Practice question
An overseas scheme allegedly attacks State A's essential governmental security functions. A has an applicable statute and identifies that interest. The offenders are nationals of B, the victims are not A nationals, and no act occurs in A. Defense counsel argues that these facts necessarily eliminate every possible jurisdictional basis. Which response is strongest?
- Only the offenders' nationality can ever support jurisdiction.
- The absence of A victims automatically defeats protective jurisdiction.
- Every overseas act is territorial conduct in A.
- A protective basis may remain because the asserted connection is a fundamental State interest, not offender or victim nationality or local conduct.
- Any assertion of a State interest automatically proves guilt.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Article 2: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426
- UNODC, Guide for the Legislative Incorporation and Implementation of Universal Anti-Terrorism Instruments, paragraph 359: https://www.unodc.org/documents/terrorism/Publications/Guide_Legislative_Incorporation_Implementation/English.pdf
- UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, Articles 4 and 15: https://mandates.un.org/mandate/A/RES/55/25
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.