Skip to main content
Article
Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction: Does the long arm of the law undermine the rule of law?
Melbourne journal of international law (2012)
  • Danielle Ireland-Piper, Bond University
Abstract

Assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction have become increasingly frequent in the 21st century. Although a useful response to transnational crime, such assertions are often highly politicised and used by states to further unilateral foreign policy objectives. Further, some assertions of extraterritoriality undermine the rule of law and do not provide adequate procedural fairness. While principles such as comity and reasonableness may assist in protecting the rights of states, they do not adequately protect the rights of individuals. Therefore, this article argues that extraterritoriality should be treaty-based rather than unilateral, and domestic constitutional guarantees must apply equally to extraterritorial assertions of jurisdiction and territorial assertions. Further, principles to guide exercises of prosecutorial discretion in relation to an assertion of extraterritoriality need to be developed and made available in the form of a model law.

Disciplines
Publication Date
June 1, 2012
Publisher Statement
Published Version.

Ireland-Piper, D. (2012). Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction: Does the long arm of the law undermine the rule of law? Melbourne journal of international law, 13(1), 1-36.

Access the Journal's homepage.

© Copyright The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Law School, 2012
Citation Information
Danielle Ireland-Piper. "Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction: Does the long arm of the law undermine the rule of law?" Melbourne journal of international law Vol. 13 Iss. 1 (2012)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/danielle_irelandpiper/6/