Now that jurisdiction has been defined, the bases of jurisdiction must be analyzed. International legal rules limit that ability to apply its statutes extraterritorially, however, there are two determinations for extraterritorial jurisdiction. The first is whether a domestic law exists that covers the offensive act, and the second is whether a sovereign state may, under international law, prescribe such conduct extraterritorially. There are five bases of jurisdiction that states use for application of jurisdiction internationally; territoriality and the effects principle, nationality, universality, the protective principle, and passive personality. The idea of territoriality is the idea that a nation may exercise jurisdiction over persons,
…show more content…
Unfortunately, there are no international law principles that would be used to resolve this conflict between nationality and territoriality bases of jurisdiction. The next base of jurisdiction is universality. Universal jurisdiction is the idea that any nation may prosecute or otherwise assert jurisdiction over persons suspected of have engaged in certain crimes or offenses. Universality depends of the universal consensus that certain kinds of conduct are so heinous as to grant the right to any nation to prosecute them, even if the state of nationality of the defendant or the nation in which territory the crime took place is not disposed. The protective principle allows states, in limited cases, to claim jurisdiction to try a foreign national for offenses committed abroad that affect its own citizens. This principle is rarely used and states seems very cautious to invoke this principle. The final base for jurisdiction is the principle of passive personality. Passive personality is the idea that a state could exercise jurisdiction over a crime based on the nationality of a …show more content…
State responsibility entails the obligations of a state to make reparations for its failure to comply with an obligation under international law (Joyner, 2005c, pg. 149). There are two ways in which to enforce international criminal rules. First is the voluntary cooperation of governments for the investigation, prosecution, trial, and punishment of individuals who are sought by national justice systems as accused offenders for the commission of international crimes. Second is the establishment of a special international tribunal to enforce norms through the investigations, prosecution, adjudication, and sanction of accused offenders (Joyner, 2005d, pg. 151). The Nuremburg Trials of 1945 were an example of this. Defendants were charged with crimes such as conspiring and ultimately launching an aggressive war, along with the commission of war crimes, and committing crimes against humanity (Kardaras,
Unfortunately, there are no international law principles that would be used to resolve this conflict between nationality and territoriality bases of jurisdiction. The next base of jurisdiction is universality. Universal jurisdiction is the idea that any nation may prosecute or otherwise assert jurisdiction over persons suspected of have engaged in certain crimes or offenses. Universality depends of the universal consensus that certain kinds of conduct are so heinous as to grant the right to any nation to prosecute them, even if the state of nationality of the defendant or the nation in which territory the crime took place is not disposed. The protective principle allows states, in limited cases, to claim jurisdiction to try a foreign national for offenses committed abroad that affect its own citizens. This principle is rarely used and states seems very cautious to invoke this principle. The final base for jurisdiction is the principle of passive personality. Passive personality is the idea that a state could exercise jurisdiction over a crime based on the nationality of a …show more content…
State responsibility entails the obligations of a state to make reparations for its failure to comply with an obligation under international law (Joyner, 2005c, pg. 149). There are two ways in which to enforce international criminal rules. First is the voluntary cooperation of governments for the investigation, prosecution, trial, and punishment of individuals who are sought by national justice systems as accused offenders for the commission of international crimes. Second is the establishment of a special international tribunal to enforce norms through the investigations, prosecution, adjudication, and sanction of accused offenders (Joyner, 2005d, pg. 151). The Nuremburg Trials of 1945 were an example of this. Defendants were charged with crimes such as conspiring and ultimately launching an aggressive war, along with the commission of war crimes, and committing crimes against humanity (Kardaras,