Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWatson, Geoffrey
dc.date2021-11-25T13:35:02.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:52:28Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:52:28Z
dc.date.issued1992-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifieryjil/vol17/iss1/3
dc.identifier.contextkey9452294
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/6265
dc.description.abstractThe United States is not usually regarded as a timid prosecutor. Indeed, U.S. enthusiasm for extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction has prompted criticism that "a proselytizing spirit" and a "sense of imperial mission" motivate U.S. practice. Nevertheless, the United States is one of the least aggressive proponents of one of the most widely accepted forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction: nationality-based criminal jurisdiction, or criminal jurisdiction based on the nationality of the offender. Consequently, when a U.S. national commits a violent crime in a state that subsequently does not prosecute, the U.S. offender avoids prosecution altogether because the United States lacks jurisdiction. This jurisdictional gap is not hypothetical; it prevents prosecution of a number of serious cases every year.
dc.titleOffenders Abroad: The Case for Nationality-Based Criminal Jurisdiction
dc.source.journaltitleYale Journal of International Law
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:52:28Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjil/vol17/iss1/3
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1586&context=yjil&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
06_17YaleJIntlL41_1992_.pdf
Size:
2.996Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record