No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“Do Not Do Abroad What You Would Not Do at Home?”: An Exploration of the Rationales for Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction over a State’s Nationals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 June 2020
Abstract
Compared to universal jurisdiction, active nationality jurisdiction remains one of the least understood and written about forms of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction. This article seeks to offer a normative account of the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by states over their nationals for crimes committed abroad such as sexual offences against minors, bribery of foreign public officials, or medical “circumvention” tourism. It highlights all of the reasons that militate against such assertions of jurisdiction as a matter of policy and law. It goes on to argue that the assertion of criminal jurisdiction over nationals for crimes committed abroad must be understood beyond its permissibility under international law as a modality that manifests the interests of the state of nationality, the territorial (host) state on occasion, the relevant individuals, and, increasingly, the international community.
Résumé
Parmi les modalités d’exercice d’une compétence pénale extraterritoriale, la question de la compétence personnelle active a reçu beaucoup moins d’attention que celle de la compétence universelle. Cet article tente par conséquent d’offrir une évaluation normative de l’exercice par les États d’un tel pouvoir de répression à l’égard de crimes commis par leurs nationaux à l’étranger, qu’il s’agisse d’infractions sexuelles à l’égard de mineurs, de corruption de fonctionnaires étrangers, ou de tourisme dit de “contournement” médical. Il s’agit de montrer d’une part tous les motifs qui s’opposent à un tel recours à la pénalisation extraterritoriale, tant au niveau strictement juridique que de politique pénale. D’autre part, la question de l’affirmation d’une compétence pénale à l’égard de crimes commis par ses ressortissants à l’étranger doit se comprendre au-delà de sa seule légalité en droit international comme mettant en jeu tant les intérêts de l’État de nationalité que, dans une moindre mesure, de l’État hôte, des individus concernés et, enfin, de la communauté internationale.
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 57 , November 2020 , pp. 1 - 40
- Copyright
- © The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 2020
References
1 Neil MacDonald, “I Bribed the Libyans. It’s How Things Work in Hopelessly Corrupt Countries,” CBC News (12 February 2019), online: CBC <www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/libya-snc-1.5014939> (“[b]ut it’s such a Canadian scandal. Such foolishness. I can only imagine the Libyan officials who took the bribes, laughing themselves silly over shisha pipes and cardamom coffee”).
2 Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, SC 1998, c 34. Joanna Harrington, “SNC-Lavalin Case Shows Why We Should Review Canada’s Foreign Corruption Laws,” The Conversation (26 February 2019), online: <http://theconversation.com/snc-lavalin-case-shows-why-we-should-review-canadas-foreign-corruption-laws-112280>.
3 Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, supra note 2. Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.
4 Kadish, Sanford H, “Some Observations on the Use of Criminal Sanctions in Enforcing Economic Regulations” (1963) 30:3 U Ch L Rev 423 ; Wolfe, Nancy Travis, “Mala in Se” (1981) 19:1 Criminology 131.
5 “SNC-Lavalin Corruption Trial Could Prove More Scandalous Than Wilson-Raybould Affair,” The Post Millennial (8 July 2019), online: <www.thepostmillennial.com/snc-lavalin-corruption-trial-could-prove-more-scandalous-than-wilson-raybould-affair/>.
6 David Thurton, “Canada Risks Deep Prestige Damage from OECD Review of SNC-Lavalin Affair, Say Experts,” CBC News (15 March 2019), online: <www.cbc.ca/news/politics/oecd-snc-lavalin-trudeau-wilson-raybould-1.5057435>.
7 Sandy Garossino, “The Hidden Key to the SNC-Lavalin Scandal,” National Observer (8 March 2019), online: <www.nationalobserver.com/2019/03/08/analysis/hidden-key-snc-lavalin-scandal>.
8 E.g., Macedo, Stephen, Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes under International Law (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); Stephen Macedo, ed, The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction (Princeton, NJ: Program in Law and Public Affairs, Princeton University, 2001); Aisling O’Sullivan, Universal Jurisdiction in International Criminal Law: The Debate and the Battle for Hegemony (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2017); Reeves, Anthony R, “Liability to International Prosecution: The Nature of Universal Jurisdiction” (2017) 28:4 Eur J Intl L 1047 ; Luc Reydams, Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Anthony Sammons, “The Under-Theorization of Universal Jurisdiction: Implications for Legitimacy on Trials of War Criminals by National Courts” (2003) 21:1 Berkeley J Intl L 111.
9 See on this point Coughlan, Stephen Gerard et al, Law Beyond Borders: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in an Age of Globalization (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2014) c 6.
10 For the Israeli change on the issue, see Shachor-Landau, Chava, “Extra-Territorial Penal Jurisdiction and Extradition” (1980) 29:2–3 ICLQ 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26, [2007] 2 SCR 292 [Hape].
12 Ibid; Chehtman, Alejandro, The Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 59–67; Andrews, Sara K, “U.S. Domestic Prosecution of the American International Sex Tourist: Efforts to Protect Children from Sexual Exploitation” (2003) 2 J Crim L Criminology 415 Google Scholar; Cohen, I Glenn, “Circumvention Tourism” (2011) 6 Cornell L Rev 1309 Google Scholar; Watson, Geoffrey R, “Offenders Abroad: The Case for Nationality-Based Criminal Jurisdiction” (1992) 1 Yale J Intl L 41 Google Scholar; Arnell, P, “The Case for Nationality Based Jurisdiction” (2001) 50:4 ICLQ 955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benjamin Perrin, “Taking a Vacation from the Law? Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction and Section 7(4.1) of the Criminal Code” (2009) 13:2 Can Crim L Rev 175.Google Scholar
13 There has been significant interest in the United States, in particular, in the criminalization of sex tourism. See Giordanella, Heather C, “Status of §2423(b): Prosecuting United States Nationals for Sexually Exploiting Children in Foreign Countries” (1998) 12:1 Temple Intl Comp LJ 133.Google Scholar
15 E.g., Honniball, Arron N, “The Exclusive Jurisdiction of Flag States: A Limitation on Pro-active Port States?” (2016) 31:3 Intl J Mar & Coast L 499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kopela, Sophia, “Port-State Jurisdiction, Extraterritoriality, and the Protection of Global Commons” (2016) 47:2 Ocean Dev & Intl L 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Chehtman, supra note 12 at 66.
17 On the distinction between “extended territoriality” and “extraterritoriality,” see Coughlan et al, supra note 9, c 4.
18 R v Klassen, 2008 BCSC 1762 at para 60, 240 CCC (3d) 328 [Klassen].
19 See Tolofson v Jensen, [1994] 3 SCR 1022.
20 Hape, supra note 11 at para 63.
21 Cornewall Lewis, Sir George, On Foreign Jurisdiction and the Extradition of Criminals (London: JW Parker and Son, 1859) at 30.Google Scholar
22 House of Commons Debates, 41-1, vol 146, No 272 (18 June 2013) at 1250 (Ray Boughen).
23 France, Code pénal, art 113-6, online: Legifrance <www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719>.
24 United States Department of State, Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire: Report of Edward A Van Dyck, Consular Clerk of the United States at Cairo, Upon the Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire since the Year 1150 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1881).Google Scholar
25 See e.g. Koo, VK Wellington, The Status of Aliens in China (New York: Columbia University, 1912) at 80–94.Google Scholar
26 “Australia Offers to Pay Jail Costs for Bali Nine Pair If Their Lives Are Spared,” The Guardian (12 March 2015), online: <www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/australia-offers-to-pay-jail-costs-for-bali-nine-pair-if-their-lives-are-spared>.
27 Cases that come to mind are the admittedly peculiar cases where agents of the state are involved who successfully invoke their immunity and where the state of nationality subsequently agrees to exercise its jurisdiction against them but does so in a way that is not judged adequate by the territorial state. See Mark MacKinnon, “Former Russian Diplomat Expected to Get Off Lightly,” Globe and Mail (12 March 2002), online: <www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/former-russian-diplomat-expected-to-get-off-lightly/article4132363/>.
28 “France Will Free One of Its Secret Service Agents,” United Press International (6 May 1989), online: <www.upi.com/Archives/1988/05/06/France-will-free-one-of-its-secret-service-agents/7672578894400/>.
29 Blakesley, Christopher L, “United States Jurisdiction over Extraterritorial Crime” (1982) 73 J Crim L & Criminology 1109 at 1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v Ivan Lopez-Vanegas, Doris Mangeri Salazar, Defendants-Appellants, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No 05-15021 (26 July 2007).
31 See e.g. Williams, Sharon Anne & Castel, JG, Canadian Criminal Law, International and Transnational Aspects (Toronto: Butterworths, 1981).Google Scholar
32 Chehtman, supra note 12 at 60–61.
33 Matthews, Kyle, Justice for the Victims: How Canada Should Manage Returning “Foreign Fighters” (Ottawa: Canadian Global Affairs Institute, 2018).Google Scholar
34 10 questions pour mieux comprendre la situation des citoyens français condamnés à mort en Irak (Paris: Ensemble contre la peine de mort, 2019).
35 Cohen, supra note 12.
36 Beers, Britta C Van, “Is Europe ‘Giving in to Baby Markets?’Reproductive Tourism in Europe and the Gradual Erosion of Existing Legal Limits to Reproductive Markets” (2014) 23:1 Med L Rev 103 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “Cross-Border Reproductive Care: A Committee Opinion” (2013) 100:3 Fertility and Sterility 645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelly, Lisa & Tuszynski, Nicole, “Banishing Women: The Law and Politics of Abortion Travel” (2016) 33 Colum J Gender & L 25 Google Scholar; Snyder, Jeremy & Crooks, Valorie, “Medical Treatment Not Approved Yet? No Problem! Welcome to Circumvention Tourism,” The Conversation (13 January 2015), online: <http://theconversation.com/medical-treatment-not-approved-yet-no-problem-welcome-to-circumvention-tourism-35070>>Google Scholar; Hodges, Jill R, Turner, Leigh & Kimball, Ann Marie, Risks and Challenges in Medical Tourism: Understanding the Global Market for Health Services (Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2012)Google Scholar; Cohen, I Glenn, “Transplant Tourism: The Ethics and Regulation of International Markets for Organs” (2013) 41:1 JL Med Ethics 269 Google ScholarPubMed; Cohen, I Glenn, “SH and Others v. Austria and Circumvention Tourism” (2012) 25:7 Reproductive Biomedicine Online 660 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, I Glenn, “Medical Outlaws or Medical Refugees? An Examination of Circumvention Tourism” in Jill R Hodges, Turner, Leigh & Kimball, Ann Marie, Risks and Challenges in Medical Tourism: Understanding the Global Market for Health Services (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2012) 207 Google Scholar; Cohen, I Glenn, “How to Regulate Medical Tourism (and Why It Matters for Bioethics)” (2012) 12:1 Developing World Bioethics 9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, I Glenn, “Circumvention Tourism” (2011) 97 Cornell L Rev 1309 Google Scholar; Cohen, Glenn, “Circumvention Medical Tourism and Cutting Edge Medicine: The Case of Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy” (2018) 25:1 Indiana J Glob Leg Stud 439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which were adopted in 1992, made it clear that, despite the then prohibition of abortion, “[t]his subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state” and “[t]his subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.” Constitution of Ireland, online: <www.gov.ie/en/publication/d5bd8c-constitution-of-ireland/>.
38 Mulligan, Andrea, “The Right to Travel for Abortion Services: A Case Study in Irish ‘Cross-border Reproductive Care’” (2015) 22:3 Eur J Health L 239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39 Pennings, G, “Reproductive Tourism as Moral Pluralism in Motion” (2002) 28:6 J Med Ethics 337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40 Gilmartin, Mary & White, Allen, “Interrogating Medical Tourism: Ireland, Abortion, and Mobility Rghts” (2011) 36:2 Signs 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41 On the application of the non bis in idem principle on the horizontal, state-to-state plane, see Poels, Alexander, “A Need for Transnational Non Bis in Idem Protection in International Human Rights Law” (2005) 23:3 Neth Q Hum Rights 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 Vincent Gautronneau, “La mère d’un enfant français tué au Canada condamnée à 25 ans de prison,” Le Parisien (12 September 2019), online: <www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/la-mere-d-un-enfant-francais-tue-au-canada-condamnee-a-25-ans-de-prison-12-09-2019-8150811.php>.
43 Klassen, supra note 18; Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.
44 Klassen, supra note 18 at paras 105–13.
45 Choe Sang-Hun, “Smoking Marijuana Is Legal in Canada, Unless You’re South Korean,” New York Times (23 October 2018), online: <www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/world/asia/cannabis-canada-south-korea.html>.
46 Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law, 5th ed (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) at 313.Google Scholar
47 Kaikati, Jack G & Label, Wayne A, “American Bribery Legislation: An Obstacle to International Marketing” (1980) 44:4 J Marketing 38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; David Hilzenrath, “U.S. Firms Say Foreign-Bribe Law Lacks Clarity,” Washington Post (23 July 2011), online: <www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-firms-say-costly-foreign-bribe-law-lacks-clarity/2011/07/05/gIQAB50jTI_story.html>.
48 “Trump Used to Disparage an Anti-Bribery Law; Will He Enforce It Now?,” National Public Radio (8 November 2017), online: <www.npr.org/2017/11/08/561059555/trump-used-to-disparage-an-anti-bribery-law-will-he-enforce-it-now>.
49 “Tackling the Demand for the Sexual Exploitation of Children Report,” UN Doc A/HRC/31/58 (2015) at para 62, online: <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G15/294/64/PDF/G1529464.pdf?OpenElement>.
50 A good example of an early effort in that direction is Watson, supra note 12.
51 Ibid at 54.
52 Libman v The Queen, [1985] 2 SCR 178 at para 76 [Libman].
53 Brownlie, supra note 46 at 313.
54 Westlake, John, International Law, Part I: Peace (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1910) at 252.Google Scholar
55 Ibid at 258 (“[a]t the other extreme, as we have seen in speaking of the control over nationals abroad, there are states which divest their criminal law so far as regards their subjects of no territorial limit. To carry the personal principle to that length is to adopt the view that criminal law is primarily an intervention on behalf of morality”).
56 Van Hoof, Wannes & Pennings, Guido, “Extraterritoriality for Cross-Border Reproductive Care: Should States Act against Citizens Travelling Abroad for Illegal Infertility Treatment?” (2011) 23:5 Reproductive Biomedicine Online (Symposium: Cross-Border Reproductive Care — Ethical, Legal, and Socio-Cultural Perspectives) 546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57 Benjamin Haas, “Bong Arm of the Law: South Korea Says It Will Arrest Citizens Who Smoke Weed in Canada,” The Guardian (23 October 2018), online: <www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/23/bong-arm-of-the-law-south-korea-says-it-will-arrest-citizens-who-smoke-weed-in-canada>.
58 Van Hoof & Pennings, supra note 56 at 553.
59 Cohen, supra note 12 at 1342–43.
60 Chehtman, supra note 12 at 61.
61 E.g., Watson, Geoffrey R, “Offenders Abroad: The Case for Nationality-Based Criminal Jurisdiction” (1992) 17:1 Yale J Intl L 41 at 68.Google Scholar
62 E.g. Wheeler, Everett P, “The Relation of the Citizen Domiciled in a Foreign Country to His Home Government” (1909) 3:4 Am J Intl L 869 at 874CrossRefGoogle Scholar (pointing out that a national “must do nothing with his native allegiance or be found in hostility of his native country”).
63 Chehtman, supra note 12 at 65.
64 Cohen, supra note 12 at 1343.
65 Klassen, supra note 18 at para 94.
66 Cohen, supra note 12 at 1342.
67 Ibid at 1332.
68 Law Commission of Canada, Global Reach, Local Grasp: Constructing Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction in the Age of Globalization, by Coughlan, Steve et al (Halifax: Dalhousie Law School, 2006) at 33.Google Scholar
69 House of Commons Debates, 41-1, vol 146, No 272 (18 June 2013) at 1030 (Bob Dechert).
70 House of Commons Debates, 35-2, No 58 (10 June 1996) at 1312 (Christiane Gagnon) (“[j]ust because this is taking place elsewhere is not a reason not be concerned by it. As I was saying, the customer knows full well that this is one of the behaviours his society tolerates least. Why then should he feel so free to go abroad to take advantage of children in other countries?”).
71 Klassen, supra note 18 at para 95.
72 Cohen, supra note 12 at 1345.
73 House of Commons Debates, 41-1, vol 146, No 272 (18 June 2013) at 1330 (Alain Giguère).
74 Chehtman, supra note 12.
75 United States v Bowman, 260 US 94 at 102 (1922) [emphasis added].
76 Ubeda-Saillard, Muriel, “Les aspects opérationnels de l’exercice de la compétence personnelle à l’égard des nationaux à l’étranger” (2009) 55 AFDI 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77 House of Commons Debates, 35-2, No 58 (10 June 1996) at 1520 (Lloyd Axworthy) [emphasis added].
78 Coughlan et al, supra note 9 at 145.
79 Alexander Smith, “Canada ‘Disappointed’ at Britain for Stripping ISIS Fighter’s Citizenship,” NBC News (19 August 2019), online: <www.nbcnews.com/news/world/canada-disappointed-britain-stripping-isis-fighter-s-citizenship-n1043811>; Emma Batha, “Don’t Strip ISIS Terror Suspects Like ‘Jihadi Jack’ of Citizenship, Experts Say,” Global News (28 June 2019), online: <https://globalnews.ca/news/5442767/returning-isis-fighters-citizenship-revoked/>.
80 House of Commons Debates, 41-1, vol 146, No 272 (18 June 2013) at 1250 (Dany Morin).
81 See Libman, supra note 52 at para 76, for that dual nature of comity. La Forest J suggested that the link to a particular extraterritorial case “may be coterminous with the requirements of international comity.”
82 Ibid at para 214.
83 In the drafting of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, the Netherlands had proposed to include the condition of dual criminality in nationality jurisdiction. This was supported by the UK. The final text does not include this condition and the Committee on the Rights of the Child has since recommended that states either remove it from their national legislation or consider that it is satisfied when the territorial state has not criminalized the offence but is a party to the optional protocol. E.g., Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on the Report Submitted by Czechia under Article 12 (1) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, UN Doc CRC/C/OPSC/CZE/CO/1 (5 March 2019) at paras 28–29; Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on the Report Submitted by Peru under Article 12 (1) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, UN Doc CRC/C/OPSC/PER/CO/1 (7 March 2016) at paras 29–30. Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, 25 May 2000, 227 UNTS 2171 (entered into force 18 January 2002) [Optional Protocol]; Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2 September 1990).
84 House of Commons Debates, 35-2, No 58 (10 June 1996) at 1525 (Lloyd Axworthy) (“[i]n many countries of a developing nature there is not the same effective force of a legal system as we have”).
85 Chehtman, supra note 12 at 61 (“[h]owever, if the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by an extraterritorial state is justified by the extra protection awarded to these children, it is open to question on what possible grounds this right could be limited to a state’s own nationals or residents. A strict application of this argument would lead to the principle of passive personality … or eventually to universal jurisdiction if potential victims are scattered around the globe, but not to the nationality principle”).
86 For such scepticism, see Chehtman, supra note 12.
87 Watson, supra note 12 at 69.
88 UK, House of Lords Debates, vol 715, col 1105 (9 December 2009) (Lord Williamson of Horton) [emphasis added].
89 Petillion, Uguette, “La répression des atteintes à l’environnement: réflexions autour de la compétence internationale du juge pénal français” (2014) 39:1 RJE 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
90 Optional Protocol, supra note 83.
91 Boister, Neil, “‘Transnational Criminal Law’?” (2003) 14:5 Eur J Intl L 953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
92 E.g. Huneeus, Alexandra, “International Criminal Law by Other Means: the Quasi-Criminal Jurisdiction of the Human Rights Courts” (2013) 107:1 Am J Intl L 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
93 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, UN Resolution 40/34, UNGAOR, 40th Sess, Supp No 53, UN Doc A/40/PV.96 (1985).
94 Cohen, supra note 12 at 1340.
95 Perrin, supra note 12 at 195.
96 Optional Protocol, supra note 83, art 4(2) [emphasis added].
97 De Schutter, Olivier, “Les affaires Total et Unocal: complicité et extraterritorialité en matière d’imposition aux entreprises d’obligations en matière de droits de l’homme” (2006) 52 AFDI 55 at 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
98 Ibid at 96.
99 House of Commons Debates, 35-2, No 58 (10 June 1996) at 1315 (Gordon Kirkby) (“sex tourism, can only be stopped by international commitments and collaboration. Bill C-27 recognizes this commitment and sends a very strong message internationally about Canada’s intolerance of such practices. With this amendment Canada will join 11 other countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Belgium, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and the United States which have already enacted similar legislative measures”); House of Commons Debates, 35-2, No 58 (10 June 1996) at 1520 (Lloyd Axworthy) (“[p]assing legislation that makes sexual tourism involving children a criminal act sends a clear message that this activity is neither tolerable nor acceptable. Canada is not alone in its efforts. In fact, the international community is united in supporting the passing of such legislation”).
100 Garossino, supra note 7, noting that “A Canadian company is charged with bribing a family infamous around the world for murder, torture, rape, abductions, and widespread human rights abuses, and doing it for its own profit” and referring to “corruption’s profoundly oppressive impact on the Libyan people.”
101 France, Loi relative à la prévention et à la répression des infractions sexuelles ainsi qu’à la protection des mineurs, Loi no 98-468 (17 June 1998).
102 One hesitates to say the return, but historically at least the regime of capitulations stood for a system whereby personal jurisdiction came before the territorial sort. Sumiyoshi, Yoshihito, “State Practices and Interpretation of International Law in Early Japan (1865-): Capitulations in Japan and Its Abolishment” (1997) 5 Meiji Law Journal 15.Google Scholar
103 Van den Herik, Larissa & Mégret, Frédéric, Diasporas and International Law (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).Google Scholar
104 On the broader mutation of the international law of jurisdiction, see Mills, Alex, “Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law” (2014) 84 Br YB Intl Law 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
105 Arnell, supra note 12.
106 As expressed, for example, in a requirement of residence or presence in the territory of the state seeking to exercise jurisdiction. Bailleux, Antoine, “L’histoire de la loi belge de compétence universelle: Une valse à trois temps : ouverture, étroitesse, modestie” (2005) 59:1 Dr Social 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
107 This may in fact have inverted the debate somewhat. The issue is not so much states seeking to extend jurisdiction extraterritorially over their nationals against the better territorial instincts of international law but, rather, of states reluctant to extend such jurisdiction despite international law, based on a weird mix of populism and liberal laissez-faire.
108 Dinstein, Yoram, “The Universality Principle and War Crimes” in Schmitt, Michael N & Green, Leslie C, eds, International Law Studies, vol 71: The Law of Armed Conflict: Into the Next Millennium (Newport: Naval War College, 1998) 17 at 22Google Scholar (“[w]hen a State prosecutes members of its own armed forces who have committed war crimes, it benefits from an incontrovertible advantage if it acts in the name of the active personality principle rather than the universality principle”).
109 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85, art 5.1(b) (entered into force 26 June 1987).
110 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 20 December 2006, 2716 UNTS 3, art 9 (entered into force 23 December 2010).
111 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Crimes against Humanity, UNGAOR, 68th Sess, UN Doc A/71/10 (2016), art 6. See also Harvard Sussex Program, Draft Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Developing, Producing, Acquiring, Stockpiling, Retaining, Transferring or Using Biological or Chemical Weapons (2009).
112 Becker, Steven W, “Universal Jurisdiction: How Universal Is It? A Study of Competing Theories” (2002) 12:1 Palestine YB Intl L Online 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
113 For a similar conclusion in the case of circumvention tourism, see Cohen, supra note 12.
114 Section 7(4.2) of the Criminal Code, supra note 3, was repealed. See Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, SC 2002, c 13, s 3(2).
115 Leonhard, Julie, “Le droit pénal au secours de la prohibition de la gestation pour autrui ?” (2017) 7 Cahiers de Dr Sciences et Technologie 85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Corpart, Isabelle, “La gestation pour autrui de l’ombre à la lumière: Entre droit français et réalités étrangères” (2015) 11 Droit Famille 8.Google Scholar
116 Coughlan et al, supra note 9 at 151.
117 The issue has principally been debated in relation to universal jurisdiction but arguably has a broader scope whenever a conflict of criminal jurisdiction arises. See Ryngaert, CMJ, “Horizontal Complementarity” in Stahn, Carsten & El Zeidy, Mohamed M, eds, The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burens, Laura, “Universal Jurisdiction Meets Complementarity: An Approach towards a Desirable Future Codification of Horizontal Complementarity between the Member States of the International Criminal Court” (2016) 27 Crim LF 75.Google Scholar
118 On the relatively new emphasis on duties rather than mere entitlements to exercise jurisdiction, see Mills, Alex, “Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law” (2014) 84 Br YB Intl L 187.Google Scholar
119 See e.g. Ambos, Kai, “Punishment without a Sovereign? The Ius Puniendi Issue of International Criminal Law: A First Contribution towards a Consistent Theory of International Criminal Law” (2013) 33:2 Oxford J Leg Stud 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar