Prescriptive jurisdiction of the US and the embassy bombings
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2025 8:32 am
Regardless of whether the abduction was lawful under the domestic law of the United States (see here for an excellent post on this issue) the whole operation raises several key questions under international law. In particular, this incident raises the question of the permissibility of a state entering another to apprehend an individual so as to be able to try whatsapp number list them for crimes committed against its nationals. It also raises questions in regards to the treatment of that individual by the apprehending state and the subsequent jurisdiction over them for the alleged offences. The purpose of this and a following post is to seek to set out the framework of applicable rights and obligations in regards to such operations, with a particular focus on the al-Liby seizure.
The first issue that arises, and does so here because the US arrested al-Liby as opposed to choosing to kill him (despite US Secretary of State John Kerry’s rather ominous suggestion that he was a ‘legal and appropriate target’ for the US military), is whether the US possesses jurisdiction over him for the bombings in 1998. The law here is relatively clear. Under the principles of prescriptive jurisdiction the US is fully entitled to make such bombings a criminal offence under its domestic laws, whether under the territorial principle (if the bombed embassies are functionally construed as US territory), the protective principle (given that the offences produced a deleterious effect on the state), or the passive personality principle (given that the offences had an effect upon its nationals.
The first issue that arises, and does so here because the US arrested al-Liby as opposed to choosing to kill him (despite US Secretary of State John Kerry’s rather ominous suggestion that he was a ‘legal and appropriate target’ for the US military), is whether the US possesses jurisdiction over him for the bombings in 1998. The law here is relatively clear. Under the principles of prescriptive jurisdiction the US is fully entitled to make such bombings a criminal offence under its domestic laws, whether under the territorial principle (if the bombed embassies are functionally construed as US territory), the protective principle (given that the offences produced a deleterious effect on the state), or the passive personality principle (given that the offences had an effect upon its nationals.