Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction and the Cosmopolitan: A Double-Edged Sword

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter


    The assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction by nation states is not inherently cosmopolitan. Rather, it is a double-edged sword. This is because extraterritorial jurisdiction is capable of being wielded for both cosmopolitan and non-cosmopolitan purposes: for empowerment, but also oppression; for rescue, but also retribution; for protection, but also unilateral political gain. In that context, this chapter introduces the law of extraterritorial jurisdiction, considers why states might wish to exercise it, and then identifies arguments both for (such as universalism, and the avoidance of impunity) and against (such as the undermining of meaningful multilateralism and the rights of an accused) exercises of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Ultimately, this chapter concludes that extraterritorial jurisdiction can only be considered capable of furthering cosmopolitan ideals if certain criteria are met.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationThe State and Cosmopolitan Responsibilities
    Editors Richard Beardsworth, Garrett Wallace Brown, and Richard Shapcott
    Place of PublicationUnited Kingdom
    PublisherOxford University Press
    ISBN (Print)9780198800613
    Publication statusPublished - 2019

    Cite this