Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

acter such as murder. However, as a rule they have in mind extraterritorial jurisdiction over foreigners and not over nationals abroad. A leading exponent of this view holds that :1

"The system of tying the entire criminal law of a country round the neck of a subject, and of making him liable to its operation, in whatever part of the world he may be, converts the criminal law into a personal statute, and puts it on the same footing as the law respecting civil status. Now the personal statute of one country, in civil matters, is recognized by another, so that there is no conflict of laws. But if the criminal law were a personal statute a foreigner would at the same time be subject to two criminal laws the criminal law of his own state and that of the state of his domicile. No text writer and no state disputes the rule that all foreigners in a country are subject to its criminal law.

"The received rule as to the territoriality of criminal law rests on a sound basis. The territorial sovereign has the strongest interest, the greatest facilities and the most powerful instruments for repressing crimes, whether committed by native-born subjects or by domiciled aliens in his territory. But a sovereign government, which pursues its subjects into foreign countries, and keeps its criminal law suspended over them, attempts a task in which, even if undertaken with earnestness, it is sure to fail; but which will probably be performed in a careless, indifferent and intermitting manner. A government has no substantial interest in punishing crimes in the territory of another state; it has not on the spot officers of justice to discover and arrest the criminal; the transport of witnesses to a distance is a troublesome and costly operation; the difference of language, law and customs creates further impediments. A failure of justice, and an acquittal, is therefore likely to occur, even if the utmost diligence is used; but it may be assumed as certain that, unless some special motive exists, little diligence will be used. A government would feel, with respect to offences committed abroad in a civilized country, that it was, at the best, undertaking a work of supererogation; perhaps that it was interfering in a matter which, as the law of the place provided for it, would most properly be left alone. The experience of this and other coun

1Lewis, G. C. Foreign jurisdiction, London, 189, p. 29 ff.

tries shows that a criminal law applicable to offenses committed in foreign lands (such as the act of 33 Hen. 8 and 9 Geo. 4) is for the most part a brutum fulmen, and that it is rarely carried into execution. The slumber of the law is therefore in practice a sufficient security to the native subject against its oppression. But if a government was to set to work vigorously to execute such a system of foreign criminal law as that which is embodied in the Austrian and Prussian codes, the sense of insecurity would infallibly lead to loud complaints, and the legislature would be urged into the adoption of a less ambitious course. Guilty men might occasionally be brought to justice; but innocent men, charged with the commission of crimes in distant parts of the world, would be almost incapable of defending themselves against the accusation and of proving their innocence. Even an educated person, provided with money and friends, might find it difficult to extricate himself from such a position; but a poor, uneducated, friendless man might be almost at the mercy of a false accuser. Such a law, if a government afforded funds and encouragement for its enforcement, might be a formidable weapon in the hands of unscrupulous malignity.

"It may, therefore, be laid down as a general principle, resting on grounds of the most enlarged expediency, that a criminal law ought to be local; that the sovereign ought to enforce it with respect to all crimes committed within its territory, and in national ships upon the high seas; but should not seek to apply it to crimes committed in the territory or ships of other civilized states."

Other Leading Authorities.

John Bassett Moore1 states that "in the United States the territorial principle is the basis of criminal jurisprudence," and furthermore that:

"It has been constantly laid down by the Executive Department of the Government of the United States, as a rule. of action, that the criminal jurisdiction of a nation is confined to acts committed upon its actual or constructive territory."

1Moore, John Bassett. Report on extraterritorial crime and the Cutting case. Washington, G. P. O., 1887, pp. 56, 113.

Beale claims that:1

"A sovereign exercises a personal jurisdiction based on law over his subject abroad. This personal jurisdiction is limited so long as the subject stays in the territory of a foreign sovereign to the forbidding of acts, or negative commands."

The well-known Dutch authority, J. Jitta,2 in discussing the jurisdiction and territorial limits of the application of a national law says:

"The application of a national law is justified according to the principles, when a juridical relation belongs to the local sphere of social life, in which this national law is in force. Jurisdiction, on the other hand, is justified when the real elements of a juridical contest are so closely attached to a state, that the reasonable order of international social life requires the decisive rule for the solution of the said contest to be found and fixed by the judiciary of the said state."

The Institute of International Law at a meeting at Munich cn September 7, 1883, adopted the following resolution:

"Art. 7. Each state reserves its right to extend its national penal law to acts committed by its citizens abroad."

No Complete Solution in Supreme Court Rulings.

The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States furnish but meager material on this subject. Justice Story briefly touched the question,3 viz.:

"The laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own. territories, except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation, within its own jurisdiction. And, however general and comprehensive the phrases used in our municipal laws may be, they must always be restricted in

1916. p. 120.

1Beale, J. H. A treatise on the conflict of laws. 2J. Jitta. The reconstruction of international law. The Hague, 1919, P. 77.

The Apollon (1824, U. S.) 9 Wheat. 362, 370, 6 L. ed. 11I.

construction, to places and persons, upon whom the legislature have authority and jurisdiction."

In United States v. Nord Deutscher Lloyd,' involving a violation of Section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1907,2 Mr. Justice Lamar in delivering the opinion of the court said:

"The statute, of course, has no extraterritorial operation, and the defendant cannot be indicted here for what he did in a foreign country, American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347. But the parties in Germany could make a contract which would be of force in the United States. When, therefore, in Bremen, the alien paid and the defendant received the 150 rubles for a return passage, they created a condition which was operative in New York. If, in that city, the company had refused to honor the ticket, the alien could there have enforced his rights. In like manner, if by reason of facts occurring in New York, the statute operated to rescind the contract, the rights and duties of the parties could there be determined, and acts of commission or omission, which, as a result of the rescission, were there unlawful, could there be punished."

Substance of Foreign Laws Extending Jurisdiction..

In the following we shall indicate briefly some provisions embodied in the criminal laws of foreign states, as well as of our own country, which relate to offences committed by native subjects on the territory of foreign states.3

Generally speaking, the legislation of the United States and of Great Britain is reserved with respect to this species of foreign jurisdiction, while the laws of France, Austria and certain other states go much further in this direction. The law of England does not attempt to exercise a criminal jurisdiction with respect to large classes of offenses committed in foreign civilized countries, but there are certain acts committed abroad which fall within its scope. Upon an indictment for high treason, a

1223 U. S. 517; see also p. 377.

234 Stat. at L. 898, 904, c. 1134.

See Foelix, J. J. G.: Traite du droit international prive. Paris, 1856, vol. 2, p. 261 ff.

Wharton, F.: A treatise on the conflict of laws. Rochester, 1905. 3rd. ed., p. 1604 ff.

charge of adhering to the king's enemies would be supported by evidence of acts done abroad. Treasons, misprisions of treasons or concealments, committed out of England, are to be tried1 in like manner as if they had been committed in the shire where the trial takes place. If a man utters a forged instrument in England, which has been forged abroad, he is punishable under the statute.2 In the case of homicide and bigamy the law of England attempts to exercise a local jurisdiction over the whole world and with regard to every class of British subjects.3 Under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, offenses committed by British subjects on board foreign vessels and by British seamen everywhere are punishable. British subjects in foreign countries are punishable under the Commissioners for Oaths Act"; and under the Slave Trade Act of 1843° the British government claims jurisdiction over British subjects, wheresoever residing or being, whether within the dominions of the British crown or any foreign country, who do any acts in violation of the Slave Trade Act. Under special treaties with certain non-Christian nations, England also punishes crimes committed by British subjects in these countries.

English Court Asserts Extreme View.

English courts have made several very sweeping decisions respecting the extraterritorial force of British laws. In the case of The Zollverein' the court held:

"The laws of Great Britain affect her subjects everywhere foreigners only within her own jurisdiction."

Instances Where American Laws Operate Abroad.

With regard to the United States, we find a number of in

Under 35 Hen. 8, ch. 2.

224 & 25 Vict. ch. 98, sec. 40.

324 & 25 Vict. ch. 100, sec. 9, sec. 57.

457 & 58 Vict. ch. 60, sec. 686, sec. 687.

51889, 52 & 53 Vict. ch. 10, sec. 9.

66 & 7 Vict., ch. 98.

7(1857, Eng. Adm.) Swabey, p. 96. See also, Rex. v. Sawyer (1815, Exch.), 2 C. & K. 101.

« AnteriorContinuar »