Jurisdiction is one the legal terms that must be used with extreme caution. Most generally jurisdiction is understood as the power of the State to regulate affairs pursuant to its laws.1 Controversial issues may arise when offence assumes international aspect which can cause conflict between jurisdictions of the countries. In each of the preceding bases of jurisdiction there must be a material link between the state asserting jurisdiction and the crime.

According to the legal doctrine, the exercise of universality principle requires such conditions: the relevant criterion for the application of the universality principle is the nature of the crime, not the place where the crime was committed, the nationality of the accused or the victim, or other elements. States invoke other bases of jurisdiction under international law such as: the territorial principle (jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of the prosecuting state); the active nationality principle (jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by nationals of the prosecuting state); the more controversial passive personality (jurisdiction over crimes affecting nationals of the prosecuting state); and protective principles (jurisdiction over crimes prejudicial to certain fundamental interests of the prosecuting state). Crimes which can be prosecuted under the basis of universal jurisdiction are more specific and presuppose the interest of all international community to take an action against it.

Personal jurisdiction is varied and sometimes the defendant is subjected to the plaintiff’s laws-in a supranational context. The long-arm statute gives courts jurisdictions over out-of-state individuals or firms whose activities touch on locals. The long arm jurisdiction has a long history from the Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo Dot Com, 952 F. Supp.

The existence of different grounds of jurisdiction invoked by national courts means that several states may have concurrent jurisdictions – that is, the criminal may be tried and punished by several different countries. International law is silent on this point, and the result may be a great hardship, unless protection of international human rights can be invoked. Despite these difficulties, the principle of universal jurisdiction remains widely accepted by states owing to the specific nature of international crimes.

3. Acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction This mechanism was designed to allow the non State Parties to the Rome Statute to trigger the jurisdiction of the ICC. Indeed, article12 (3) of the Rome Statute outlines the ways in which non States can accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the situation in question.

Henry, a resident of Nevada, sued Adam, a resident of Utah in the Federal Court in California. He sought $60,000 damages for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident that occurred in Los Angeles, California. Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction? No the federal court does not have jurisdiction over this case.

Long-arm jurisdiction is concerns web page creators since it is applicable internationally. The application of long-arm statute becomes blurred when the court is not able to decide on the interactive-passive distinction. According to Wolf advertising alone is not enough to confer personal jurisdiction (Wolf 1999).

It is encouraging that industrialized countries that have not ratified the Convention have at least legislated laws consistent with the Convention because one of the biggest challenges to the prosecution and investigation of cybercrime arises out of conflicting laws of the nations affected by misconduct over the internet. Even when both the victim and the offender originate out of the same jurisdiction the evidence may exist in another jurisdiction. Moreover the offence complained of could encompass several jurisdictions, for instance a “telemarketing scam.

Jurisdiction is one of the major stumbling blocks in solving a crime or gathering data. When this term comes up immediately more barriers will shoot up immediately preventing the agency with a significant lead to pursue even further. Now, there is a good explanation for jurisdiction and it is the need for order, focus, and responsibility.

True meaning of universal jurisdiction is that international law permits any state to apply its laws to certain offenses even in the absence of territorial, nationality or other accepted contacts with the offender or the victim. These are offences that are recognized by the community of nations as of universal concern, and as subject of universal condemnation. 4 More and more states exercise universal jurisdiction, however primarily right to prosecute still has a state in which’s territory the crime was committed.


Popular posts from this blog

Brief Tales of Lords and Sovereigns for Youngsters in English


Castle on the Hill