Why Is Historical Context Important for Understanding How Jurisdictional Issues Have Created American Indian Over-Representation in the Criminal Justice System?
Long-arm statutes vary widely from state to state. For example, Arizona grants the broadest possible freedom to its courts: "Arizona will exert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident litigant to the maximum extent allowed by the federal constitution." New York, on the other hand, gives a more restricted and specific charge to its courts with its statute, which allows personal jurisdiction over those who transact business or commit a tortious act within the state of New York, and over those who commit an act outside the state that could reasonably be expected to have a tortious effect within New York. The Federal courts have the equivalent of a long-arm statute of their own, in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k) (Rule 4(k)), which provides three basic grants of jurisdiction. First, it authorizes federal courts to "borrow" the long-arm statute of the state in which the federal court is located. Second, Rule 4(k) authorizes federal courts to exercise grants of personal jurisdiction contained in federal statutes, such as the federal securities and antitrust law, which have their own jurisdiction provisions. And third, Rule 4(k)(2) grants long-arm jurisdiction in an international context, within the boundaries of the Constitution, over parties to cases arising under federal law who are not subject to the jurisdiction of any particular state. The concept of being able to have minimum contacts with the United States as a whole has profound implications for the Internet and international jurisdiction. Users all over the world, without establishing contacts in a particular state, could establish contacts with the entire country with nearly every foray into cyberspace.
Prosecution of an individual who sought refuge to another state is termed as ‘in absentia’ (O’Keefe 2004, p. 755). The decision to implement international law uniformly is meant to bring peace and tranquility in the global society. In case a state would wish to prosecute its citizen abroad, it has to issue an arrest warrant to the foreign state and urge the same state to assist in arresting the culprit. It is therefore evident that the power to prescribe and the power to enforce are not compatible at all (O’Keefe 2004, p. 740).
A court may also have authority to operate within a certain territory.
Brownlie, P 2008, Principles of Public International Law, 7th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
O’Keefe, R 2004, “Universal Jurisdiction, clarifying the basic concept”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 2, no. 3.
Shaw, MN 2003, International Law, 5th edn, Cambridge University Press, Oxford.
Simma, B & Paulus LA 1999, “Symposium on method in International Law: The Responsibility of Individuals for Human Rights Abuses in Internal Conflicts: A Positivist View”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 93, no. 302.