PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW TERRITORY AND JURISDICTION In addition to territory, there are several other bases upon which

to exercise jurisdiction. Research and understand the ff: 1. The Nationality Principle - every state has jurisdiction over its nationals even when those nationals are outside the state. - vests jurisdiction in the state of the offender. 2. The Protective Principle - a state may exercise jurisdiction over conduct outside its territory that threatens its security, as long as that conduct is generally recognized as criminal by states in the international community. - vests jurisdiction in the state whose national interest is injured, as in the case of counterfeiting, treason or espionage. 3. The Passive Personality Principle - authorizes states to assert jurisdiction over offenses committed against their citizens abroad. - vests jurisdiction in the state of the offended party. 4. Universality Principle - recognizes that certain offenses are so heinous and so widely condemned that any state if it captures the offender may prosecute and punish that person on behalf of the world community regardless of the nationality of the offender or victim or where the crime was committed. - vests jurisdiction in the state which has custody of the offender, as in the case of piracy. - universal jurisdiction; allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting entity. - crimes prosecuted under Universal Jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. 5. FACTS FOR DISCUSSION: Ramsay Yousef was charged, inter alia, with the bombing of a Philippine Airlines flight from Manila to Narita, Japan. There were no American nationals on the flight or targets of the bombing. He was indicted in the United States of America under the Aircraft Sabotage Act of 1984, a U.S. law which criminalizes certain offenses committed against non-U.S. flag aircraft. It is not disputed and there is evidence to support the conclusion that Yousefs plan to destroy aircraft was intended to influence United States foreign policy. Yousef argued that because the airplane was not a U.S. flag aircraft, the plane was flying between two destinations outside the United States, the extraterritorial application of U.S. criminal statutes in these circumstances was inconsistent with international principles regarding acquisition of jurisdiction. On the other hand, it is admitted that the U. S. passed the Aircraft Sabotage Act to implement its obligations under the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Act Against the Safety of Civil Aviation. a. Is the United States violating international law in indicting and trying the case against Ramsay Yousef? If not, why and what principle enumerated above it can use as basis for acquiring jurisdiction. If yes, explain. In indicting and trying the case against Ramsay Yousef, the United States is deemed not to have violated international law. There are five traditional bases of jurisdiction over extraterritorial crimes under international law: 1. Territorial, wherein jurisdiction is based on the place where the offense is committed; 2. National, wherein jurisdiction is based on the nationality of the offender; 3. Protective, wherein jurisdiction is based on whether the national interest is injured; 4. Universal, wherein jurisdiction is conferred in any forum that obtains physical custody of the perpetuator of certain offenses considered particularly heinous and harmful to humanity; 5. Passive Personal, wherein jurisdiction is based on the nationality of the victim. In this case, the indictment and trying of the case against Ramsay Yousef by the United States is deemed validated under the protective principle and the universal principle. Under the protective principle, the state may exercise jurisdiction over conduct outside its territory that threatens its security, as long as that conduct is generally recognized by states in the international community. While the universal principle recognizes that certain activities, universally dangerous to states and their subjects, require authority in all community members to punish such acts wherever they may occur, even absent a link between the state and the parties or the acts in question. The germ of the idea is that some crimes are so heinous that they give rise to a duty in every nation to prosecute if the opportunity arises. The universality principle primarily covered piracy, but later included genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aircraft piracy and terrorism.

Albeit the fact that Yousef bombed a non-US aircraft with no American on board outside of US aerial domain, there is undisputed evidence to support the conclusion that his plan to destroy the aircraft was intended to influence United States foreign policy. Such act is one which is contemplated under the protective principle as conduct outside its territorry that threatens its security. Moreover, Yousef's argument pertaining to the inconsistency of the extraterritorial application of U.S. criminal statutes in these circumstances under international law regarding acquisition of jurisdiction is also defeated by the universal principle. International terrorism is defined as the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in naturel this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. Yousef's plan to destroy the aircraft with the intentto influence United States foreign policy is deemed to be within the context of what international terrorism is, as referred to under the universality principle. In relation, the case of US v. Noriega presented a drama wherein the de facto leader of Panama, General Manuel Noriega, was brought before the courts of the United States under unusual circumstances. Together with other twelve co-conspirators, he was indicted before a federal grand jury sitting in Miami, Florida on twelve counts of engaging in a criminal enterprise in violation of US racketeering and drug laws. International law provides that a state may not exercise jurisdiction to prescribe when doing so would be unreasonable. Whether jurisdiction is unreasonable is determined by weighing a non-exhaustive list of factors, including the link of the activity to the regulating state, the foreseeable effects in that state, the character of the activity to be regulated, and the extent to which the regulation is consistent with the patterns and practice of the international system. With this in mind, the district court addressed the issue whether the US may exercise jurisdiction over Noriega's alleged criminal activities. Noriega argued that such an exercise was unreasonable under any standard of international law since he did not personally perform any illegal acts within the United States. However, the court found that jurisdiction was justified under the protective principle, which permits the exercise of jurisdiction overt acts that threaten the existence of the state and have potentially deleterious effects in that state. Similarly, such acts by Yousef may be deemed as overt acts that threaten the existence of the state and have potentially deleterious effects in that state. Thus, the justification of jurisdiction by the US of the case against him. b. The act of Yousef is considered to be an act of terrorism by the U.S. Does terrorism provide for a valid basis for universal jurisdiction? Why or why not? Yes, terrorism provides for a valid basis for universal jurisdiction. The universal principle recognizes that certain activities, universally dangerous to states and their subjects, require authority in all community members to punish such acts wherever they may occur, even absent a link between the state and the parties or the acts in question. The germ of the idea is that some crimes are so heinous that they give rise to a duty in every nation to prosecute if the opportunity arises. The universality principle primarily covered piracy, but later included genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aircraft piracy and terrorism. Under the US Aircraft Sabotage Act of 1984, the term international terrorism means activities that: a) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; b) appear to be intended i. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; ii. to influence the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion; or iii. to affect the conduct of the a governemnt by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping c) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetuators operate to seek asylum. ci) Therefore, the alleged bombing of a Philippine Airlines flight from Manila to Narita, Japan by Yousef where there is undisputabl evidence to support the conclusion that his plan to destroy such aircraft was intended to influence United States foreign policy, is an act of international terrorism as defined under the US Aircraft Sabotage Act of 1984.