Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Extraterritorial jurisdiction plays a significant role in regulation of transnational anti-competitive practices. In the U.S., extraterritorial impacts in this field first arose from Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, [7] where Imperial Oil in Canada was ordered to be divested from Standard Oil.
However, the Lockerbie case demonstrated that the requirement to extradite or prosecute is not a rule of customary international law. The obligation arises regardless of the extraterritorial nature of the crime and regardless of the fact that the perpetrator and victim may be of alien nationality . [ 1 ]
An extraterritorial operation in international law is a law enforcement or military operation that takes place outside the territory or jurisdiction of the state whose forces are conducting the operation, generally within the territory of another sovereign state.
The two main courts judging extraterritorial cases were the Shanghai Mixed Court and the British Supreme Court for China. [32] Similar courts were established for treaty countries, e.g. the United States Court for China. [33] These had jurisdiction over the concession areas, which formally remained under Qing sovereignty. [34]
Extraterritorial jurisdiction is exercised through three principles outlined in the UN charter. These are equality of states, territorial sovereignty and non-intervention. [1] This raises questions of when can many states prescribe or enforce jurisdiction. The Lotus case establishes two key rules to the prescription and enforcement of jurisdiction.
The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (Pub. L. 106–523 (text), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3261–3267) (MEJA) is a law intended to place military contractors under U.S. law. [1] [2] The law was used to prosecute former Marine Corps Sgt. Jose Luis Nazario, Jr. for the killing of unarmed Iraqi detainees, though he was ultimately acquitted.
In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.
Under these circumstances, the court found that personal jurisdiction was proper under a theory of national jurisdiction: the defendant had targeted the U.S. at large from outside of the territory and intended to avail himself of the opportunity of selling test answers to a U.S. graduate school entrance test to his most likely customers: Americans.