Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2252127
 


 



The Indeterminate International Law of Jurisdiction, the Presumption Against Extraterritorial Effect of Statutes, and Certainty in U.S. Criminal Law


Kenneth S. Gallant


University of Arkansas at Little Rock - William H. Bowen School of Law

April 16, 2013

UALR Bowen School Research Paper No. 13-04

Abstract:     
It is, in certain cases, impossible for persons to tell in advance which states will have effective legislative jurisdiction over their acts. In these cases, it is impossible to tell in advance whose law the person must obey. This quandry arises where some national law purports to regulate outsiders and their acts in a manner arguably inconsistent with the international law of legislative jurisdiction. If the regulating state's courts do not allow challenges to jurisdiction based on international law, and the state of the outsider's nationality fails to protect her diplomatically, the outsider has no protection against excessive claims of jurisdiction.

Some common law states, like the United States, have no thorough jurisdictional provisions in their criminal codes. In the United States, the presumption against extraterritorial effect, revitalized in the non-criminal case of Morrison v. Australia National Bank (U.S.S.Ct. 2010), can assist in minimizing the problem of "surprise" jurisdiction over persons who had no reason to know that they would be subject to United States criminal laws which do not specify the territory, persons, and situations outside the U.S. to which they apply.

The presumption against extraterritorial effect might sensibly be given an "elemental" reading. The presumption against extraterritoriality would be triggered if neither subjective territoriality (an act committed in the U.S. constitutes an element of an offense) or objective territoriality (a result which is an element of the crime occurs on U.S. territory) is present. It is hard to believe that any state would give up the general right to control either wrongful acts or illegal effects on its own territory, despite statements made by certain countries in the Morrison litigation and its aftermath.

In developing this argument, this paper suggests that, on average, in recent decades, Congress has been more attuned to the obligations of the United States as an entity under the international law of jurisdiction than have been the Courts.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 13

Keywords: jurisdiction, criminal jurisdiction, international law jurisdiction

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: April 17, 2013  

Suggested Citation

Gallant, Kenneth S., The Indeterminate International Law of Jurisdiction, the Presumption Against Extraterritorial Effect of Statutes, and Certainty in U.S. Criminal Law (April 16, 2013). UALR Bowen School Research Paper No. 13-04. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2252127 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2252127

Contact Information

Kenneth S. Gallant (Contact Author)
University of Arkansas at Little Rock - William H. Bowen School of Law ( email )
1201 McMath Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
United States
501-324-9912 (Phone)

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 268
Downloads: 47

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.235 seconds