Editing Universal jurisdiction (section)

==Universal distinct from extraterritorial jurisdiction==
Universal jurisdiction differs from a state's prosecuting crimes under its own laws, whether on its own territory ([[territorial jurisdiction]]) or abroad ([[extraterritorial jurisdiction]]). As an example, the United States asserts jurisdiction over stateless vessels carrying illicit drugs on international waters—but here the US reaches across national borders to enforce its own law, rather than invoking universal jurisdiction and trans-national standards of right and wrong.<ref>{{cite book |author=Neil Boister |title=An Introduction to Transnational Criminal Law |year=2012 |publisher=Oxford University Press | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kElWbHK0JF8C&q=us+transnational+criminal+jurisdiction&pg=PA177 |isbn=978-0-19-960538-5 }}</ref>

States attempting to police acts committed by foreign nationals on foreign territory tends to be more controversial than a state prosecuting its own citizens wherever they may be found. Bases on which a state might exercise jurisdiction in this way include the following:

* A state can exercise jurisdiction over acts that affect the fundamental interests of the state, such as [[espionage|spying]], even if the act was committed by foreign nationals on foreign territory. For example, the Indian [[Information Technology Act 2000]] largely supports the extraterritoriality of the said Act. The law states that a contravention of the Act that affects any computer or computer network situated in India will be punishable by India irrespective of the culprit's location and nationality.{{Citation needed|date=July 2007}}<!--sources needed for whole paragraph-->
* A state may try its own nationals for crimes committed abroad. France and some other nations will refuse to [[extradition|extradite]] their own citizens as a matter of law, but will instead try them on their own territory for crimes committed abroad.
* More controversial is the exercise of jurisdiction where the victim of the crime is a national of the state exercising jurisdiction. In the past some states have claimed this jurisdiction (e.g., Mexico, ''Cutting Case'' (1887)), while others have been strongly opposed to it (e.g., the United States, except in cases in which an American citizen is a victim: ''US v Yunis'' (1988)). In more recent years, however, a broad global consensus has emerged in permitting its use in the case of torture, "forced disappearances" or terrorist offences (due in part to it being permitted by the various United Nations conventions on terrorism); but its application in other areas is still highly controversial. For example, former dictator of Chile [[Augusto Pinochet]] was arrested in London in 1998, on Spanish judge [[Baltazar Garzon]]'s demand, on charges of human rights abuses, not on the grounds of universal jurisdiction but rather on the grounds that some of the victims of the abuses committed in Chile were Spanish citizens. Spain then sought his [[extradition]] from Britain, again, not on the grounds of universal jurisdiction, but by invoking the law of the [[European Union]] regarding extradition; and he was finally released on grounds of health. Argentinian [[Alfredo Astiz]]'s sentence is part of this juridical frame.{{Citation needed|date=July 2007}}<!--sources needed for whole paragraph and specifically for the quote-->