An appraisal of the legitimacy of extraterrestrial jurisdiction in criminal law and economic sanctions

This thesis is concerned with aspects of the problem of extraterritorial jurisdiction in international law. A claim of extraterritorial jurisdiction gives rise to problems both of sovereignty and the principle of non-interference. The argument is that the justification of such jurisdiction is often unclear and requires analysis. By focussing upon (and comparing and contrasting) the two examples of extraterritorial economic sanctions and extraterritorial criminal law the thesis proposes tests which may appropriately distinguish acceptable extraterritorial measures from those which arguably should have no place in international law.

Through a theoretical discussion of the concept of legitimacy a reasonably clear distinction is suggested in the overall appraisal of extraterritorial jurisdiction. This is concerned with the so-called “substantial connection” test, which provides a means of reconciling problems of sovereignty with claims of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The discussion leads to the conclusion that some assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction, particularly some of those concerned with economic sanctions, cannot be justified in international law and should be abandoned. Other assertions adhere to the normative framework of international law and are thus legitimate. The purpose of this study is to promote the use of the substantial connection test to re-engage jurisdictional assertions with the legitimate norms presented by international law.