English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

This paper provides a philosophical critique of the principles that currently govern extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction under public international law. I start by outlining an interest-based justification for the right to punish offenders which, I suggest, is sensitive to the territorial dimension of the criminal law. On its basis, I argue that the nationality and passive personality principles have hollow foundations; by contrast, this justification fully explains what makes the territoriality and protective principles morally sound. Finally, this paper takes issue with the two most influential justifications for legal punishment available in the literature, i.e., retribution and deterrence. It argues that when pressed against the issue of extraterritoriality, they are committed to conferring upon states universal criminal jurisdiction for municipal offences. Although this does not prove them wrong, it is an implication that few of their supporters would be happy to endorse.

Should States Have the Right to Punish Municipal Offences Committed Abroad?