Competence of jurisdictions (whether internal or international) and its boundaries in both civil and criminal cases, is a key issue concerning dispute settlement. Lawyers and - more generally speaking – the whole international society is concerned with the judicial proceeding for infringement by persons states of general international law and human rights. Some countries, due to the lack of an over-potent criminal jurisdiction and taking the limited contentious jurisdiction of ICJ into account, because The Court can only deal with a dispute when the States concerned have recognized its jurisdiction, have extended the competence of their municipal courts to settle these cases in question. The United States of America is one of avant-gardes in this respect. Initially by invoking a very old act and consequently through the enactment of several acts, they have unprecedentedly empowered internal courts to envisage some legal cases. On this paper, by focusing on acts passed by the Congress and the development of judicial jurisprudence, I try to find out how far the lacunae caused by the lack of a competent international tribunal is filled by this American approach.
Bahman Tajani, S. (2013). Expanding Competence of National Jurisdictions to Extraterritorial Crimes: a Case Study of U.S.. World Politics, 2(2), 87-118.
MLA
Shahram Bahman Tajani. "Expanding Competence of National Jurisdictions to Extraterritorial Crimes: a Case Study of U.S.". World Politics, 2, 2, 2013, 87-118.
HARVARD
Bahman Tajani, S. (2013). 'Expanding Competence of National Jurisdictions to Extraterritorial Crimes: a Case Study of U.S.', World Politics, 2(2), pp. 87-118.
VANCOUVER
Bahman Tajani, S. Expanding Competence of National Jurisdictions to Extraterritorial Crimes: a Case Study of U.S.. World Politics, 2013; 2(2): 87-118.
)