undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointsquickthrower25y ago0 comments

Kind of. Countries have jurisdictions within them, such as states and there is the EU of course, and then countries make treaties with each other so there can be influence across countries.

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

vikramkr5y ago· 4 in thread

Influence but not jurisdiction. Outside of crimes against humanity/universal jurisdiction, I cant think of a situation where a country A would have jurisdiction over an event that happens in another country B involving nobody of nationality A. Even in the EU there's a lot of guidelines and processes for figuring out which member country gets jurisdiction over cases.

reaperducer5y ago

I cant think of a situation where a country A would have jurisdiction over an event that happens in another country B involving nobody of nationality A

Trade sanctions. Banking regulations. It happens all the time.

Those still involve people of nationality A. The people importing/sending out funds to the bank etc.

pc865y ago

This isn't what jurisdiction means.

quickthrower2OP5y ago

Taking the example of Julian Assange, a UK judge gets to effectively choose his fate, even if that is deciding which jurisdiction he ends up in next.

You are technically correct. In practice the UK is making the decision of his ultimate fate, so I think that is worth highlighting.

However it may not apply at all to the original argument made, so sorry for the typical HN detour.

donalhunt5y ago

Apparently YouTube has had to deal with that because media companies have licensed content on a per state (and even a per city) basis!!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse