چکیده:
Jurisdiction is one of the inherent elements of sovereignty over territory. The expansion of state interests beyond territorial borders has led to the acceptance of criteria for exercising jurisdiction extraterritorially. Extraterritorial jurisdictions can be identified at three levels: legislative, judicial, and executive. The degree of legitimacy of these jurisdictions will vary depending on historical, philosophical, and conceptual attitudes toward jurisdiction in public international law. By examining international legal texts, one can observe both supporting and opposing views regarding the legitimacy of extraterritorial jurisdictions. However, even those who support extraterritorial jurisdiction do not deny its undesirable consequences; therefore, providing a solution to the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction is essential. The proposed solutions to resolve the problems arising from this jurisdiction are 'international extraterritorial jurisdiction' and 'modified universal jurisdiction' instead of judicial extraterritorial jurisdiction, and 'transnational law' and the 'doctrine of mutual legal assurance' instead of legislative extraterritorial jurisdiction.
خلاصه ماشینی:
"Reciprocity"3 instead of "mutual respect"4 in extraterritorial jurisdiction Although Story believed that the principle of "mutual respect" is mandatory for states (Hessel, 1953:380), it should be noted that, first, the recognition of foreign laws and judicial decisions depends on the discretion of national courts; second, national and international practice has avoided accepting this theory.
One of the problems of accepting the theory of extraterritorial jurisdiction in private international litigation is the issue of forum shopping; because usually, according to this theory, several courts exist for filing a lawsuit; the plaintiff can choose a court that is more suitable in terms of accessibility, cost, procedure, and conflict of laws rules.
Defenders of International Law American sovereigntists raise the doubt that if modern idealists oppose legislative extraterritorial jurisdiction by a state like the United States, the creation of international law rules by non-democratic countries that are contrary to accepted interpretations of human rights is a possibility.
To solve this problem, it has been suggested that restrictions be considered by states as general legal principles overseeing private international law during the exercise of global and extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The illegitimate expansion of jurisdiction causes different disturbances in legal relations between states or between states and individuals; these include conflicts of legislative, judicial, and executive jurisdiction, the unpredictability of laws, the difficulty for disputing parties to appear in court, and the intensification of international disputes resulting from the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdictions.
(
, 
, 
)
