Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries. Any authority can claim ETJ over any external territory they wish.
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]
In countries outside of its borders, a foreign power often has extraterritorial rights over its official representation (such as a consulate).If such concessions are obtained, they are often justified as protection of the foreign religion (especially in the case of Christians in a Muslim state) such as the ahdname or capitulations granted by the Ottoman Sultan to commercial Diasporas residing ...
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.
The United States Court for China was a United States district court that had extraterritorial jurisdiction over U.S. citizens in China.It existed from 1906 to 1943 and had jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters, with appeals taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.
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.
Pages in category "Extraterritorial jurisdiction" The following 27 pages are in this category, out of 27 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. ...
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.