|
Questions over personal jurisdiction over international defendants in the United States arise when foreign nationals commit crimes against Americans, or when a person from or in a different country is sued in U.S. courts, or when events took place in another country. Such cases arise when crimes are committed on the high seas or on international flights, when crimes are alleged to be committed by or against Americans in foreign countries (such as under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act), or when crimes are committed by foreigners against Americans. The Internet also allows computer crime to cross international boundaries.〔"(Cybercrime: Public and Private Entities Face Challenges in Addressing Cyber Threats )."United States Government Accountability Office June 2007.〕 ==Mechanism in public international law for exercising jurisdiction over an international defendant== There are several mechanisms in public international law whereby the courts of one country (the domestic court) can exercise jurisdiction over a citizen, corporation, or organization of another country (the foreign defendant) to try crimes or civil matters that have affected citizens or businesses within the domestic jurisdiction. Many of these jurisdictional "hooks" can even reach conduct that affected the domestic citizen when the citizen was beyond his or her domestic borders. There are five such doctrines:〔Damrosch, Henkin, Pugh, Schachter, and Smit, ''International Law: Cases and Materials'', 3 Ed., West 1993, 1090.〕 *The territorial principle is the most important and widely used. It is the idea that a state may claim jurisdiction over persons and events inside its own territory. So, foreign nationals committing crimes in the U.S. are subject to U.S. courts and U.S. laws. *The nationality principle holds that the government of a citizen can obtain jurisdiction over its citizen even when that citizen is abroad. For example, U.S. citizens are still required to pay federal taxes to the U.S. government when abroad and may be prosecuted for a failure to do so. *The passive personality principle is an interesting offshoot of the nationality principle. It looks to the nationality of the ''victim'' to determine jurisdiction, holding that a state may assert jurisdiction over persons and events outside a state's territory on the basis that its citizen has been harmed. In the case of ''United States v. Roberts'', 1 F.Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. La. 1998), which had an unusual set of facts, the victim of a crime of sexual abuse of a minor (who was a U.S. citizen) had a case tried against her aggressor who was a citizen of the Caribbean island of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The crime took place on international waters on board a ship registered in Liberia and owned by a company incorporated in the Republic of Panama. None of the regular methods of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, or comity would have worked. ''Id''. The defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Louisiana and the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied by the federal district court, which found jurisdiction under the passive personality principle. *The protective principle is one of national security and it holds that a state may have jurisdiction over a defendant accused of acts in pursuance of overthrowing the host state's government. See ''United States v. Yousef'', 327 F2d 56 (2d Cir. 2003). *The universality principle (principle of universal jurisdiction) is closely aligned with the international law doctrine of peremptory norms (''jus cogens''). The principle holds that all states have jurisdiction over crimes that are universally recognized to be a crime against humanity. These have historically included piracy, slave-trading, torture, genocide, and perhaps terrorism. In the United States, the federal courts have recognized an important mechanism for acquiring jurisdiction over foreign defendants known as the effects doctrine. The effects doctrine is an offshoot of the territorial principle. Briefly, the effects doctrine says that if the effects of extraterritorial behavior or crimes adversely affect commerce or harm citizens within the United States, then jurisdiction in a U.S. court is permissible. The first case to establish the effects doctrine was ''United States v. Aluminum Company of America'', 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) (Learned Hand, J.). The ALCOA case brought charges against a foreign consortium of aluminum traders and producers who had affected the price of raw aluminum and goods manufactured from aluminum in the United States through unfair trade practices of price fixing in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act ("every contract, combination ... or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal").〔''Alcoa'', 148 F.2d at 416.〕 The effects doctrine has also been incorporated into § 402 of the ''Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Third: "a state has jurisdiction to prescribe law with respect to ... (c) conduct outside its territory that has or is intended to have substantial effect within its territory." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Personal jurisdiction over international defendants in the United States」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|