Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction: Its impact on criminal justice

Public international law recognizes the right of states to protect themselves and their subjects against threats and damage from within their territory and outside. In the international sphere, the means and methods of national protection are restricted by the extraterritorial jurisdiction of courts and the laws they enforce.Criminal justice today is being confronted on an ever increasing scale by international criminal offenses that impinge on domestic concerns: drugs, securities and financial manipulations, money laundering, and terrorism, to mention only a few. This article discusses some of the issues that arise under the United States Constitution when criminal justice agencies are called upon to enforce U.S. laws beyond U.S. territorial limits. The principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction are discussed along with a number of United States court cases pointing to the importance of this new area of criminal justice.     

试论国际刑事管辖权——兼谈对我国的启示

国际刑事管辖权是国家之间确立的对国际犯罪进行缉捕、起诉、审判和惩处的重要管辖体系。本文首先论述了传统的四种国际刑事管辖权,即属地管辖权、属人管辖权、保护性管辖权和普遍管辖权。接着本文阐述了前南国际刑事法庭和卢旺迭国际刑事法庭对国际刑事管辖权的发展,然后,本文分析了《国际刑事法院罗马规约》对国际刑事管辖权的挑战。最后,本文分析了我国的从中引发的相关启示。     

域外刑事管辖权及其实现

域外刑事管辖权是域外管辖权的一种,专指一国或地区法律所规定的超越其地域界限的刑事司法权力.我国刑法对域外刑事管辖权也作了相应规定,但其实现需要调整好我国与其他主权国家、我国内地与台港澳地区的刑事司法协助与合作关系.     

Cybercrime jurisdiction

The principles that govern a sovereign’s exercise of jurisdiction to prohibit conduct and to sanction those who violate such prohibitions are well-established as to conduct occurring in the real, physical world. These principles evolved over the last several millennia, as law increased in sophistication and life became more complex. Real-world crime is, almost exclusively, a local phenomenon; the perpetrator(s) and victim(s) are all physically present at a specific geographical point when a crime is committed. The principles that govern the exercise of criminal jurisdiction are therefore predicated on the assumption that “crime” is a territorial phenomenon. Cybercrime makes these principles problematic in varying ways and in varying degrees. Unlike real-world crime, it is not physically grounded; cybercrime increasingly tends not to occur in a single sovereign territory. The perpetrator of a cybercrime may physically be in Country A, while his victim is in Country B, or his victims are in Countries B, C, D and so on. The perpetrator may further complicate matters by routing his attack on the victim in Country B through computers in Countries F and G. The result of these and other cybercrime scenarios is that the cybercrime is not committed “in” the territory of a single sovereign state; instead, “pieces” of the cybercrime occur in territory claimed by several different sovereigns.     

论仲裁员的管辖权与可仲裁性问题

针对仲裁员的管辖权与可仲裁性这两个容易混淆的问题,结合有关国际公约和各国法律分别进行深入探讨,并对中国当前存在的问题提出了建议.     

我国证券法的域外效力研究

证券市场的国际化使得一国证券法适用于境外发生的某些证券行为成为必要。中国致力于打造国际金融中心,建立证券市场的国际板,有必要赋予其证券法以适度的域外效力。美国证券法半个多世纪以来的实践值得研究和借鉴,特别是2010年的Morrison案判决,颠覆了此前的行为标准和结果标准,而代之以交易标准。鉴于中国目前正在修订《证券法》,建议其中增设关于域外效力的有关条款。其具体设计可保留现行的无域外效力推定,以行为地点作为判别管辖权的原则,同时辅以结果标准,允许中国法院对某些发生于境外但对境内有直接影响的证券行为进行管辖。同时,中国证券法应允许法院以非方便管辖原则为由驳回某些起诉。而从长远看,中国应积极推动制定证券跨国诉讼的多边国际公约,以根本解决管辖权冲突。     

我国外资并购反垄断的域外适用问题

在反垄断域外适用的理论原则中,效果原则、履行地原则、单一经济体原则各有利弊。我国《反垄断法(送审稿)》和《外国投资者并购境内企业暂行规定》关于外资并购反垄断域外适用的规定过于粗糙。本文按照审查阶段对其进行了解释和补充。     

中国内地与港澳特别行政区刑事管辖权合理划分论纲

一、引言 随着中国香港特别行政区(以下简称香港特区)和中国澳门特别行政区(以下简称澳门特区)的相继建立，“一国两制三法系三法域”的格局已在我国形成。由此决定了我国区际刑事管辖冲突的不可避免以及解决这一冲突的必要性和艰巨性。构建一个科学、合理并且具有可操作性的中国区际刑事司法互助制度，已成为中国三地立法机关、司法实务部门以及理论界共同关注的焦点。20世纪90年代末涉香港特区与内……     

香港的海事审判管辖权

根据香港高等法院法令第12条的规定,介绍了香港海事法院的管辖事项的范围、管辖权的行使方式、提出管辖权异议的理由,以及香港海事法院的收费标准等。     

论我国《反垄断法》域外适用制度

我国《反垄断法》于2008年8月1日开始实施,该法确立了建立在效果原则基础上的反垄断法域外适用制度。效果原则确立了国家管辖权行使的法律前提,但容易带来法律冲突。我国应不断完善反垄断执法程序,将效果原则与合理原则配合使用,积极和其他国家与地区开展反垄断执法合作,并不断深化反垄断法域外适用制度的理论研究。     

反垄断法的域外适用

许多学者主张 ,我国应以效果原则为依据 ,建立反垄断法的域外适用制度。但美国反垄断法的历史表明 ,效果原则有许多弊端。美、德、欧洲法院、欧共体委员会的实践表明 ,需要采用多种方法对效果原则进行限制 ,并应借鉴冲突法的方法 ,尽可能采用能体现真实联系的连结因素 ,而以效果原则作为补充 ,从而避免单纯的效果原则所产生的扩大本国反垄断法适用的倾向。     

The Extraterritorial Scope of the Right to Punish

This paper provides a philosophical critique of the principles that govern extraterritorial punishment under international law. It advocates an interest-based theory of punishment that accounts for states’ right to punish offences committed on their territory or against their sovereignty, security or important governmental functions. Yet, it criticizes the states’ well-established right to punish crimes committed extraterritorially on grounds of the nationality of the offender or that of the victim. Indeed, it shows that the arguments on the basis of which these jurisdictional bases are commonly defended either beg the fundamental question they are meant to answer or are simply committed to much broader rules than those currently in force. The last section of this paper examines whether competing justifications for legal punishment based on other grounds have more promise in terms of being able to better explain how the international law currently regulates extraterritorial punishment. It suggests that even refined consequentialist and deontological theories ultimately do not fare as well as the argument advocated here in accounting for certain core intuitions regarding the practice of legal punishment.     

论我国域外送达制度的完善

随着世界经济一体化的进程。国际民商事交往日益繁荣,使得涉外纠纷大量增多。国际司法协助在这类案件的解决过程中起到了不可忽视的重要作用．域外送达制度就是其中重要韵制度之一。然而在司法实践中,特别是在涉外民商事诉讼中,送达难问题显得尤为突出。域外送达程序的复杂繁琐也是导致涉外民商事案件审理期限过长的重要原因,当前我国的域外送达制度也存在不少问题,浪费了不少司法资源。鉴于此,笔者主要考察分析域外送达的国际立法发展．希望对我国域外送达削度的完善提供借鉴。     

A rational jurisdiction for cyber terrorism

Cyberspace is a cross-national world that transcends geopolitical national borders. Jurisdiction is the focal point for any dispute arising in the international arena, because it determines which state court has the authority to settle a dispute. The objective of this paper is to analyse territorial and universal jurisdiction principles which can be specifically related to cyberspace to determine which of them is best suited to providing the appropriate jurisdiction in combating cyber terrorism and how conflicts arising between them can be settled. The transnational nature of cyber terrorism offences leads to jurisdictional complexity, thereby investigation and prosecution is difficult. Lack of harmonisation in legislating among countries leads to difficulty in investigation and prosecution of cyber terrorism offences. This paper notes that universal jurisdiction is the most feasible and effective method to deter cyber terrorism.