Doctrines used by foreign courts to acquire jurisdiction:

The territorial principle is the most important and widely used. It is the idea that a state may claim
jurisdiction over persons and events inside its own territory. So, foreign nationals committing
crimes in the U.S. are subject to U.S. courts and U.S. laws.
The nationality principle holds that the government of a citizen can obtain jurisdiction over its
citizen even when that citizen is abroad. For example, U.S. citizens are still required to pay
federal taxes to the U.S. government when abroad and may be prosecuted for a failure to do so.
The passive personality principle is an interesting offshoot of the nationality principle. It looks to
the nationality of the victim to determine jurisdiction, holding that a state may assert jurisdiction
over persons and events outside a state's territory on the basis that its citizen has been harmed.
In the case of United States v. Roberts, 1 F.Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. La. 1998), which had an unusual
set of facts, the victim of a crime of sexual abuse of a minor (who was a U.S. citizen) had a case
tried against her aggressor who was a citizen of the Caribbean island of Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines. The crime took place on international waters on board a ship registered in Liberia
and owned by a company incorporated in the Republic of Panama. None of the regular methods
of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, or comity would have worked. Id. The defendant was
indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Louisiana and the defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied by the federal district court, which found
jurisdiction under the passive personality principle.
The protective principle is one of national security and it holds that a state may have jurisdiction
over a defendant accused of acts in pursuance of overthrowing the host state's government. See
United States v. Yousef, 327 F2d 56 (2d Cir. 2003).
The universality principle (principle of universal jurisdiction) is closely aligned with the
international law doctrine of peremptory norms (jus cogens). The principle holds that all states
have jurisdiction over crimes that are universally recognized to be a crime against humanity.
These have historically included piracy, slave-trading, torture, genocide, and perhaps terrorism.

International Law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption comes into play. Where a
foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as
ours.
____ A procedure whereby a legal matter is referred by
the conflict of laws rules of the forum to a foreign
state, the conflict of laws rule of which, in turn
refers the matter back to the law of the forum
(remission) or a third state (transmission).
SOLUTIONS TO THE RENVOI
1. Reject the renvoi
If the conflicts rules of the forum refer the case to
the law of another state, it is deemed to mean
only the internal law of that state. Thus, the court
will apply the foreign law.

2. Accept the renvoi

If the conflict rules of the forum refer the case to
the law of another state, it is deemed to include
the totality of the foreign law (internal law and
conflicts of laws rule). Thus, the court will
recognize the referral back and apply local law.
3. Desistment theory
The forum court upon reference to another
states law sees that such law is limited in
application to its own nationals domiciled in its
territory and has no provision for application to
nationals domiciled outside of the territory.
Hence, the local court will apply local law.
This has the same result as the acceptance of
the renvoi but the process used by the forum
court is to desist applying the foreign law.
4. Foreign Court Theory
Foreign court assumes the same position that the
foreign court would take if the case is litigated in
the foreign state
Jurisdictions:
Subject matter, person, property

DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON-CONVENIENS A forum may resist imposition upon

its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by law on the ground that the
forum is inconvenient or the ends of justice would be best served by trial in
another forum or the controversy may be more suitably tried elsewhere
US has the