How far can a state extend its jurisdiction beyond its borders? In this chapter we make the distinction between state sovereignty and jurisdiction and then outline the five principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction. By providing examples for each jurisdictional principle, the differences between them are sharpened and the ways in which they may overlap are clarified. An interesting area for extraterritorial jurisdiction is the Internet; a brief examination of the European Union’s General Data Privacy Regulation serves to highlight the complexities. The chapter concludes with two practices states can use to attempt to pull alleged criminals who are in another state back into their own jurisdiction for prosecution.  Extradition is a legal process agreed to by states. Rendition, though also used by some states, is not and runs afoul of human rights.

The chapter answers the question of whether international human rights treaties apply to the conduct of States in an area outside the effective control of the territorial State. In international human rights law, ‘jurisdiction’ is the principal criterion of the scope of application ratione loci of conventions. States and monitoring bodies have interpreted the notion of jurisdiction ratione loci first in cases related to the conduct of States beyond their borders (outside State), and later with regard to the territorial State in a part of its own territory outside its effective control. The chapter explains that the two States’ jurisdictions are concurrent and complementary.