This study examines the protective principle of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction in international law and its use for combatting the threat of international terrorism. The study is, generally speaking, one of two parts. The first part explores the rationale of protective jurisdiction and the interests that it serves, and assesses the importance of the rationale of this jurisdiction for combatting transnational crimes, including the problem of international terrorism. It also sheds important light on the modern historical development of protective jurisdiction and the various public and private efforts made to codify this ground of jurisdiction during the first half of the twentieth century. The second part of the study provides original, empirical research into contemporary State practice, in an effort to examine whether, and, if so, to what extent, States have used protective jurisdiction for combatting the threat of international terrorism. It also enumerates, based on this practice, as well as the use of a range of other primary sources, including relevant treaty and U.N. Security Council practice, a list of vital interests that have been included under the ambit of protective jurisdiction lex lata and around which a basic level of agreement appears to have clustered. The study proposes that it may be possible to define protective jurisdiction in contemporary customary international law based on a ‘shared vital State interests' approach. That is, the protection of certain vital interests is in conformity with the practice of the international community of States. The study concludes that, in the light of the findings of State practice inter alia and the recent decision of the International Law Commission to include the topic of extraterritorial jurisdiction in its long-term programme of work, the codification of protective jurisdiction is necessary and desirable more than ever before. The most important advantages of the adoption of such an instrument are that it could be used as a persuasive source to guide States and courts in the adoption and interpretation of domestic laws; provide for the more effective protection of shared vital State interests by the international community; and complement the existing legal framework and ‘fill in' gaps left by ad hoc sectoral treaties for combatting the increasingly complex, diffuse and evolving threat of international terrorism.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:655586 |
| Date | January 2015 |
| Creators | Garrod, Matthew |
| Publisher | University of Sussex |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/54997/ |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds