. Article 15 requires jurisdiction over convention offenses committed within a state’s territory or aboard its registered ships and aircraft. It also permits jurisdiction based on offender nationality, victim nationality, participation in an organized criminal group directed toward domestic criminal activity, and conduct intended to facilitate money laundering within the state. Presence can trigger jurisdiction where the state does not extradite the alleged offender (United Nations, 2000).

A trafficking operation may accordingly engage several states. Recruitment can occur in one country, transportation can pass through two others, and exploitation can take place in a fourth. The organizers, victims, transport companies, and financial intermediaries may have different nationalities. Territorial states can regulate the stages occurring within their borders, states of nationality may prosecute their own nationals, and victim states may rely on passive personality where their legislation permits it. The custodial state may acquire an additional treaty-based responsibility if an alleged offender is found there.

Corruption presents a comparable pattern. A corporate employee may authorize a payment at the company’s headquarters, transfer funds through a foreign bank, use an intermediary incorporated elsewhere, and bribe an official in another state. The territorial state of the official has the clearest connection to the corruption of its public administration. The employee’s state of nationality, the company’s state of incorporation, and the states through which significant parts of the transaction passed may also assert jurisdiction.

Article 42 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption requires territorial jurisdiction and permits states parties to rely on nationality, victim nationality, protective connections, participation abroad in offenses intended to be committed domestically, and presence where extradition is refused. The Convention also preserves the territorial sovereignty of other states by denying any entitlement to perform official functions within foreign territory (United Nations, 2003).

Domestic anti-corruption statutes show how corporate affiliation can extend regulation beyond the place of payment. Section 7 of the United Kingdom Bribery Act, for example, creates an offense where a relevant commercial organization fails to prevent bribery by an associated person. The provision can apply regardless of where the associated conduct occurs, provided the organization falls within the statutory category. The jurisdictional focus is not simply the location of the bribe; it includes the legal and commercial relationship between the organization and the regulating state (United Kingdom, 2010).

Terrorism conventions use multiple grounds because terrorist conduct can be planned, financed, attempted, and completed in different jurisdictions. The state where an attack occurs can rely on territoriality. The attacker’s state may invoke nationality, while the victim’s state may invoke passive personality. An attack directed against an embassy, aircraft, government facility, or public institution may also support protective jurisdiction. If the alleged offender is later found elsewhere, a suppression treaty may require the custodial state to extradite the person or submit the case to its prosecuting authorities.

Cybercrime makes territorial analysis even less stable. An offender may operate through compromised devices located in several states, use cloud infrastructure managed elsewhere, attack victims in multiple countries, and receive payment through internationally distributed cryptocurrency services. Locating the keyboard used by the offender identifies one territorial connection but does not exhaust the jurisdictional analysis.

Article 22 of the Budapest Convention requires jurisdiction over convention offenses committed within the territory, aboard registered ships or aircraft, or by nationals where specified conditions are met. It also anticipates consultation when several parties claim jurisdiction. The 2024 United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, opened for signature in October 2025, develops a broader global framework for criminalization, electronic evidence, and international cooperation. Its adoption reflects the difficulty of investigating digital offenses through territorial powers alone (Council of Europe, 2001; United Nations, 2024).

A ransomware attack against a public hospital demonstrates the possible overlap. The offender’s physical location supports territorial jurisdiction in one state. The location of affected systems and patients supports territorial and effects-based claims elsewhere. The nationality of the offender or victims may activate personal jurisdiction. If the attack is directed at critical governmental health infrastructure, the protective principle may become relevant. Treaty obligations can supply cooperation procedures and additional presence-based authority.

Organized crime investigations often combine jurisdiction over the underlying offense with separate jurisdiction over money laundering, corruption, document fraud, or participation in a criminal organization. The state prosecuting the financial proceeds may not be the state where the predicate crime occurred. A domestic bank account, transfer, shell company, or property purchase can create a territorial basis for addressing one part of the wider enterprise.

International crimes require a more exact classification. A war-crimes prosecution may rest on territoriality, offender nationality, victim nationality, a grave-breaches obligation, universal jurisdiction under national law, or several of these grounds together. The presence of an accused may be a jurisdictional requirement, a procedural condition, or merely the circumstance making arrest possible. Calling every domestic prosecution of an international crime “universal” obscures these differences.

The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court does not create a general jurisdictional entitlement for national courts. The Court exercises institutional competence under the Rome Statute, including through territorial or nationality links, state acceptance, or Security Council referral. National authorities must identify their own domestic and international basis for prescription. Complementarity regulates the relationship between national proceedings and the Court; it does not replace the law governing national jurisdiction.

Overlapping authority creates choices about investigation, extradition, and prosecution. The state containing the greatest amount of evidence may not be the state holding the suspect. The victims may be concentrated elsewhere, and the conduct may affect the institutions of another country more directly. Treaties provide consultation and cooperation mechanisms, but international law rarely dictates one inevitable forum.

7.2 Markets, Corporations, and Economic Regulation

Economic regulation frequently reaches conduct that is organized abroad but connected to a domestic market, company, taxpayer, investor, product, or financial system. The principal jurisdictional bases include territorial implementation, substantial effects, residence, nationality, corporate incorporation, market access, and control over assets or infrastructure.

Competition law supplies the clearest example of effects-based prescription. A cartel agreement may be concluded entirely abroad by foreign companies, yet determine prices or output within another market. Merger control can similarly address transactions between foreign undertakings where their combined activity affects competition domestically. Restricting jurisdiction to the location where executives signed the agreement would permit firms to avoid regulation by arranging decisions outside the affected market.

European Union courts have accepted jurisdiction where anticompetitive conduct is implemented within the internal market and have also recognized a qualified-effects approach based on foreseeable, immediate, and substantial effects. These tests connect the foreign conduct to the market protected by EU competition law. They remain interpretations developed within the EU legal order rather than a universal jurisdictional formula binding every state (Court of Justice of the European Union, 2017).

Competition systems in other jurisdictions also examine sales, customers, market targeting, implementation, and economic effects. The terminology differs, but the recurring issue is the same: a state seeks to protect competition within its own economy without asserting unlimited authority over every foreign business arrangement. The stronger claims concern conduct intentionally directed toward, implemented in, or substantially affecting the protected market.

Taxation relies on a different combination of connections. States commonly tax residents on worldwide income and nonresidents on income sourced within the territory. Corporate residence may depend on incorporation, registered seat, central management, or other statutory criteria. Permanent establishments and source rules allocate income associated with business operations carried out in the taxing state.

Concurrent tax jurisdiction can produce double taxation where residence and source states claim the same income or where two states classify a company as resident. Bilateral tax treaties allocate taxing rights, define residence and permanent establishment, and provide exemption, credit, mutual-agreement, or arbitration mechanisms. The OECD Model Tax Convention has strongly influenced this treaty practice, but the actual rights of states depend on the applicable bilateral or multilateral instrument rather than the Model alone (OECD, 2017; OECD, 2025).

Digital business models challenge tax rules built around physical presence. A company may earn substantial revenue from users in a state without maintaining conventional premises there. Responses include revised nexus rules, withholding taxes, digital-services taxes, and coordinated international arrangements. These measures illustrate how market participation and user location can supplement older territorial concepts, but their legal foundations and treaty compatibility must be assessed separately.

Securities regulation can rely on the location of an offer, transaction, exchange, investor, intermediary, or regulated market. Foreign conduct may fall within domestic law where securities are sold through domestic infrastructure or where misleading statements are directed toward domestic investors. A general allegation that foreign activity affected national investment interests is weaker than a defined transactional or market connection.

Export controls attach to goods, technology, software, persons, and corporate entities. A state may regulate exports leaving its territory, reexports of goods of national origin, conduct by its nationals abroad, or transactions by companies organized under its law. Controls based on foreign-made products containing domestic technology can extend further and generate disagreement where the connection is quantitatively small or several states impose inconsistent requirements.

Economic sanctions use a similar range of links. Primary sanctions commonly bind nationals, residents, domestic companies, persons within the territory, and transactions involving property under domestic jurisdiction. Payment through a regulated financial institution can create an additional territorial or infrastructural connection. The legal analysis must distinguish these established links from measures intended to alter transactions between foreign persons that lack a direct connection to the prescribing state.

So-called secondary sanctions are particularly contested because they may threaten foreign actors with loss of market access or other consequences unless they comply with restrictions on third-country transactions. Such measures do not usually compel foreign governments directly, but their economic pressure may be substantial. Their international legality cannot be resolved by the political label alone. The analysis must examine the statutory nexus, treaty obligations, trade rules, and the nature of the consequence imposed.

Corporate accountability laws increasingly regulate decisions made by parent companies concerning overseas operations and business relationships. The jurisdictional basis may be the parent’s incorporation, headquarters, management, or significant participation in the regulating market. The object of regulation is often the company’s own governance, risk assessment, reporting, or preventive conduct rather than direct prescription of the foreign supplier’s behavior.

The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive illustrates this model. It imposes due diligence obligations on qualifying EU companies and certain non-EU companies with a significant economic presence in the Union. The duties concern adverse human rights and environmental impacts associated with corporate operations and defined business relationships. The regulatory connection lies partly in corporate establishment and partly in substantial participation in the EU market (European Union, 2024, as amended 2026).

This distinction limits conceptual overreach. Requiring a domestic parent to identify and address risks within its corporate group is not identical to declaring that every foreign supplier is directly governed by the prescribing state’s law. The supplier may experience contractual and economic consequences, but the immediate legal duty can remain attached to the parent or market-facing company.

Supply-chain laws can still create genuine conflicts. One state may require disclosure of supplier information that another protects through secrecy, labor, data, or national security rules. A company may be required to terminate a relationship under one regime, while another state restricts compliance with foreign measures. Such conflicts call for exemptions, consultation, treaty rules, or corporate restructuring; they do not disappear merely because the original duty is framed as due diligence.

Economic regulation confirms that “extraterritoriality” describes several different techniques. Some rules govern domestic persons acting abroad. Others regulate foreign persons participating in a domestic market. Still others rely on domestic implementation, financial infrastructure, or substantial effects. Each technique requires its own jurisdictional analysis.

7.3 Digital, Data, and Environmental Regulation

Digital activity separates the location of conduct from the location of infrastructure, users, decisions, data, and harm. A platform may be incorporated in one state, operate through servers in several others, employ moderators elsewhere, and provide services globally. A single territorial marker cannot adequately describe every regulatory relationship.

Data-protection law commonly relies on establishment and targeted activity. Article 3 of the General Data Protection Regulation applies to processing in the context of an establishment in the European Union and, in defined circumstances, to controllers or processors outside the Union that offer goods or services to persons there or monitor their behavior there. The rule requires more than the accidental accessibility of a foreign website. It connects processing to establishment, targeting, or monitoring within the protected regulatory space (European Union, 2016).

The Digital Services Act uses a related market connection. It applies to intermediary-service providers offering services in the European Union, irrespective of their place of establishment, provided a substantial connection exists. Establishment, significant user numbers, and deliberate targeting can demonstrate that connection (European Union, 2022).

These rules do not claim authority over every online service in the world. Their prescriptive logic rests on structured participation in a regulated digital market and relationships with users located there. The approach resembles market-based jurisdiction in competition and consumer law, although the legal interests protected and the statutory tests differ.

Artificial-intelligence regulation adds further layers. A system may be developed in one state, trained using data stored elsewhere, offered by a provider in another jurisdiction, deployed by an organization in a fourth, and produce decisions affecting persons in many countries. The location of development alone provides an incomplete basis for regulation.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act addresses providers placing AI systems or general-purpose models on the EU market, deployers located within the Union, and certain providers or deployers outside the Union where system output is used there. Its scope combines market access, establishment, deployment, and the location of legally relevant output. The regulation illustrates a broader movement toward functional connections rather than exclusive reliance on the physical site of software development (European Union, 2024).

Online-platform regulation may also rely on user protection, advertising markets, content distribution, or systemic risk. A state has a stronger claim where a platform deliberately targets its residents, sells advertising in its market, contracts with local users, or causes substantial and foreseeable domestic effects. Mere global accessibility is a weak connection because it would expose every online service to every national legal order simultaneously.

Prescriptive jurisdiction must remain separate from enforcement against a foreign digital provider. A state may lawfully establish obligations linked to its market while lacking authority to search foreign premises, seize servers abroad, or compel foreign officials to act. Enforcement may instead depend on local representatives, domestic assets, service restrictions, fines, cooperation mechanisms, or assistance from the territorial state.

Orders requiring removal, disclosure, preservation, or de-indexing of online material can combine adjudicative, prescriptive, and enforcement elements. A court may possess jurisdiction over a platform and issue a worldwide injunction, yet the order may still affect lawful access or speech in other states. The existence of personal jurisdiction over the company does not settle the international acceptability of the remedy’s global scope.

Cyber operations produce an even denser set of connections. Relevant locations may include the operator, command infrastructure, compromised devices, targeted networks, affected users, and physical consequences. Nationality and protective jurisdiction may supplement territorial claims where operations are directed against government institutions or critical infrastructure. Attribution to a state and the lawfulness of the operation under rules governing sovereignty, non-intervention, or the use of force remain separate questions.

Remote access to data creates a boundary between prescription and enforcement. A state may prescribe an offense concerning data held abroad and may order a person within its territory to produce information under that person’s control. Direct access by state authorities to a foreign computer system can raise a different issue because it may involve an exercise of investigative or coercive power within another state’s jurisdiction. Treaty procedures and consent become especially significant at that stage.

Environmental regulation begins with a more physical form of transboundary connection, but the allocation problem is similar. A hazardous activity may be authorized and conducted in one state while pollution, ecosystem damage, or health effects occur in another. The state of origin has territorial jurisdiction over the activity. The affected state may regulate domestic harm, seek compensation, or invoke treaty and customary obligations.

International environmental law places primary preventive duties on the state controlling the source of risk. The International Court of Justice has recognized due diligence obligations concerning significant transboundary environmental harm, while the International Law Commission’s draft articles address authorization, risk assessment, notification, consultation, and prevention (ICJ, 2010; ICJ, 2015; International Law Commission, 2001).

These duties do not necessarily give the affected state unlimited authority to regulate every activity within the state of origin. Its prescriptive claim may instead focus on persons, products, imports, emissions, or harmful results connected to its own territory. Treaties governing shared rivers, hazardous waste, marine pollution, climate measures, or protected species can establish more specific allocations.

Environmental supply-chain rules add corporate and market connections to the territorial source of harm. A state may regulate the environmental reporting or procurement decisions of companies established within its territory, even where extraction or production occurs abroad. The claim is strongest when directed at the domestic company’s own decisions. It becomes more controversial when it purports to regulate foreign operators directly without a substantial market, corporate, or effects-based connection.

Digital and environmental regulation both expose the limitations of a purely geographic account of jurisdiction. Physical territory remains central, but the decisive legal connection may concern users, markets, corporate control, data subjects, targeted infrastructure, regulated output, or transboundary harm. Precision requires selecting the connection that corresponds to the purpose and operative terms of the rule.

Also read

• Principles of Jurisdiction in International Law

• Enforcement Jurisdiction in International Law

• Extraterritorial 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

8. Domestic Application and International Responsibility

International law and domestic law answer different questions about prescriptive reach. International law defines the authority available to the state and any limits arising from treaties, custom, sovereign equality, immunities, human rights, or other rules. Domestic law determines whether national institutions have exercised that authority and how far the particular statute or regulation extends.

A state is not required to use every jurisdictional power that international law permits. Its legislature may confine an offense to territorial conduct even though nationality jurisdiction would also be lawful. A court may interpret legislation narrowly to avoid diplomatic conflict or protect legal certainty. Such restraint establishes the meaning of domestic law, not necessarily the outer boundary of international jurisdiction.

The opposite situation is also possible. Domestic legislation may clearly claim a broad geographical scope while exceeding an international limitation. National validity does not remove international responsibility. A state cannot rely on its internal law as justification for failing to comply with an international obligation.

8.1 Statutory Reach and Domestic Courts

Courts determine statutory reach through text, structure, purpose, legislative history, constitutional principles, and presumptions concerning territorial application. These methods differ among legal systems. They should not be confused with the international-law test for jurisdiction, even when international law or comity influences interpretation.

A presumption against extraterritoriality ordinarily asks whether the legislature intended a rule to apply to foreign conduct. It is a rule of domestic interpretation. The presumption may reflect concerns about international conflict and sovereign equality, but a finding that a statute lacks extraterritorial reach does not prove that international law would have prohibited a broader statute.

The United States Supreme Court used this distinction in Morrison v National Australia Bank. It interpreted federal securities legislation as applying to transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges and domestic transactions in other securities. The judgment rejected earlier judicial tests centered on foreign conduct and domestic effects. Its conclusion concerned the statutory reach chosen by Congress as interpreted by the Court, not a general international prohibition on regulating foreign securities fraud (United States Supreme Court, 2010).

Later decisions have refined the same domestic framework by asking whether legislation gives a clear indication of extraterritorial application and, if not, whether the case involves a domestic application of the statute’s regulatory focus. In Abitron Austria v Hetronic International, the Court treated the location of the conduct relevant to the statutory focus as decisive for the trademark provisions at issue (United States Supreme Court, 2023).

The United Kingdom also applies a presumption that legislation is not intended to operate extraterritorially unless Parliament indicates otherwise. In R (KBR Inc) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Supreme Court held that a statutory production notice could not compel a foreign company with no relevant domestic presence to produce documents held abroad. The judgment relied on statutory interpretation, international law, and comity (United Kingdom Supreme Court, 2021).

KBR also shows why classification matters. The disputed power concerned the compulsory production of documents for a criminal investigation. It was not simply a rule defining prohibited conduct. The notice combined adjudicative or administrative authority with a coercive demand directed at a foreign company. Treating the dispute as ordinary prescriptive jurisdiction would understate its enforcement dimension.

European Union courts use different interpretive techniques because EU regulations and competition rules often state or imply their international scope through market connections. The implementation and qualified-effects tests in competition law seek to identify a sufficient connection to the internal market. These are not presumptions against all foreign reach; they are methods for determining whether conduct falls within the substantive and territorial scope of EU law.

Global injunctions against internet intermediaries create another classification problem. A court may have personal jurisdiction over a platform and remedial authority under domestic procedural law. An order requiring worldwide de-indexing or removal concerns the geographical scope of the remedy. It does not necessarily prescribe a general substantive rule for all users and all states. The effects on foreign legal orders can still justify restraint, modification, or refusal of recognition.

Choice-of-law decisions must also remain distinct. A domestic court applying foreign contract, tort, family, or property law is not exercising the foreign state’s sovereign power. It applies the forum’s own conflict rules to select the governing law. Conversely, choosing forum law does not establish that public international law permits every substantive application of that law.

Classification errors arise when a court treats a jurisdictional statute as though it were a conduct-regulating rule, assumes that jurisdiction over a defendant resolves the applicable law, or imports the strict territorial limits of enforcement into prescription. The Alien Tort Statute litigation provides a prominent example of the difficulty. Debate over foreign conduct involved the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, the source of the substantive norm, the recognition of a cause of action, and the presumption against extraterritoriality. Treating those issues as one undifferentiated jurisdictional question obscured the legal work performed by each doctrine (Colangelo, 2013; Clopton, 2014).

Courts should begin by identifying the legal provision under interpretation. They must then determine whether it regulates conduct, confers adjudicative authority, authorizes investigation, creates a remedy, or combines several functions. Only after that classification can the domestic reach of the provision and its compatibility with international law be assessed accurately.

8.2 Excessive Prescription as an International Wrong

An assertion of prescriptive jurisdiction engages state responsibility only if it constitutes conduct attributable to the state and breaches an international obligation binding upon it. The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility do not create the primary jurisdictional prohibition. They provide the secondary rules governing attribution, breach, consequences, and invocation once the applicable obligation has been identified (International Law Commission, 2001).

Legislation is attributable to the state because the legislature is a state organ. A regulation, executive order, administrative decision, or judicial judgment is attributable on the same basis. No enforcement action is required before the conduct can be treated as state conduct for the law of responsibility. The harder question is whether enactment or maintenance of the rule already breaches the relevant primary obligation.

Some obligations are breached by legislation itself. A treaty may require a state to criminalize specified conduct, repeal discriminatory rules, refrain from imposing certain taxes, protect immunities, or avoid maintaining legislation inconsistent with agreed standards. If the obligation addresses the content or existence of domestic law, enactment can complete the breach before an individual case arises.

Other obligations concern application, coercion, or resulting treatment. A broadly worded statute may remain compatible with international law because it can be applied only within lawful jurisdictional limits. Responsibility becomes clearer when authorities prosecute a person, impose a penalty, compel disclosure, freeze assets, deny market access, or otherwise use the rule against foreign conduct lacking a sufficient legal basis.

The distinction depends on interpretation. A statute that expressly requires unlawful action cannot be saved by the possibility that authorities might exercise discretion leniently. A statute capable of lawful and unlawful applications does not necessarily breach international law at the moment of enactment. The text, institutional practice, and nature of the obligation determine when the breach occurs.

Sovereign equality does not supply a complete cause of action against every broad statute. It expresses the equal legal status of states and informs the rules governing territorial sovereignty and non-interference. A claimant must still identify how the foreign legislation violates a more specific obligation or unlawfully intrudes upon an area protected by international law.

Non-intervention is narrower than regulatory influence. The International Court of Justice has linked prohibited intervention to coercion concerning matters that international law leaves each state free to decide (ICJ, 1986). A foreign law may create commercial pressure or alter private incentives without coercing the government of another state. The severity of economic consequences alone does not remove the need to prove the legal elements of intervention.

Human rights can impose independent constraints. Extraterritorial criminal legislation must comply with legality, non-retroactivity, equality, due process, and fair-trial guarantees where the relevant treaty obligations apply. A vague offense based on undefined “national interests” may fail the requirement of legal certainty even if a protective jurisdictional connection exists. A lawful basis to prescribe does not authorize arbitrary prosecution.

Foreseeability has particular force where the jurisdictional connection is remote. A person may reasonably anticipate regulation by the territorial state and by their state of nationality. Liability based on incidental internet routing, an unknown victim’s nationality, or an indirect economic consequence raises stronger legal concerns. The jurisdictional rule and the substantive prohibition must both be accessible and sufficiently precise.

Immunities can restrict the exercise of jurisdiction even where prescription is valid. Proceedings against a foreign state, diplomatic agent, or incumbent senior official may violate an immunity obligation without disproving the state’s underlying authority over the conduct. Responsibility would arise from disregarding the immunity, not necessarily from enacting the substantive prohibition.

International responsibility does not always require proof of material damage. Breach of an obligation is sufficient to establish the internationally wrongful act under the general rules. Injury becomes significant when determining invocation, cessation, assurances of non-repetition, restitution, compensation, or satisfaction.

Legislation can nevertheless produce immediate effects before formal enforcement. Companies may change contracts, terminate operations, disclose information, or withdraw from markets to avoid future penalties. Individuals may alter their speech or travel. Such burdens can support evidence of injury, but they do not independently establish that the prescribing state breached international law.

A finding of excessive prescription must identify the excess precisely. The defect may be the absence of a recognized connection, violation of a treaty allocation, interference with immunity, discriminatory application, retroactivity, coercive intervention, or unauthorized enforcement abroad. Describing the law as aggressive, unilateral, or extraterritorial does not perform that analysis.

8.3 Diplomatic and Legal Responses

States respond to disputed jurisdiction through diplomacy, domestic legislation, litigation, treaty procedures, and, in limited circumstances, countermeasures. The chosen response often reflects the seriousness of the conflict, the existence of compulsory dispute settlement, and the economic relationship between the states concerned.

Diplomatic protest is the most common initial response. A state may challenge the asserted jurisdictional basis, object to compulsory production of information, defend confidentiality rules, or warn that enforcement would violate sovereignty. Protest can contribute to evidence of state practice and opinio juris, especially where it identifies a specific international rule.

Objection is not proof of illegality. States may protest measures that are lawful but economically damaging or politically unacceptable. They may also remain silent for practical reasons without accepting the foreign claim as law. The legal weight of a response depends on its content, consistency, and context.

Negotiation can narrow the disputed rule or establish procedures for its application. States may agree on notification, consultation, sequencing of investigations, sharing of evidence, recognition of equivalent regulation, or division of prosecutorial responsibility. Informal arrangements can resolve individual cases, while treaties provide a more stable allocation.

Blocking legislation is a defensive domestic response. It may prohibit compliance with specified foreign measures, restrict disclosure of documents, deny recognition or enforcement of judgments, or allow recovery of damages imposed abroad. Such legislation protects domestic policy choices but can leave private actors subject to directly conflicting commands.

Non-recognition offers a narrower response. A state may refuse to enforce a foreign judgment or administrative penalty where the originating authority lacked an acceptable jurisdictional basis, violated procedural fairness, or acted contrary to public policy. Rules governing recognition vary among legal systems and treaties; refusal does not automatically establish the international responsibility of the issuing state.

Treaty dispute-settlement procedures can address jurisdictional conflict where the relevant instrument allocates regulatory authority. Tax treaties provide mutual-agreement procedures for inconsistent taxation. Trade agreements may permit challenges to discriminatory or unjustified restrictions. Sectoral treaties can establish consultation, arbitration, or adjudication concerning maritime, aviation, environmental, or investment measures.

International adjudication remains dependent on consent. A state cannot ordinarily bring a jurisdictional dispute before the International Court of Justice unless a valid basis of jurisdiction exists. Arbitration likewise requires agreement. The limited number of international judgments on prescriptive jurisdiction reflects this institutional constraint as well as the tendency of states to resolve disputes diplomatically.

Domestic courts may provide an indirect forum. A regulated person can challenge statutory interpretation, constitutional validity, administrative authority, or the recognition of a foreign judgment. Courts may invoke international law or comity to construe legislation narrowly. Their judgment binds within the domestic legal order but does not by itself settle the customary rule for all states.

Countermeasures are subject to stricter conditions. The responding state must be injured by a prior internationally wrongful act, call upon the responsible state to comply, act proportionately, and observe the substantive and procedural limits imposed by the law of state responsibility. Ordinary commercial retaliation or blocking legislation should not be described automatically as a lawful countermeasure.

Unilateral responses can deepen the conflict. A blocking statute adopted against broad foreign sanctions may prompt additional penalties. Competing disclosure and secrecy laws can make compliance impossible. Escalation shifts the burden to companies and individuals while leaving the underlying jurisdictional disagreement unresolved.

The sound legal inquiry remains narrower than the political dispute. It asks which international obligation governed the prescribing state, whether the jurisdictional claim breached that obligation, and which remedies or responses international law permits. Foreign opposition is evidence to be assessed, not a substitute for establishing the rule.

Conclusion

Prescriptive jurisdiction governs the authority of states to make national law applicable within an international system where conduct, persons, markets, property, and harm frequently connect with several legal orders. Territoriality remains its central basis, but nationality, passive personality, protection, universal jurisdiction, treaty obligations, market participation, and substantial effects can support regulation beyond physical borders.

Extraterritorial application is not inherently unlawful. Nor does a valid jurisdictional connection give the regulating state unrestricted authority. Treaty allocations, sovereign equality, non-intervention, immunities, human rights, legality, and the territorial limits of enforcement may constrain how prescriptive power is exercised. Concurrent jurisdiction remains common because these rules protect different relationships rather than assigning every transnational matter to one state.

Prescription must remain separate from adjudication and enforcement. Authority to regulate foreign conduct does not authorize coercive action within foreign territory. Jurisdiction over a defendant does not determine which substantive law governs. A domestic presumption against extraterritoriality may narrow a statute even where international law would permit broader regulation.

A disciplined analysis begins with the domestic rule itself. It identifies the persons, conduct, property, relationships, or events governed by that rule. It then determines the jurisdictional connection asserted, establishes whether custom or treaty law permits or requires the claim, and tests the exercise against any applicable prohibition or allocation rule. The final stage assesses overlap with other states, consequences for regulated persons, and the availability of coordination, restraint, or legal remedy.

That method avoids two opposite errors: treating state lawmaking power as confined absolutely to territorial conduct, and treating sovereignty as a license for regulation wherever national interests can be asserted. Prescriptive jurisdiction occupies the legal space between those positions, structuring the coexistence of national regulatory authority in a decentralized international order.

References

1. Charter of the United Nations (1945) 26 June 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.

2. Clopton, Z.D. (2013) ‘Kiobel and the law of nations’, AJIL Unbound, 107, pp. 1–4.

3. Colangelo, A.J. (2013) ‘Kiobel: Muddling the distinction between prescriptive and adjudicative jurisdiction’, Maryland Journal of International Law, 28(1), pp. 65–75.

4. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85.

5. Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944) 7 December 1944, 15 UNTS 295.

6. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) 9 December 1948, 78 UNTS 277.

7. Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (2001) 23 November 2001, ETS No. 185.

8. 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.

9. European Union (2016) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons concerning the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 119, 4 May 2016, pp. 1–88.

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

11. European Union (2024a) Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence, OJ L 2024/1760, 5 July 2024.

12. European Union (2024b) Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence, OJ L 2024/1689, 12 July 2024.

13. European Union (2026) Directive (EU) 2026/470 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 February 2026 amending Directives 2006/43/EC, 2013/34/EU, (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as regards certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements, OJ L 2026/470, 26 February 2026.

14. Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1949) Geneva Convention I, 75 UNTS 31; Geneva Convention II, 75 UNTS 85; Geneva Convention III, 75 UNTS 135; Geneva Convention IV, 75 UNTS 287.

15. International Court of Justice (1955) Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Second Phase, judgment, 6 April, ICJ Reports 1955, p. 4.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. International Court of Justice (2010) Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), judgment, 20 April, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14.

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

21. International Court of Justice (2015) Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), judgment, 16 December, ICJ Reports 2015, p. 665.

22. International Law Commission (2001a) Draft articles on prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities, with commentaries, UN Doc. A/56/10, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two, pp. 146–170.

23. International Law Commission (2001b) Draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, with commentaries, UN Doc. A/56/10, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two.

24. International Law Commission (2014) The obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare): Final report, UN Doc. A/69/10, Chapter VI, 8 August.

25. Mills, A. (2014) ‘Rethinking jurisdiction in international law’, British Yearbook of International Law, 84(1), pp. 187–239.

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

27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2017) Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital: Condensed Version 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.

28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2025) The 2025 Update to the OECD Model Tax Convention [online]. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-2025-update-to-the-oecd-model-tax-convention_5798080f-en.html (Accessed: 2 July 2026).

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

30. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90.

31. Ryngaert, C. (2015) Jurisdiction in International Law. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

32. Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945) 26 June 1945, 33 UNTS 993.

33. Trapp, K.N. (2019) ‘Jurisdiction and state responsibility’, in Allen, S., Costelloe, D., Fitzmaurice, M., Gragl, P. and Guntrip, E. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 355–380.

34. United Kingdom (2010) Bribery Act 2010, c. 23.

35. United Kingdom Supreme Court (2021) R (on the application of KBR, Inc.) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, judgment, 5 February, [2021] UKSC 2; [2022] AC 519.

36. United Nations Convention against Corruption (2003) 31 October 2003, 2349 UNTS 41.

37. United Nations Convention against Cybercrime; Strengthening International Cooperation for Combating Certain Crimes Committed by Means of Information and Communications Technology Systems and for the Sharing of Evidence in Electronic Form of Serious Crimes (2024) 24 December 2024, annex to UN General Assembly Resolution 79/243, UN Doc. A/RES/79/243.

38. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000) 15 November 2000, 2225 UNTS 209.

39. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3.

40. United Nations Treaty Collection (2026) United Nations Convention against Cybercrime: Status of the treaty [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=18&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=XVIII-16&src=TREATY (Accessed: 2 July 2026).

41. United States Supreme Court (2010) Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., judgment, 24 June, 561 U.S. 247.

42. United States Supreme Court (2013) Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., judgment, 17 April, 569 U.S. 108.

43. United States Supreme Court (2023) Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., judgment, 29 June, 600 U.S. 412.