It is relevant in three distinct situations: Under the public international law system, de jure states are sovereign within their own territorial boundaries.
A few states such as the Netherlands have adopted a monist approach, i.e. they accept international and municipal laws as part of a single system.
Thus, whether a supranational court or tribunal has criminal jurisdiction over its territory or citizens, will be determined by international law.
The majority of states are dualist, i.e. they will only accept international obligations through the process of incorporation, say by signing and adopting treaties and conventions.
Hence, whether a supranational court or tribunal will have jurisdiction and, if so, over what subject matter and over what period of time, will be decided by the sovereign government of the day.
Jurisdiction may also be claimed over crimes on board the ships and aircraft operated by corporations based in the given state, no matter where these craft may be located at the relevant time.
There are three theoretical issues to consider: In English law, see the definition of a deception which must be the operative cause of the "obtaining" in the deception offences and under the Theft Act 1978, and note that all the inchoate offencess move in time and across borders so that an attempt continues from the proximate act until failure, a conspiracy agreement is not limited to a particular place, and the encouragement by a secondary party as an accessory continues until the principal commits the substantive offence.
The theoretical justification for this jurisdiction may be that X has intended to cause the loss or injury and so should not escape liability through the device of only seeking to deceive those resident outside State A (a strategy that would be very simple given the internet).
"[2] The U.S. Constitution mentions explicit authority for Congress in three areas: (1) counterfeiting, (2) piracy and felony on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations, and (3) treason.
[3] However, the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution gives Congress "broad power to enact laws that are 'convenient or useful' or 'conductive' to the authority's 'beneficial exercise' ".
Federal courts also have jurisdiction to hear cases brought against U.S. citizens based on their illegal activities in other countries.
The Sixth Amendment calls for trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Within the federal court system, Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure specifies which federal court may hear a particular criminal case: Anderson, 328 U.S., at 703 holds: “[T]he locus delicti must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it.” In Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347 (1912) although none of the defendants had entered the District of Columbia as part of their conspiracy to defraud the United States, they were convicted because one co-conspirator had committed overt acts in Columbia (225 U.S., at 363).