Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In international law, extraterritoriality or exterritoriality is the state of being exempted from the jurisdiction of local law, usually as the result of diplomatic negotiations.
Criminal jurisdiction can be of an extraterritorial nature where: a nation asserts it either generally or in specific cases under its domestic law, a supranational authority (such as the United Nations Security Council) has created an international court to deal with a specific case (e.g. war crimes in a certain country), or
Extraterritorial Obligations (ETOs) are obligations in relation to the acts and omissions of a state, within or beyond its territory, that have effects on the enjoyment of human rights outside of that state's territory.
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.
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari note that deterritorialization and reterritorialization occur simultaneously. The function of deterritorialization is defined as "the movement by which one leaves a territory", also known as a "line of flight", but deterritorialization also "constitutes and extends" the territory itself.
Jurisdiction (from Latin juris 'law' + dictio 'speech' or 'declaration') is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice.In federations like the United States, the concept of jurisdiction applies at multiple levels (e.g., local, state, and federal).
Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to prosecute individuals for serious crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, regardless of where the crime was committed and irrespective of the accused's nationality or residence.
It is an important decision for the country as it articulates the definition of comity and does so in a more broad way than previously. Despite the broad definition in Hilton v Guyot, the court refused to enforce the French judgment based on reciprocity, as France would not have enforced an equivalent judgment. [28] This decision differed from ...