The Protective Principle of International Criminal Jurisdiction IAIN CAMERON Senior Lecturer in Law Uppsala University Dartmouth Aldershot. Brookfield USA. Hong Kong. Singapore. Sydney
Contents Foreword Abbreviations xiii xiv 1 The subject matter of the book 1 Introduction 1 2 Defining the protective principle 2 3 The background to the present study 3 3.1 Jurisdiction under international law 3 3.2 Jurisdiction in the field of criminal law and some remarks regarding the scope of the present study 6 3.3 International criminal law 9 3.4 The distinction between the jurisdiction of the courts and the spatial scope of the criminal law 14 3.5 The principles of international criminal jurisdiction 16 3.6 The ideologies of systems of jurisdiction 22 4 Methodology and aims of the study 23
2 The protective principle in context 1 Introduction 30 2 The reason why states make claims to exercise jurisdiction based upon the protective principle 31 3 The reasons why states' claims based upon the protective principle should be limited 32 4 A brief history of the protective principle 35 5 Some characteristics of the protective principle 45 5.1 The relationship of the principle with the right of self-defence 45 5.2 The non-cooperative nature of the principle 47 5.3 The unpredictability and flexibility of the protective principle 49 6 The relationship of the protective principle with the other principles of jurisdiction 52 6.1 Localisation of crime and the protective principle 52 6.1.1 Overview and terminology 52 6.1.2 The doctrine of ubiquity and the effects principle 57 6.2 The active personality principle and the protective principle 67 6.3 The flag principle and the protective principle 74 6.4 The passive personality principle and the protective principle 76 6.5 The principle of universality and the protective principle 79 6.6 The representation and distribution of competence principles and the protective principle 83 6.7 The principle of ne bis in idem and the protective principle 84 VI
7 The protective principle, extradition and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters 90 8 The protective principle, "quasi-territoriality" and enforcement jurisdiction 93 3 Sweden 1 Introduction and a note on citation 96 2 A historical overview of protective principle jurisdiction in the Swedish Criminal Code 97 3 The system of jurisdiction provided for in the present Swedish Criminal Code 103 3.1 Overview 103 3.2 Territory 103 3.2.1 Localisation 103 3.2.2 Quasi-territoriality 106 3.3 The principal forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction 106 3.4 Subsidiary forms of jurisdiction 108 3.5 Prosecution 111 3.6 Other legislation dealing with jurisdiction 115 3.7 An example of the rules in practice 115 4 Public international law and Swedish jurisdictional claims 116 5 The ambit of the Swedish criminal law 122 5.1 Nationally limited crimes 122 5.2 The concept of the protected interest (skyddsintresse) 126 6 The meaning of "crime against the Swedish nation" 128 6.1 Why define crime against the Swedish nation? 128 6.2 Doctrine and travaux preparatories 129 VII
6.3 Case law 134 6.4 Policy arguments for taking a restrictive view of crime against the Swedish nation 139 7 Which crimes are included in the category of crime against the Swedish nation? 143 7.1 Introduction 143 7.2 Crimes against the person 145 7.3 Property offences 145 7.4 Crimes involving public danger 149 7.5 Crimes of falsification 150 7.6 Perjury, false prosecution and other untrue statements 151 7.7 Crimes against public order 152 7.8 Crimes of public activity 152 7.9 Crimes of lese-majesty 154 7.10 Crimes against state security 155 7.11 Crimes of misuse of office 158 8 Conclusion 160 9 Afterword: the report of the criminal law committee of the Nordic Council 161 4 Denmark 1 Introduction and a note on citation 164 2 The system of jurisdiction in the code 166 2.1 Territoriality 166 2.2 Quasi-territoriality and flag jurisdiction 168 2.3 Active personality principle jurisdiction 169 2.4 Subsidiary forms of jurisdiction 169 2.5 Prosecution 170 Vlll
3 The role of the protective principle 171 3.1 Offences against the independence, security, Constitution or public authorities of Denmark 171 3.2 Offences the legal protection of which depends on a personal connection with the Danish state 176 5 Norway 1 Introduction and a note on citation 180 2 The system of jurisdiction of the present code 181 2.1 Territorial jurisdiction 181 2.2 Quasi-territoriality and flag jurisdiction 183 2.3 Jurisdiction over nationals and resident aliens 183 2.3.1 Generally 183 2.3.2 Section 12, para. 3(a) 185 2.3.3 Section 12, para. 3(b) 192 2.3.4 Section 12, para. 3(c) 194 2.4 Jurisdiction over non-resident aliens 195 2.4.1 Generally 195 2.4.2 Protective principle offences in section 12, para. 4. 196 2.4.3 Universality/representation offences in section 12, para. 4(a) 197 2.4.4 Representation jurisdiction 199 2.5 Prosecution 200 3 Other jurisdictional rules 200 4 The compatibility of the Norwegian system with international law 201 5 The proposed system 202 5.1 Generally 202 5.2 Territoriality and quasi-territoriality 203 5.3 Jurisdiction over nationals and domiciled aliens 205 ix
5.4 Jurisdiction over aliens 206 5.5 Conclusions on the protective principle in the proposed system 207 6 United States of America 1 Introduction and a note on citation 210 2 The system of jurisdiction in the United States regarding extraterritorial crime 213 2.1 Overview 213 2.2 Overcoming the presumption of territoriality: congressional intent 217 2.3. Localisation of crime 219 2.3.1 Generally 219 2.3.2 Localisation of the crime of conspiracy 223 2.4 Active personality principle jurisdiction 227 2.5 Passive personality principle jurisdiction 229 2.6 Universality principle jurisdiction 230 2.7 Prosecution 232 2.8 Initial implications of the system of jurisdiction for the protective principle 234 3 Protective principle offences under American law 236 3.1. Sources 236 3.2 Methodology 240 3.3 Protective principle offences in Title 18 243 3.4 Export control offences 274 3.5 Drug smuggling (1) 279 3.6 Drug smuggling (2) 282 4 Conclusions 292 5 Afterword: the United Kingdom and the United States compared 295 5.1 Overview 295
5.2 Territory and localisation 296 5.3 Flag and quasi-territorial jurisdiction 299 5.4 Offences applicable to nationals 299 5.5 Offences applicable to nationals and aliens 301 5.6 Special forms of jurisdiction 302 5.7 Prosecution 302 5.8 Extradition and mutual assistance 303 5.9 Conclusions 303 International law and the protective principle 1 2 3 4 5 6 Introduction Customary international law principles and general principles of law The implications of the Lotus case 3.1 Criminal jurisdiction and domestic jurisdiction 3.2 The limited relevance of the Lotus case to jurisdictional claims today A duty of notification and consultation The prescriptive function of the principles of jurisdiction The meaningful contact 6.1 Doctrine 6.2 The protective principle and general state practice 306 309 316 316 320 324 325 327 327 330 XI
7 The rule of reasonableness or balancing of interests 333 8 The principle of abuse of rights 337 9 Human rights restrictions 338 10 Application of the principle of non-intervention to issues of jurisdiction 343 8 Conclusion: Controlling the use and abuse of the protective principle 1 Introduction 347 2 Identifying and limiting abuse of the protective principle 348 3 Controlling the use of the protective principle 358 Bibliography 363 Index 391 XH