4 ms·

Influence but not jurisdiction. Outside of crimes against humanity/universal jurisdiction, I cant think of a situation where a country A would have jurisdiction

Influence but not jurisdiction. Outside of crimes against humanity/universal jurisdiction, I cant think of a situation where a country A would have jurisdiction over an event that happens in another country B involving nobody of nationality A. Even in the EU there's a lot of guidelines and processes for figuring out which member country gets jurisdiction over cases.

reaperducer 6y ago
I cant think of a situation where a country A would have jurisdiction over an event that happens in another country B involving nobody of nationality A Trade sanctions. Banking regulations. It happens all the time.
- vikramkr 6y ago
  Those still involve people of nationality A. The people importing/sending out funds to the bank etc.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    Not necessarily. Country A can put an embargo on certain products to Country B. When Country C sends those products to Country B, Country A refuses to do business with Country C, or fines it, or levies some other penalty.
    - vikramkr 6y ago
      Country A is still involved in their transactions with country C. The only way they are exercising any power is through their direct involvement in the trade network. This also isn't a legal court case with a crime and jurisdiction so it doesnt even really fit the idea of where crimes are evaluated in a court of law - international trade wars are not criminal law unless there are crimes against humanity involved, which I already put a disclaimer about as one of those crimes considered having universal jurisdiction. Though you still have to invade them to be able to prosecute people, in which case you extend your jurisdiction by turning the country into a territory as in ww2
    - pc86 6y ago
      That doesn't give A any jurisdiction over B or C. They're simply retaliating. It's important to talk about the same thing.
- pc86 6y ago
  This isn't what jurisdiction means.
quickthrower2 6y ago
Taking the example of Julian Assange, a UK judge gets to effectively choose his fate, even if that is deciding which jurisdiction he ends up in next. You are technically correct. In practice the UK is making the decision of his ultimate fate, so I think that is worth highlighting. However it may not apply at all to the original argument made, so sorry for the typical HN detour.

reaperducer 6y ago

I cant think of a situation where a country A would have jurisdiction over an event that happens in another country B involving nobody of nationality A Trade sanctions. Banking regulations. It happens all the time.

vikramkr 6y ago
Those still involve people of nationality A. The people importing/sending out funds to the bank etc.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  Not necessarily. Country A can put an embargo on certain products to Country B. When Country C sends those products to Country B, Country A refuses to do business with Country C, or fines it, or levies some other penalty.
  - vikramkr 6y ago
    Country A is still involved in their transactions with country C. The only way they are exercising any power is through their direct involvement in the trade network. This also isn't a legal court case with a crime and jurisdiction so it doesnt even really fit the idea of where crimes are evaluated in a court of law - international trade wars are not criminal law unless there are crimes against humanity involved, which I already put a disclaimer about as one of those crimes considered having universal jurisdiction. Though you still have to invade them to be able to prosecute people, in which case you extend your jurisdiction by turning the country into a territory as in ww2
  - pc86 6y ago
    That doesn't give A any jurisdiction over B or C. They're simply retaliating. It's important to talk about the same thing.
pc86 6y ago
This isn't what jurisdiction means.

quickthrower2 6y ago

Taking the example of Julian Assange, a UK judge gets to effectively choose his fate, even if that is deciding which jurisdiction he ends up in next. You are technically correct. In practice the UK is making the decision of his ultimate fate, so I think that is worth highlighting. However it may not apply at all to the original argument made, so sorry for the typical HN detour.