My Analysis on the Territorial Application of Criminal Law

The general practice of every country pertaining with the application of their penal [criminal] laws is always TERRITORIAL. As an international principle, the territorial application of penal laws is a standard which could be traced back to the ancient time in Rome, China, Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece, and other great civilizations.

The phrase “territorial application of penal law” means that the law of a state which defines crimes and punishments shall always be applied within its own territory. Meaning, a violation or infraction of the criminal law shall be punished in the territory where it was committed.

Illustration of the territorial application of criminal law:

              Joseph Smith [an American national] shot and killed Mao Tse-Tung [a Chinese citizen] while having a short speech in Tokyo, Japan.

              In this situation, the international standard on territorial application of criminal law requires that the culprit [Joseph Smith] should be criminally tried in the criminal tribunal of Tokyo, Japan  and not somewhere else because the felony [referring to the killing of Mao Tse-Tung] was committed in the place where the incident took place. This is the “Territorial Application of Criminal Law”; the criminal law of the territory will be applied when the crime is committed in the very same territory.

However, the international standard on territorial application of criminal law cannot always be applied in some peculiar instances. Indeed, there are situations in human events where a widely accepted principle does not apply.

Let us examine another illustrations:

ILLUSTRATION 1:          Vladimir Lenin [a Russian national] fired his automatic pistol in the boundary of Russia and Poland, Carol Wojtyla [a citizen of Poland] was hit by the slug that went off from Lenin’s pistol that caused Wojtyla’s instant death.

Can the territorial application of criminal law be applied in this case? If yes, where can Lenin be tried, in the place where he pulled the trigger[Russia]? or in the place where the death of the victim occur [Poland]?

This is a difficult situation of territorial application considering that Poland has no jurisdiction on the person who caused the death of their citizen; on the other hand, Russia could only charge the offender for violation of their fire-arms law [if there be any] and not for homicide considering that Russia does not have legal business on the death of a person located in Poland. The offender cannot also be tried for the crime of homicide both in Russia and Poland because it will result to a legal problem concerning with double jeopardy and absence of jurisdiction. I also do not consider it as a continuing crime because it is inherent in every bullet [slug] to travel from one place to another, and to note that one country has no jurisdiction to its neighboring country.  I believed that “extradition” could not be applied  either because it is only applicable when a person escaped from the place where he committed a crime; in this incident, Lenin never escaped from Poland’s jurisdiction. We will leave it to wisdom of their courts. 

ILLUSTRATION 2:         Tony Blair [British] was on board of a private yatch owned by George Bush [American] with Fidel Castro [Cuban] bound for Australia from the Philippines. While in the ocean [high seas not under any territorial jurisdiction of any country], Blair and Castro had an argument over Clinton’s viagra. Thereby, due to his outrage, Castro stabbed Blair with his sharp dagger which caused his untimely death.

Under the international standard of territorial application of criminal law, a ship or an airship is considered as a territorial extension of the place where the ship or the airship was registered. In this hypothetical case, there is no mention of a registration of a private yatch owned by George Bush. When a private yatch is not registered [because its non-registration is not imposible], it can never be considered as an extension of a particular country. The place of departure cannot be said to have the jurisdiction of the case because the felony was committed outside its territorial boundary, neither could the place of destination assume jurisdiction because the act of stabbing and the death of Blair took place beyond its territorial limits. The host country only received the results of the crime [the dead body, the sharp dagger, the offender] and not a party to the crime itself, therefore, the receiving state cannot acquire sovereign jurisdiction between Blair and Castro. 

In this case, I believed that the problem on territorial application of criminal law could only be resolved under diplomatic resolution.

ILLUSTRATION 3:         Jacinto Alforque, a Spanish Ambassador to Pakistan, slapped Pervez Musharraf over an argument concerning with the question on whether a blind could run faster than a cripple. This is apparently a criminal case for injury, but Jacinto Alforque cannot be tried for any case in Pakistan court because of diplomatic immunity. Under the international law, territorial application of criminal law cannot be applied to those who represent a sovereign state. Meaning, ambassadors are immune from suit and there shall not be any case to be filed against him in the place where they commited the offense.

Under the international law, diplomatic officials could only be disciplined by the state who sent them to their diplmatic mission.  Since the municipal law requires that criminal offenders could only be tried in the place where the crime is committed, the ambassadors could not also be tried in the sending state for the crime he committed in the receiving state. The sending state cannot acquire jurisdiction over the criminal case of their ambassadors because of jurisdictional issues although it can administratively discipline their diplomatic officials, administrative liability may be determined from the degree of the diplomatic official’s misconduct while serving on a mission but it could never be treated as his criminal liability. The sending state cannot also impose criminal sanctions on the reason of territorial application of criminal law.

There are more than a thousand controversies affecting the territorial application of penal laws; all of these will just prove that the laws are not flawless after all.