Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

A Modern Treatise on the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law pp 81–132Cite as

The Applicability of the Criminal Norm in Place

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 971 Accesses

Abstract

The third secondary principle of the principle of legality in criminal law concerns the applicability of the criminal norm in place, which is an aspect of the legitimacy of the norm as a legal social control. This secondary principle relates to the place and territory of criminal norms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hereinafter at Sects. 4.1.1–4.1.5.

  2. 2.

    Lawrence Collins, Dicey and Morris The Conflict of Laws I 4 (13th ed., 2000).

  3. 3.

    See e.g. Michael Hirst, Jurisdiction and the Ambit of the Criminal Law 9–12 (2003) who claims as to the British Parliament that “Parliament’s chronic inconsistency in its use of the term ’jurisdiction’ is, however, a major problem in this context. Sometimes that term is used in order to extend the ambit of criminal offences, and sometimes it is used, as in …, in relation only to the power of a court to try an offence, assuming that the substantive law already applies to the conduct that is alleged to amount to that offence”; Geoff Gilbert, Crimes sans Frontiers: Jurisdictional Problems in English Law, 63 British Yearbook of International Law 415, 416 (1992).

  4. 4.

    Treacy v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1971] A.C. 537, 559, [1971] 1 All E.R. 110, [1971] 2 W.L.R. 112, 55 Cr. App. Rep. 113, 135 J.P. 112: “the question in this appeal is not whether the Central Criminal Court had jurisdiction to try the appellant on that charge, but whether the facts alleged and proved against him amounted to a criminal offence under the English Act of Parliament”.

  5. 5.

    Mauro-Rubino Sammartano and C. G. J. Morse, Public Policy in Transnational Relationships (1992).

  6. 6.

    BGH 10, 63; Ogden v. Folliot, (1790) 3 T.R. 726; Lynch v. Paraguay Provisional Government, [1861–1873] All E.R. 934, [1861–73] All E.R. 934; Huntington v. Attrill, [1893] A.C. 150; Attorney General for Canada v. Schulze, (1901) 9 S.L.T. 4; Raulin v. Fischer, [1911] 2 K.B. 93; Banco De Vizcaya v. Don Alfonso De Borbon Y Austria, [1934] All E.R. 555, [1935] 1 K.B. 140; 104 L.J.K.B. 46;151 L.T. 499; 50 T.L.R. 284; 78 Sol.Jo. 224; Frankfurter v. W. L. Exner Ltd., [1947] Ch. 629; Novello v. Hinrischen Edition Ltd., [1951] Ch. 595; Schemmer v. Property Resources Ltd., [1975] Ch. 273; Attorney General of New Zealand v. Ortiz, [1984] 1 A.C. 1, [1983] 2 W.L.R. 809, [1983] 2 All E.R. 93; United States of America v. Inkley, [1989] Q.B. 255, [1988] 3 W.L.R. 304, [1988] 3 All E.R. 144; Larkins v. N.U.M., [1985] I.R. 671; Bank of Ireland v. Meeneghan, [1994] 3 I.R. 111.

  7. 7.

    In re The Antelope, (1825) 10 Wheat. 66: “The common law considers crimes as altogether local, and cognisable and punishable exclusively in the country where they are committed… The courts of no country execute the penal laws of another”; State v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239 (1888); SA Consortium General Textiles v. Sun & Sand Agencies Ltd., [1978] Q.B. 279, [1978] 2 All E.R. 339, [1978] 2 W.L.R. 1.

  8. 8.

    Compare with Grant v. McAuliffe, 41 Cal.2d 859, 246 P.2d 944 (1953); Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines Inc., 9 N.Y.2d 34, 172 N.E.2d 526 (1961).

  9. 9.

    Lawrence Collins, Dicey and Morris The Conflict of Laws I 157–158 (13th ed., 2000): “While procedure is governed by the lex fori, matters of substance are governed by the law to which the court is directed by its choice of law rule (lex causae)”; See also in Huber v. Steiner, (1835) 2 Bing.N.C. 202, 210, [1835] All E.R. 159.

  10. 10.

    Larry Alexander, Are Procedural Rights Derivate Substantive Rights?, 17 Law and Philosophy 19 (1998).

  11. 11.

    Compare with George P. Fletcher, Basic Concepts of Criminal Law 11 (1998).

  12. 12.

    See e.g. article 56 of the German penal code.

  13. 13.

    Edouard Bartin, Principes de Droit International Privé I (1930); Franz Kahn, Gesetzeskollisionen: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre des internationalen Privatrechts, 30 Jhering’s Jahrbücher für die Dogmatik des Heutigen Römischen Privatrechts 1 (1891, 1928); Ernest G. Lorenzen, The Qualification, Classification, or Characterization Problem in The Conflict of Laws, 50 Yale L. J. 743 (1940).

  14. 14.

    Collins, supra note 2, at pp. 33–45.

  15. 15.

    De Nicols v. Curlier, [1900] A.C. 21, 69 L.J.Ch. 109, 81 L.T. 733, 16 T.L.R. 101, 48 W.R. 269; Ogden v. Ogden, [1908] P. 46, 77 L.J.P. 34, 97 L.T. 827, 24 T.L.R. 94; In re The Colorado, [1923] All E.R. 531, [1923] P. 102, 92 L.J.P. 100, 128 L.T. 759, 16 Asp. M.L.C. 145.

  16. 16.

    The first secondary principle of the principle of legality in criminal law is discussed above at Chap. 2.

  17. 17.

    See e.g. in Norman Bentwich, The Criminal Code of Palestine, 83 L.J. 390 (1937); Norman Abrams, Interpreting the Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936 – The Untapped Well, 7 Isr. L. R. 25 (1972).

  18. 18.

    E.g. the first gulf war (1991) on the identity of Kuwait as a sovereign territory or as part of Iraq; the struggle on Tibet as a sovereign territory or as part of China; the war on the Falkland Islands between Britain and Argentina (1982) as part of Britain or as part of Argentina.

  19. 19.

    Yehuda Z. Blum, The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria, 3 Isr. L. Rev. 279 (1968).

  20. 20.

    For instance, a factual criminal event occurs in France, and the French court applies a French criminal norm on it.

  21. 21.

    For instance, a factual criminal event occurs in Germany, and the French court applies a French criminal norm on it.

  22. 22.

    See above at Sect. 4.1.1.

  23. 23.

    For instance, a factual criminal event occurs in France, and the French court considers the German criminal norm as to the punishment, if the French criminal norm requires such considerations.

  24. 24.

    For instance, a factual criminal event occurs in Germany, and the French court considers the German criminal norm as to the punishment, if the French criminal norm requires such considerations.

  25. 25.

    E.g. municipal criminal norms are generally restricted to the relevant municipal territory, and outside it they are not applicable.

  26. 26.

    For the term “jus cogens” see above at Sect. 2.2.2.5.

  27. 27.

    William C. Canby, American Indian Law in a Nutshell 23–113 (3rd ed., 1998); Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 3 S.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030 (1883).

  28. 28.

    Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law 224 (4th ed., 2003); United States v. Blue, 722 F.2d 383 (8th Cir.1983); United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999 (6th Cir.1994); United States v. Burns, 529 F.2d 114 (9th Cir.1975); United States v. Young, 936 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir.1991); Stone v. United States, 506 F.2d 561 (8th Cir.1974); Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896); United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1881); Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 33 S.Ct. 449, 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913); Henry v. United States, 432 F.2d 114 (9th Cir.1970); Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 93 S.Ct. 1993, 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973); United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 97 S.Ct. 1395, 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977).

  29. 29.

    Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 114 S.Ct. 958, 127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994); Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 66 S.Ct. 778, 90 L.Ed. 962 (1946); Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713, 103 S.Ct. 3291, 77 L.Ed.2d 961 (1983); Fort Belknap Indian Community v. Mazurek, 43 F.3d 428 (9th Cir.1994).

  30. 30.

    See in Attorney General v. Nikolaiovitch, [1940] A.L.R. 3, (1940) 7 P.L.R. 1; Macleod v. Attorney General for New South Wales, [1891] A.C. 455, 459; United States v. Davis, 25 F.Cas. 786 (C.C.D.Mass.1837); Articles 5-7 of the German penal code; Articles 113-6–113-12 of the French penal code.

  31. 31.

    John D. Falconbridge, Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws 129–133 (2nd ed., 1954).

  32. 32.

    The popular connecting factors of the private international law are lex fori – the law of the domestic court; lex domicilii – the law of the relevant domicile of the party; lex patriae – the national law of the relevant party; lex loci contractus – the law of the place where the contract has been done (not necessarily where it was signed); lex loci solutionis – the law of the place where the contract should have been executed; lex loci delicti – the law of the place where the criminal offense has taken place (in criminal law) or the law of the place where the tort has taken place (in tort law); lex situs – the law of the place where the object is situated; lex loci celebrationis – the law of the place of marriage; lex monetae – the law of the monetary means; and lex loci disgraziae – the law of the place where the obligation has been violated.

  33. 33.

    Chevron International Oil Co. Ltd. v. A/S Sea Team, [1983] Lloyd’s Rep. 356; Ernest G. Lorenzen, Selected Articles on the Conflict of Laws 97–100, 123–127 (1947).

  34. 34.

    See above at Sect. 4.1.1; Ogden v. Folliot, (1790) 3 T.R. 726; Lynch v. Paraguay Provisional Government, [1861–1873] All E.R. 934, [1861–73] All E.R. 934; Huntington v. Attrill, [1893] A.C. 150; Attorney General for Canada v. Schulze, (1901) 9 S.L.T. 4; Raulin v. Fischer, [1911] 2 K.B. 93; Banco De Vizcaya v. Don Alfonso De Borbon Y Austria, [1934] All E.R. 555, [1935] 1 K.B. 140; 104 L.J.K.B. 46;151 L.T. 499; 50 T.L.R. 284; 78 Sol.Jo. 224; State v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239 (1888).

  35. 35.

    See above at Sect. 4.1.1; Frankfurter v. W. L. Exner Ltd., [1947] Ch. 629; Novello v. Hinrischen Edition Ltd., [1951] Ch. 595; Schemmer v. Property Resources Ltd., [1975] Ch. 273; Attorney General of New Zealand v. Ortiz, [1984] 1 A.C. 1, [1983] 2 W.L.R. 809, [1983] 2 All E.R. 93; United States of America v. Inkley, [1989] Q.B. 255, [1988] 3 W.L.R. 304, [1988] 3 All E.R. 144; Larkins v. N.U.M., [1985] I.R. 671; Bank of Ireland v. Meeneghan, [1994] 3 I.R. 111; SA Consortium General Textiles v. Sun & Sand Agencies Ltd., [1978] Q.B. 279, [1978] 2 All E.R. 339, [1978] 2 W.L.R. 1.

  36. 36.

    Edgar H. Ailes, Substance and Procedure in the Conflict of Laws, 39 Mich. L. Rev. 392, 397 (1941).

  37. 37.

    Y.B. I Edw. IV, Mich. pl. 13 (1460); Dupleix v. De Roven, (1705) 2 Vern. 540, (1705) 23 E.R. 950.

  38. 38.

    Ailes, supra note 36, at p. 398.

  39. 39.

    Hansen v. Dixon, (1906) 96 L.T. 32, (1906) 23 T.L.R. 56.

  40. 40.

    Huber v. Steiner, (1835) 2 Bing.N.C. 202, 210, [1835] All E.R. 159; Société Anonyme Metellurgique de Prayon v. Koppel, (1933) 77 S.J. 800; Grant v. McAuliffe, 41 Cal.2d 859, 246 P.2d 944 (1953); Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines Inc., 9 N.Y.2d 34, 172 N.E.2d 526, 211 N.Y.S.2d 133 (1961).

  41. 41.

    See above at Sect. 3.2.1.

  42. 42.

    See e.g. in Nancy Jean King, The American Criminal Jury, World Jury Systems 93 (Neil Vidmar ed., 2000, 2003).

  43. 43.

    See more in International Tribunal for Rwanda, Annex to U.N. Security Council Resolution 955 (1994); International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia, Annex to U.N. Security Council Resolution 808 (1993); Transcript of Proceedings of Nuremberg Trials, 41 American Journal of International Law 1–16 (1947).

  44. 44.

    See e.g. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949.

  45. 45.

    Above at Sect. 4.2.1.

  46. 46.

    See above at Table 4.1.

  47. 47.

    See above at Sect. 4.1.3.

  48. 48.

    For instance, a factual criminal event occurs in France, and the French court applies a French criminal norm on it.

  49. 49.

    The extraterritorial protective applicability of the criminal norm is discussed hereinafter at Sect. 4.3.3.2; the extraterritorial passive personality applicability of the criminal norm is discussed hereinafter at Sect. 4.3.3.3; the extraterritorial active personality applicability of the criminal norm is discussed hereinafter at Sect. 4.3.3.4; the extraterritorial universal applicability of the criminal norm is discussed hereinafter at Sect. 4.3.3.5.

  50. 50.

    For instance, a factual criminal event occurs in Germany, and the French court applies a French criminal norm on it.

  51. 51.

    For instance, a factual criminal event occurs in France, and the French court considers the German criminal norm as to the punishment, if the French criminal norm requires such considerations.

  52. 52.

    For instance, a factual criminal event occurs in Germany, and the French court considers the German criminal norm as to the punishment, if the French criminal norm requires such considerations.

  53. 53.

    For the distinction between procedural and substantive criminal norms between different legal systems see above at Sect. 4.1.2.

  54. 54.

    For the distinction between domestic and foreign criminal norms and criminal events see above at Sect. 4.1.3.

  55. 55.

    For the distinction between procedural and substantive criminal norms between different legal systems see above at Sect. 4.1.2.

  56. 56.

    For the distinction between domestic and foreign criminal norms and criminal events see above at Sect. 4.1.3.

  57. 57.

    The extraterritorial protective applicability of the criminal norm is discussed hereinafter at Sect. 4.3.3.2; the extraterritorial passive personality applicability of the criminal norm is discussed hereinafter at Sect. 4.3.3.3; the extraterritorial active personality applicability of the criminal norm is discussed hereinafter at Sect. 4.3.3.4; the extraterritorial universal applicability of the criminal norm is discussed hereinafter at Sect. 4.3.3.5.

  58. 58.

    Harold J. Berman and Charles J. Reid Jr., Roman Law in Europe and the Jus Commune: A Historical Overview with Emphasis on the New Legal Science of the Sixteenth Century, 20 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 1 (1994); Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition 3 (1983); Charles Radding, The Origins of Medieval Jurisprudence: Pavia and Bologna, 850–1150 (1988); Kenneth Pennington, The Prince and the Law, 1200–1600: Sovereignty and Rights in the Western Legal Tradition (1993); Harold J. Berman, Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion 187 (1993); Richard H. Helmholz, Roman Canon Law in Reformation England (1990); Gino Gorla and Luigi Moccia, A “Revisiting” of the Comparison Between “Continental Law” and “English Law” (16th to 19th Centuries), 2 J. of L. Hist. 143 (1981); Peter Stein, Roman Law and English Jurisprudence: Yesterday and Today (1969); Helmut Coing, Europäisces Privatrecht, Band II: 19 Jahrhundert: Überblick Über die Entwicklung des Privatrechts in den ehemals gemeinrechtlichen Ländern 2 (1989); Friedrich Karl von Savigny, System des Heutigen Römischen Rechts 1–8 (1840–1849).

  59. 59.

    Thomas Andrew Green, Verdict According to Conscience 15 (1985).

  60. 60.

    Act for the Trial of Murders and Felonies in Several Counties, 1548, 2 & 3 Edw. VI, c. 24.

  61. 61.

    Lacy’s Case, (1582) 1 Leon. 270.

  62. 62.

    Bennet v. Hundred of Hartford, (1650) Style 233, 82 E.R. 671.

  63. 63.

    2 Geo. II, c. 21 (1728); Matthew Hale, Historia Placitorum Coronae vol. II 273 (1736) [Matthew Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736)].

  64. 64.

    James Fitzjames Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England vol. I 277 (1883).

  65. 65.

    Thus, for instance, the English court had ruled in Page, [1954] 1 Q.B. 170, 175, [1953] 2 All E.R. 1355, [1953] 3 W.L.R. 895, 37 Cr. App. Rep. 189: “It is, no doubt, true that the general rule of English law is that offences committed by British subjects out of England are not punishable by the criminal law of this country. We need not explore the origin of this doctrine. Suffice it to say that it depends partly on the law of nations which would regard an offence committed on the soil of one nation as, at least primarily, the concern of the sovereign of that country, but one can also see the procedural difficulty which would have occurred to a medieval lawyer who would be unable to understand how the jury presentment consisting of persons taken from the vicinage could have knowledge of crimes committed abroad sufficient to present them to the sovereign’s courts. It is enough to say that, certainly from the reign of Henry VIII, this rule has been subject to statutory exceptions”; See more in Casement, [1917] 1 K.B. 98.

  66. 66.

    Criminal Justice Act, 1925, c.86.

  67. 67.

    See e.g. in article 46(2) of the Courts Act, 1971, c.23; Supreme Court Act, 1981 [Senior Courts Act, 1981], c.54 that states: “The jurisdiction of the Crown Court with respect to proceedings on indictment shall include jurisdiction in proceedings on indictment for offences wherever committed, and in particular proceedings on indictment for offences within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England”.

  68. 68.

    See e.g. in American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 29 S.Ct. 511, 53 L.Ed. 826 (1909).

  69. 69.

    Ibid: “The general and almost universal rule is that the character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be determined wholly by the law of the country where the act is done”.

  70. 70.

    Above at Sect. 4.3.1.

  71. 71.

    Frank Tuerkheimer, Globalization of U.S. Law Enforcement: Does The Constitution Come Along?, 39 Houston L. Rev. 307, 315 (2002); Bruce Zagaris and Julia Padierna Peralta, Mexico-United States Extradition and Alternatives: From Fugitive Slaves to Drug Traffickers – 150 Years and beyond the Rio Grande’s Winding Courses, 12 Am. U. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 519, 553 (1997).

  72. 72.

    Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 31 S.Ct. 558, 55 L.Ed. 735 (1911); Ellen S. Podgor, International Computer Fraud: A Paradigm for Limiting National Jurisdiction, 35 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 267, 289 (2002); Michael Akehurst, Jurisdiction in International Law, 46 British Yearbook of International Law 145, 154 (1972).

  73. 73.

    Lowell H. Brown, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Under the 1998 Amendments to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: Does the Government’s Reach Exceed Its Grasp?, 26 N.C. J. Int’l L. & Com. Reg. 239, 328 (2001).

  74. 74.

    Article 402(1)(a) of the American third Restatement states: “has jurisdiction to prescribe law with respect to… conduct that, wholly or in substantial part, takes place within its territory” (emphasis not in original); Hans-Heinrich Jescheck und Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts – Allgemeiner Teil 131 (5 Auf., 1996).

  75. 75.

    Walter Harrison Hitchler, The Physical Element of Crime, 39 Dick. L. Rev. 95 (1934); Michael Moore, Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action and Its Implications for Criminal Law (1993).

  76. 76.

    John William Salmond, On Jurisprudence 505 (Glanville Williams ed., 11th ed., 1957); Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part §11 (2nd ed., 1961); Oliver W. Holmes, The Common Law 54 (1881, 1923); Walter Wheeler Cook, Act, Intention, and Motive in Criminal Law, 26 Yale L. J. 645 (1917).

  77. 77.

    United States v. Guiteau, 12 D.C. 498 (1882); United States v. Parker, 622 F.2d 298 (8th Cir.1980); United States v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137, 53 S.Ct. 580, 77 L.Ed. 1086 (1993).

  78. 78.

    Thomas G. Barnes, Due Process and Slow Process in the Late Elizibethan-Early Stuart Star Chamber, 6 Am. J. Legal. Hist. 221 (1962); Thomas G. Barnes, Star Chamber Mythology, 5 Am. J. Legal. Hist. 1 (1961).

  79. 79.

    Henry de Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae 337, f. 128, 13 (1260; G. E. Woodbine ed., S. E. Thorne trans., 1968–1977); James Fitzjames Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England 222 (1883, 1964).

  80. 80.

    E.g. in Britain, in addition to the attempt, conspiracy and solicitation, the accessory and abettor are also considered inchoate offenders since 2008 due to art. 44 of the Serious Crimes Act, 2007, c.27.

  81. 81.

    James Fitzjames Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England 223–224 (1883, 1964); Sir Edward Coke, Institutions of the Laws of England – Third Part 5, 69, 161 (6th ed., 1681, 1817, 2001); William Hudson, Treatise of the Court of Star Chamber, 2 Hargrave Collectanea Juridica 8 (1882): argues “Attempts to coin money, to commit burglary, or poison or murder, are in ordinary example; of which the attempt by Frizier against Baptista Basiman, in 5. Eliz. is famous; and that attempt of the two brothers who were whipped and gazed in Fleet-street in 44. Eliz. is yet fresh in memory”, and concludes (pp. 12–13): “Infinite more are the causes usually punished in this court, for which, for which the law provideth no remedy in any sort or ordinary course, whereby the necessary use of this court to the state appeareth; and the subjects may as safely repose themselves in the bosoms of those honourable lords, reverend prelates, grave judges, and worthy chancellors, as in the heady current of burgesses and meaner men, who run too often in a stream of passion after their own or some private man’s affections, the equality of whose justice let them speak of who have made trial of it, being no subject fit for me to discourse of”. See more e.g. in Sidley, (1664) 1 Sid. 168, 1 Keble 620, 82 E.R. 1036; Bacon, (1664) 1 Lev. 146, 1 Sid. 230, 1 Keble 809, 83 E.R. 341; Johnson, (1678) 2 Shaw. K.B. 1, 89 E.R. 753; Cowper, (1696) 5 Mod. 206, 87 E.R. 611; Langley, (1703) 2 Salk. 697, 91 E.R. 590; Pigot, (1707) Holt 758, 90 E.R. 1317; Sutton, (1736) Cas. T. Hard. 370, 95 E.R. 240; Vaughan, (1769) 4 Burr. 2494, 98 E.R. 308; Scofield, (1784) Cald. Mag. Rep. 397, 400; Higgins, (1801) 2 East 5, 102 E.R. 269: “All offences of a public nature, that is, all such acts or attempts as tend to the prejudice of the community, are indictable…”; Butler, (1834) 6 Car. & P. 368, 172 E.R. 1280: “an attempt to commit a misdemeanour created by statute is a misdemeanour itself”; Roderick, (1837) 7 Car. & P. 795, 173 E.R. 347: “an attempt to commit a misdemeanour is a misdemeanour, whether the offense is created by statute, or was an offense at common law”; State v. Redmon, 121 S.C. 139, 113 S.E. 467 (1922); Whitesides v. State, 79 Tenn. 474 (1883); Criminal Attempts Act, 1981, c.47, art. 1(1) provides: “If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence”; and thus interpreted, e.g. in Walker, (1989) 90 Cr. App. Rep. 226, [1990] Crim. L.R. 44; Tosti, [1997] Crim. L.R. 746; MH, [2004] W.L. 137 2419.

  82. 82.

    See e.g. art. 22-24, 26, 30-31 of the German Penal Code and art. 121-5, 121-6, 121-7 of the French Penal Code.

  83. 83.

    John W. Curran, Solicitation: A Substantive Crime, 17 Minn. L. Rev. 499 (1933); James B. Blackburn, Solicitation to Crimes, 40 W.Va. L. Rev. 135 (1934); Walter Harrison Hitchler, Solicitations, 41 Dick. L. Rev. 225 (1937); Herbert Wechsler, William Kenneth Jones and Harold L. Korn, The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy, 61 Colum. L. Rev. 571 (1961); Daniell, (1704) 6 Mod. 99, 87 E.R. 856; Collingwood, (1704) 6 Mod. 288, 87 E.R. 1029; Vaughan, (1769) 4 Burr. 2494, 98 E.R. 308; Higgins, (1801) 2 East 5, 102 E.R. 269.

  84. 84.

    State v. Lampe, 131 Minn. 65, 154 N.W. 737 (1915); Gregory, (1867) 1 Crim. C.R. 77; United States v. Lyles, 4 Cranch C.C. 469, Fed.Cas.No. 15,646 (1834); Cox v. People, 82 Ill. 191 (1876); Allen v. State, 91 Md.App. 705, 605 A.2d 960 (1992); Commonwealth v. Barsell, 424 Mass. 737, 678 N.E.2d 143 (1997); Commonwealth v. Flagg, 135 Mass. 545 (1883); State v. Beckwith, 135 Me. 423, 198 A. 739 (1938); State v. Hampton, 210 N.C. 283, 186 S.E. 251 (1936); State v. Avery, 7 Conn. 266 (1828); State v. Foster, 379 A.2d 1219 (Me.1977); State v. Blechman, 135 N.J.L. 99, 50 A.2d 152 (1946); Smith v. Commonwealth, 54 Pa. 209 (1867); State v. Sullivan, 110 Mo.App. 75, 84 S.W. 105 (1904); Director of Public Prosecutions v. Armstrong, (1999) 143 S.J. L.B. 279, [2000] Crim. L.R. 379; Goldman, [2001] Crim. L.R. 894; Jessica Holroyd, Incitement – A Tale of Three Agents, 65 J. Crim. L. 515 (2001).

  85. 85.

    E.g. art. 26 of the German Penal Code provides: “Als Anstifter wird gleich einem Täter bestraft, wer vorsätzlich einen anderen zu dessen vorsätzlich begangener rechtswidriger Tat bestimmt hat”; art. 121-7 of the French Penal Code provides: “Est également complice la personne qui par don, promesse, menace, ordre, abus d’autorité ou de pouvoir aura provoqué à une infraction ou donné des instructions pour la commettre”; See more e.g. in the German court decisions in RG 36, 402; RG 53, 189; BGH 6, 359; BGH 7, 234; BGH 8, 137; BGH 34, 63.

  86. 86.

    Francis B. Sayre, Criminal Conspiracy, 35 Harv. L. Rev. 393, 394–409 (1922); John Hagan, Victims Before the Law – The Organizational Domination of Criminal Law 8 (1983); 13 Edw. I, c.12 (1285); 33 Edw. I, c.10 (1307); 4 Edw. III, c.11 (1330); Y.B., 24 Edw. III, f.75, pl.99 (1351).

  87. 87.

    Poulterers’ Case, (1611) 9 Coke Rep. 55b, 77 E.R. 813.

  88. 88.

    Timberley, (1663) 1 Sid. 68, 1 Keble 203, 82 E.R. 974, 83 E.R. 900; Starling, (1664) 1 Sid. 174, 82 E.R. 1039; Sidley, (1664) 1 Sid. 168, 1 Keble 620, 82 E.R. 1036; Daniell, (1704) 6 Mod. 99, 87 E.R. 856; Jones v. Randall, (1774) Lofft 383, 98 E.R. 706.

  89. 89.

    Jones, (1832) 4 B. & Ad. 345, 110 E.R. 485; State v. Burnham, 15 N.H. 396 (1844); Pettibone v. United States, 148 U.S. 197, 13 S.Ct. 542, 37 L.Ed. 419 (1893); Commonwealth v. Hunt, 4 Metc. 111 (Mass.1842); Kamara v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1974] A.C. 104, [1973] 2 All E.R. 1242, [1973] 3 W.L.R. 198, 57 Cr. App. Rep. 880, 137 J.P. 714; Criminal Law Act, 1977, c.45 art. 1(1), (2) as amended due to art. 5 of the Criminal Attempts Act, 1981, c.47.

  90. 90.

    Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974); Jonathan Wolff, Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and Minimal State (1981).

  91. 91.

    David Lewis, The Punishment that Leaves Something to Chance, 18 Philosophy and Public Affairs 53 (1989); Sanford H. Kadish, The Criminal Law and the Luck of the Draw, 84 J. Crim. L. &. Criminology 679 (1994); Leo Kats, Why the Successful Assassin is More Wicked than the Unsuccessful One, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 791 (2000); Paul H. Robinson, Some Doubts About Argument by Hypothetical, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 813 (2000).

  92. 92.

    See e.g. Robin Antony Duff, Criminalizing Endangerment, Defining Crimes – Essays on the Special Part of the Criminal Law 43 (Robin Antony Duff and Stuart P. Green eds., 2005); Markus Dirk Dubber, The Possession Paradigm: The Special Part and the Police Power Model of the Criminal Process, Defining Crimes – Essays on the Special Part of the Criminal Law 91 (Robin Antony Duff and Stuart P. Green eds., 2005).

  93. 93.

    Jerome B. Elkind, Impossibility in Criminal Attempts: A Theorist’s Headache, 54 Va. L. Rev. 20, 33–34 (1968); John J. Yeager, Effect of Impossibility on Criminal Attempts, 31 Ky. L. J. 270 (1943); Arnold N. Enker, Impossibility in Criminal Attempts – Legality and Legal Process, 53 Minn. L. Rev. 665 (1969); David D. Friedman, Impossibility, Subjective Probability, and Punishment for Attempts, 20 J. Legal Stud. 179 (1991); Peter Westen, Impossibility Attempts: A Speculative Thesis, 5 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 523 (2008); Kunkle v. State, 32 Ind. 220 (1869); People v. Elmore, 128 Ill.App.2d 312, 261 N.E.2d 736 (1970); State v. Smith, 262 N.J.Super. 487, 621 A.2d 493 (1993).

  94. 94.

    Nils Jareborg, Criminal Attempts and Moral Luck, 27 Isr. L. Rev. 213 (1993); Benjamin C. Zipursky, Two Dimensions of Responsibility in Crime, Tort, and Moral Luck, 9 Theoretical Inq. L. 97 (2008); Russell Christopher, Does Attempted Murder Deserve Greater Punishment than Murder – Moral Luck and the Duty to Prevent Harm, 18 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 419 (2004).

  95. 95.

    See e.g. in the United States People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094 (1977); Sizemore v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 980, 243 S.E.2d 212 (1978); People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 544 N.Y.S.2d 769, 543 N.E.2d 34 (1989); People v. Acosta, 80 N.Y.2d 665, 593 N.Y.S.2d 978, 609 N.E.2d 518 (1993); People v. Warren, 66 N.Y.2d 831, 498 N.Y.S.2d 353, 489 N.E.2d 240 (1985); Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 32 S.Ct. 793, 56 L.Ed. 114 (1912); and in the English Common Law Eagleton, [1855] 6 Cox C.C. 559; Button, [1900] All E.R. 1648, [1900] 2 Q.B. 597, 69 L.J.Q.B. 901, 83 L.T. 288, 64 J.P. 600, 48 W.R. 703, 16 T.L.R. 525, 44 Sol. Jo. 659, 19 Cox. C.C. 568; Robinson, [1915] 2 K.B. 342; Compare United States v. Desena, 287 F.3d 170 (2nd Cir.2002); Henderson, [1948] 91 C.C.C. 97.

  96. 96.

    United States v. Colpon, 185 F.2d 629 (1950); Commonwealth v. Peaslee, 177 Mass. 267, 59 N.E. 55 (1901); Compare Antony Robin Duff, Criminal Attempts 37–42 (1996).

  97. 97.

    J. W. Cecil Turner, Attempts to Commit Crimes, 5 Cambridge L. J. 230 (1933); Leon Radzinowicz and J. W. Cecil Turner, The Modern Approach to Criminal Law 279–280 (1948); Barker, [1924] N.Z.L.R. 865, 874–875; State v. Stewart, 143 Wis.2d 28, 420 N.W.2d 44 (1988); Campbell and Bradley v. Ward, [1955] N.Z.L.R. 471; Compare United States v. Cruz-Jiminez, 977 F.2d 95 (3rd Cir. 1992); United States v. McDowell, 714 F.2d 106 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Everett, 700 F.2d 900 (3rd Cir. 1983); Lemke v. United States, 14 Alaska 587, 211 F.2d 73 (9th Cir. 1954); State v. Mandel, 78 Ariz. 226, 278 P.2d 413 (1954); People v. Buffum, 40 Cal.2d 709, 256 P.2d 317 (1953); Larsen v. State, 86 Nev. 451, 470 P.2d 417 (1970); People v. Downer, 57 Cal.2d 800, 22 Cal. Rptr. 347, 372 P.2d 107 (1962); Wylie, [1976] 2 N.Z.L.R. 167.

  98. 98.

    See e.g. People v. Hawkins, 311 Ill.App.3d 418, 243 Ill.Dec. 621, 723 N.E.2d 1222 (2000); United States v. Doyon, 194 F.3d 207 (1st Cir.1999).

  99. 99.

    Donald Stuart, The Actus Reus in Attempts, [1970] Crim. L.R. 505 (1970); Mark Thornton, Attempting the Impossible (Again), 25 Crim. L. Q. 294 (1983).

  100. 100.

    Theodore W. Cousens, Agreement as an Element in Conspiracy, 23 Va. L. Rev. 898 (1937); Paul Marcus, Conspiracy: The Criminal Agreement in Theory and in Practice, 65 Geo. L. J. 925 (1977).

  101. 101.

    For the different association theory behind that concept See Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey, Criminology 173 (4th ed., 1970).

  102. 102.

    Note, Criminal Conspiracy, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 920 (1958–1959); Nick Zimmerman, Attempted Stalking: An Attempt-to-Almost-Attempt-to-Act, 20 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 219 (2000); Charles H. Rose III, Criminal Conspiracy and the Military Commissions Act: Two Minds That May Never Meet, 13 ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 321 (2007).

  103. 103.

    See e.g. Anthony LaCroix, Attempted Online Child Enticement: Not Impossible, but Not That Simple, 5 Dartmouth L.J. 97 (2007); Sam E. Fowler, Criminal Attempt Conspiracy and Solicitation under the Criminal Code Reform Bill of 1978, 47 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 550 (1979).

  104. 104.

    United States v. Postal, 589 F.2d 862 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Ricardo, 619 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Wright-Barker, 784 F.2d 161 (3rd Cir.1986).

  105. 105.

    United States v. Plummer, 221 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir.2000).

  106. 106.

    James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law 42 (1979); Ian Brownlie, Principles of International Law 138–145 (4th ed., 1990).

  107. 107.

    Above at Sect. 2.2.2.

  108. 108.

    See e.g. the offense of piracy in Dawson, (1696) 13 St.Tr. 451; The Magellan Pirates, (1853) 1 Sp.Ecc.&Ad. 81, 164 E.R. 47; Harmony v. United States, 43 U.S. 210, 11 L.Ed. 239 (1844); Athens Maritime Enterprises Corporation v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd., [1983] Q.B. 647, [1983] 1 All E.R. 590, [1983] 2 W.L.R. 425.

  109. 109.

    Keyn, (1876) 2 Q.B.D. 90, 2 Ex.D. 65.

  110. 110.

    Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, United Nations Publications Sales, E.83 V.5 (1983) states that “Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention”.

  111. 111.

    Article 1(1)(a) of the Territorial Sea Act, 1987, c.49 states that “the breadth of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom shall for all purposes be 12 nautical miles”.

  112. 112.

    Article 5 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, United Nations Publications Sales, E.83 V.5 (1983) states that “Except where otherwise provided in this Convention, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State”; See more in Kent Justices, [1967] 2 Q.B. 153, [1967] 1 All E.R. 560, [1967] 2 W.L.R. 765, 131 J.P. 212; Post Office v. Estuary Radio Ltd., [1968] 2 Q.B. 740, [1967] 3 All E.R. 663, [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1396.

  113. 113.

    Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries, [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 116, 160.

  114. 114.

    Corfu Channel, [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 1.

  115. 115.

    Pianka v. The Queen, [1979] A.C. 107.

  116. 116.

    Article 33 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, United Nations Publications Sales, E.83 V.5 (1983) states that “(1) In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to: (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea. (2) The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured”.

  117. 117.

    Ibid.

  118. 118.

    See in Part V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, United Nations Publications Sales, E.83 V.5 (1983).

  119. 119.

    Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law 418–422 (4th ed., 1997).

  120. 120.

    Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation, 1944, 295 U.N.T.S. 15.

  121. 121.

    Convention for the Regulation of Aerial Navigation, 1919, 173 L.N.T.S. 11.

  122. 122.

    At p. 2 of the convention.

  123. 123.

    Hirst, supra note 3, at pp. 104–106.

  124. 124.

    J. F. McMahon, Legal Aspects of Outer Space, 38 British Yearbook of International Law 339 (1962).

  125. 125.

    Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, 1967, 610 U.N.T.S. 206.

  126. 126.

    Henri A. Wassenbergh, Principles of Outer Space in Hindsight 18 (1991).

  127. 127.

    Mali v. Keeper of the Common Jail, 120 U.S. 1, 7 S.Ct. 385, 30 L.Ed. 565 (1887): “It is beneficial to commerce if the local government abstains from interfering with the ship’s internal discipline, and the general regulation of the rights and duties of the officers and crew towards the vessel or among themselves”; See more in Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 73 S.Ct. 921, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953); United States v. One Big Six Wheel, 166 F.3d 498 (2nd Cir.1999).

  128. 128.

    United States v. Keller, 451 F.Supp. 631 (1978); Article 4 of the German penal code provides: “Das deutsche Strafrecht gilt, unabhängig vom Recht des Tatorts, für Taten, die auf einem Schiff oder Luftfahrzeug begangen werden, das berechtigt ist, die Bundesflagge oder das Staatszugehörigkeitszeichen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu führen”; Article 113-3 of the French penal code provides in relation to ships that “La loi pénale française est applicable aux infractions commises à bord des navires battant un pavillon français, ou à l’encontre de tels navires, en quelque lieu qu’ils se trouvent. Elle est seule applicable aux infractions commises à bord des navires de la marine nationale, ou à l’encontre de tels navires, en quelque lieu qu’ils se trouvent”; and in relation to aircrafts article 113-4 of the French penal code provides that “La loi pénale française est applicable aux infractions commises à bord des aéronefs immatriculés en France, ou à l’encontre de tels aéronefs, en quelque lieu qu’ils se trouvent. Elle est seule applicable aux infractions commises à bord des aéronefs militaires français, ou à l’encontre de tels aéronefs, en quelque lieu qu’ils se trouvent”.

  129. 129.

    Anderson, [1861–1873] All E.R. 999, (1868) 11 Cox C.C. 198; United States v. Holmes, 18 U.S. 412, 5 L.Ed. 122 (1820); United States v. Rodgers, 150 U.S. 249, 14 S.Ct. 109, 37 L.Ed. 1071 (1893); United States v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137, 53 S.Ct. 580, 77 L.Ed. 1086 (1933); Hoopengarner v. United States, 270 F.2d 465 (6th Cir.1959); United States v. Reagan, 453 F.2d 165 (6th Cir.1971); United States v. Ross, 439 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir.1971); United States v. Allied Towing Corp., 602 F.2d 612 (4th Cir.1979); United States v. Arra, 630 F.2d 836 (1st Cir.1980); Marsh v. State, 95 N.M. 224, 620 P.2d 878 (1980); United States v. Ricker, 670 F.2d 987 (11th Cir.1982).

  130. 130.

    Hereinafter at Sect. 4.4.1.

  131. 131.

    Above at Sect. 4.3.2.1.

  132. 132.

    Christopher L. Blakesley, A Conceptual Framework for Extradition and Jurisdiction over Extraterritorial Crimes, 1984 Utah L. Rev. 685 (1984); Mark A. Weisburd, Due Process Limits on Federal Extraterritorial Legislation, 35 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 379 (1997); Frank Tuerkheimer, Globalization of U.S. Law Enforcement: Does The Constitution Come Along?, 39 Houston L. Rev. 307, 315 (2002).

  133. 133.

    United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 43 S.Ct. 39, 67 L.Ed. 149 (1922).

  134. 134.

    Curtis A. Bradley, Universal Jurisdiction and U.S. Law, 2001 U. Chi. Legal F. 323, 330 (2001).

  135. 135.

    William S. Dodge, Understanding the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality, 16 Berkeley J. Int’l L. 85 (1998).

  136. 136.

    Above at Sect. 4.3.2.1.

  137. 137.

    American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 29 S.Ct. 511, 53 L.Ed. 826 (1909): “The general and almost universal rule is that the character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be determined wholly by the law of the country where the act is done”.

  138. 138.

    E.E.O.C. v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991); Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 113 S.Ct. 2549, 125 L.Ed.2d 128 (1993); Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197, 113 S.Ct. 1178, 122 L.Ed.2d 548 (1993); Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 109 S.Ct. 683, 102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989); but see Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 113 S.Ct. 2891, 125 L.Ed.2d 612 (1993).

  139. 139.

    Gary B. Born, A Reappraisal of the Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Law, 24 Law & Pol’y Int’l Bus. 1 (1992); Larry Kramer, Vestiges of Beale: Extraterritorial Application of American Law, 1991 Sup. Ct. Rev. 179 (1991).

  140. 140.

    Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804): “an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains”.

  141. 141.

    Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.S. 536, 5 S.Ct. 255, 28 L.Ed. 770 (1884).

  142. 142.

    As discussed hereinafter at Sect. 4.4.1.

  143. 143.

    BGH 30, 1.

  144. 144.

    United States v. Rodriguez, 182 F.Supp. 479 (S.D.Cal.1960); Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1946] A.C. 347, [1946] 1 All E.R. 186, 174 L.T. 206, 62 T.L.R. 208, 31 Cr. App. Rep. 57, [1946] W.N. 31: “No principle of comity demands that a State should ignore the crime of treason committed against it outside its territory. On the contrary a proper regard for its own security requires that all those who commit that crime, whether they commit it within or without the realm should be amenable to its laws”.

  145. 145.

    Article 113-10 of the French penal code provides that “La loi pénale française s’applique aux crimes et délits qualifiés d’atteintes aux intérêts fondamentaux de la nation et réprimés par le titre Ier du livre IV, à la falsification et à la contrefaçon du sceau de l’Etat, de pièces de monnaie, de billets de banque ou d’effets publics réprimées par les articles 442-1, 442-2, 442-5, 442-15, 443-1 et 444-1 et à tout crime ou délit contre les agents ou les locaux diplomatiques ou consulaires français, commis hors du territoire de la République”; See more in the United States at United States v. Gonzalez, 776 F.2d 931 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d 486 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Felix-Gutierrez, 940 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Vasquez-Valesco, 15 F.3d 833 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Cardales, 168 F.3d 548 (1st Cir.1999); and in Germany article 5 of the German penal code.

  146. 146.

    Shaw, supra note 119, at pp. 468–469.

  147. 147.

    Above at Sect. 4.3.3.1.

  148. 148.

    Shaw, supra note 119, at pp. 468–469.

  149. 149.

    United States v. Lopez-Alvarez, 970 F.2d 583 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Benitez, 741 F.2d 1312 (11th Cir.1984).

  150. 150.

    Hereinafter at Sect. 4.3.3.4.

  151. 151.

    Article 7(1) of the German penal code provides that “Das deutsche Strafrecht gilt für Taten, die im Ausland gegen einen Deutschen begangen werden, wenn die Tat am Tatort mit Strafe bedroht ist oder der Tatort keiner Strafgewalt unterliegt”; Article 113-7 of the French penal code provides that “La loi pénale française est applicable à tout crime, ainsi qu’à tout délit puni d’emprisonnement, commis par un Français ou par un étranger hors du territoire de la République lorsque la victime est de nationalité française au moment de l’infraction”.

  152. 152.

    Hirst, supra note 3, at pp. 51–52; Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701.

  153. 153.

    Shaw, supra note 119, at pp. 467–468.

  154. 154.

    Above at Sect. 4.3.3.1.

  155. 155.

    Geoffrey R. Watson, The Passive Personality Principle, 28 Tex. Int’l L. J. 1 (1993).

  156. 156.

    Ibid, at pp. 14–15.

  157. 157.

    United States v. Davis, 25 F.Cas. 786 (C.C.D.Mass.1837).

  158. 158.

    Department of State, Report on Extraterritorial Crime and the Cutting Case, in Foreign Relations Law of the United States 751, 762 (1887).

  159. 159.

    United States v. Yunis, 681 F.Supp. 896 (D.D.C.1988); United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C.Cir.1991).

  160. 160.

    Abraham Abramovsky, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The United States Unwarranted Attempt to Alter International Law in United States v. Yunis, 15 Yale J. Int’l L. 121 (1990).

  161. 161.

    Rees v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1986] 1 A.C. 937, [1986] 2 All E.R. 321, [1986] 2 W.L.R. 1024, 83 Cr. App. Rep. 128.

  162. 162.

    Counter-Terrorism Act, 2008, c.28; Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act, 2006, c.4; Terrorism Act, 2006, c.11; Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2005, c.2; Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001, c. 24; Terrorism Act, 2006, c.11; Terrorism Act, 2000, c.11; Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act, 1998, c.40; Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act, 1996, c.7; Suppression of Terrorism Act, 1978, c.26; in Canada: Criminal Code, c.46, part II.1; Regulations Implementing the United Nations Resolutions on the Suppression of Terrorism, Under the United Nations Act, 2001; in New Zealand: International Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act, 1987 No. 179; Terrorism Suppression Act, 2002 No. 34; Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act, 2009 No. 35.

  163. 163.

    Above at Sect. 4.3.3.3.

  164. 164.

    In the German law article 7(2)(1) of the German penal code provides that “(2) Für andere Taten, die im Ausland begangen werden, gilt das deutsche Strafrecht, wenn die Tat am Tatort mit Strafe bedroht ist oder der Tatort keiner Strafgewalt unterliegt und wenn der Täter (1) zur Zeit der Tat Deutscher war oder es nach der Tat geworden ist,…” and article 5(12) of the German penal code provides that “Das deutsche Strafrecht gilt, unabhängig vom Recht des Tatorts, für folgende Taten, die im Ausland begangen werden:… (12) Taten, die ein deutscher Amtsträger oder für den öffentlichen Dienst besonders Verpflichteter während eines dienstlichen Aufenthalts oder in Beziehung auf den Dienst begeht”; In the French law article 113-6 of the French penal code provides that “La loi pénale française est applicable à tout crime commis par un Français hors du territoire de la République. Elle est applicable aux délits commis par des Français hors du territoire de la République si les faits sont punis par la législation du pays où ils ont été commis. Il est fait application du présent article lors même que le prévenu aurait acquis la nationalité française postérieurement au fait qui lui est imputé”.

  165. 165.

    Geoffrey R. Watson, Offenders Abroad: The Case for Nationality-Based Criminal Jurisdiction, 17 Yale J. Int’l L. 41 (1992).

  166. 166.

    Article 5(13) of the German penal code provides that “Taten, die ein Ausländer als Amtsträger oder für den öffentlichen Dienst besonders Verpflichteter begeht”.

  167. 167.

    Shaw, supra note 119, at pp. 462–467.

  168. 168.

    Above at Sect. 4.3.3.1.

  169. 169.

    Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 78 S.Ct. 568, 2 L.Ed.2d 603 (1958).

  170. 170.

    Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, [2000] 1 A.C. 147, [1999] 2 All E.R. 97, [1999] 2 W.L.R. 827.

  171. 171.

    Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 52 S.Ct. 252, 76 L.Ed. 375 (1932); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 43 S.Ct. 39, 67 L.Ed. 149 (1922); Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 11 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed. 691 (1890).

  172. 172.

    See e.g. 18 U.S.C.A. §1203; 18 U.S.C.A. §1956; 18 U.S.C.A. §2332A; 18 U.S.C.A. §2339C.

  173. 173.

    United States v. Hill, 279 F.3d 731 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Plummer, 221 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir.2000); United States v. Thomas, 893 F.2d 1066 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Walczak, 783 F.2d 852 (9th Cir.1986).

  174. 174.

    United States v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 76 S.Ct. 1, 100 L.Ed. 8 (1955); Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1957); Kinsella v. United States, 361 U.S. 234, 80 S.Ct. 297, 4 L.Ed.2d 268 (1960); Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 310, 4 L.Ed.2d 279 (1960); McElroy v. United States, 361 U.S. 281, 80 S.Ct. 305, 4 L.Ed.2d 282 (1960).

  175. 175.

    See e.g. 18 U.S.C.A. §§3261-3267; War Crimes Act, 1991, c.13; Article 21 of the Antarctic Act, 1994, c.15 provides that “Where a United Kingdom national does or omits to do anything on any land lying south of 60 degrees South latitude and between 150 degrees West longitude and 90 degrees West longitude and that act or omission would have constituted an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom if it had occurred in that part, he shall be guilty of the like offence as if the act or omission had taken place in that part, and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly”.

  176. 176.

    See e.g. People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279 (1980); Livings v. Davis, 465 So.2d 507 (Fla.1985); Commonwealth v. Gaines, 4 Va. 172 (1819); State v. Main, 16 Wis. 398 (1863); Strouther v. Commonwealth, 92 Va. 789, 22 S.E. 852 (1895); Al-Fawwaz, [2002] 1 All E.R. 545, [2002] 1 A.C. 556, [2002] 2 W.L.R. 101, [2001] U.K.H.L. 69; Sanders, [2006] E.W.C.A. Crim. 1842.

  177. 177.

    BGH 27, 30.

  178. 178.

    Fiona McKay, Universal Jurisdiction in Europe (1999).

  179. 179.

    Cherif M. Bassiouni, Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice, 42 Va. J. Int’l L. 81, 88 (2001).

  180. 180.

    Kenneth C. Randall, Universal Jurisdiction under International Law, 66 Tex. L. Rev. 785 (1988); Bartram S. Brown, The Evolving Concept of Universal Jurisdiction, 35 New Eng. L. Rev. 383 (2001).

  181. 181.

    United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. 153, 5 L.Ed. 57 (1820); Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, [2000] 1 A.C. 147, [1999] 2 All E.R. 97, [1999] 2 W.L.R. 827.

  182. 182.

    Dawson, (1696) 13 St.Tr. 451; The Magellan Pirates, (1853) 1 Sp.Ecc.&Ad. 81, 164 E.R. 47; Harmony v. United States, 43 U.S. 210, 11 L.Ed. 239 (1844); Athens Maritime Enterprises Corporation v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd., [1983] Q.B. 647, [1983] 1 All E.R. 590, [1983] 2 W.L.R. 425.

  183. 183.

    Sawoniuk, [2000] 2 Cr. App. Rep. 220, [2000] Crim. L.R. 506; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948; Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907.

  184. 184.

    Hirst, supra note 3, at pp. 246–247.

  185. 185.

    United States v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052 (3rd Cir.1993); United States v. Cardales, 168 F.3d 548 (1st Cir.1999).

  186. 186.

    Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, [2000] 1 A.C. 147, [1999] 2 All E.R. 97, [1999] 2 W.L.R. 827.

  187. 187.

    Martin, [1956] 2 Q.B. 272, [1956] 2 All E.R. 86, [1956] 2 W.L.R. 975, 120 J.P. 255, 40 Cr. App. Rep. 68; Naylor, [1962] 2 Q.B. 527, [1961] 2 All E.R. 932, [1961] 3 W.L.R. 898, 45 Cr. App. Rep. 69, 125 J.P. 603; Moussa, [1983] Crim. L.R. 618; Hindawi, (1988) 10 Cr. App. Rep. 104; Hussain, [1999] Crim. L.R. 570.

  188. 188.

    Malvina Halberstam, Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy and the IMO Convention on Maritime Safety, 82 Am. J. Int’l L. 269 (1988).

  189. 189.

    Hirst, supra note 119, at pp. 250–254.

  190. 190.

    Lawrence Collins, Dicey and Morris The Conflict of Laws I 32 (13th ed., 2000).

  191. 191.

    Above at Sects. 4.2.1 and 4.3.1.

  192. 192.

    Ogden v. Folliot, (1790) 3 T.R. 726; Lynch v. Paraguay Provisional Government, [1861–1873] All E.R. 934, [1861–73] All E.R. 934; Huntington v. Attrill, [1893] A.C. 150; Attorney General for Canada v. Schulze, (1901) 9 S.L.T. 4; Raulin v. Fischer, [1911] 2 K.B. 93; Banco De Vizcaya v. Don Alfonso De Borbon Y Austria, [1934] All E.R. 555, [1935] 1 K.B. 140; 104 L.J.K.B. 46;151 L.T. 499; 50 T.L.R. 284; 78 Sol.Jo. 224; Frankfurter v. W. L. Exner Ltd., [1947] Ch. 629; Novello v. Hinrischen Edition Ltd., [1951] Ch. 595; Schemmer v. Property Resources Ltd., [1975] Ch. 273; Attorney General of New Zealand v. Ortiz, [1984] 1 A.C. 1, [1983] 2 W.L.R. 809, [1983] 2 All E.R. 93; United States of America v. Inkley, [1989] Q.B. 255, [1988] 3 W.L.R. 304, [1988] 3 All E.R. 144; Larkins v. N.U.M., [1985] I.R. 671; Bank of Ireland v. Meeneghan, [1994] 3 I.R. 111.

  193. 193.

    In re The Antelope, (1825) 10 Wheat. 66: “The common law considers crimes as altogether local, and cognisable and punishable exclusively in the country where they are committed… The courts of no country execute the penal laws of another”; State v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239 (1888); SA Consortium General Textiles v. Sun & Sand Agencies Ltd., [1978] Q.B. 279, [1978] 2 All E.R. 339, [1978] 2 W.L.R. 1.

  194. 194.

    Above at Sect. 4.3.2.1.

  195. 195.

    Compare with article 7(2)(2) of the German penal code that provides: “(2) Für andere Taten, die im Ausland begangen werden, gilt das deutsche Strafrecht, wenn die Tat am Tatort mit Strafe bedroht ist oder der Tatort keiner Strafgewalt unterliegt und wenn der Täter (1)...; (2) zur Zeit der Tat Ausländer war, im Inland betroffen und, obwohl das Auslieferungsgesetz seine Auslieferung nach der Art der Tat zuließe, nicht ausgeliefert wird, weil ein Auslieferungsersuchen innerhalb angemessener Frist nicht gestellt oder abgelehnt wird oder die Auslieferung nicht ausführbar ist”.

  196. 196.

    See e.g. European Convention on the Supervision of Conditionally Sentenced or Conditionally Released Offenders, [1964] European Treaty Series No. 51; European Convention on the Punishment of Road Traffic Offences, [1964] European Treaty Series No. 52; European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments, [1970] European Treaty Series No. 70; European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, [1972] European Treaty Series No. 73; European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Ono Academic College, Zahal 104, 55000, Kiryat Ono, Israel

    Assoc.Prof. Gabriel Hallevy

Authors
  1. Assoc.Prof. Gabriel Hallevy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel Hallevy .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hallevy, G. (2010). The Applicability of the Criminal Norm in Place. In: A Modern Treatise on the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13714-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation