Suchergebnisse

Over the last few decades, a global trend of extending the reach of domestic penal power can be observed, namely driven by the changing face of crime as it becomes increasingly transnational in nature. It is demonstrated in this article that the Swiss legislature has clearly followed this global trend of broadening the extraterritorial reach of domestic criminal law, most notably since the 1980s. It has acted with particular resolve in the last decade, adding jurisdictional bases to the Swiss Criminal Code by virtue of which Swiss criminal law can be applied to many instances of conduct taking place abroad. Certain offences – specified crimes against minors and female genital mutilation – have even been subjected to an absolute and unrestricted universality principle. The Swiss legislature is not indifferent to the problems that such an expansive approach to jurisdiction may create, notably in terms of conflicts of jurisdiction. Yet, the rules it adopted to temper the effects of applying Swiss criminal law to extraterritorial conduct only partially remedy the situation. This development in Swiss law begs the question whether such an expansive approach towards jurisdiction is permissible – or even encouraged or requested by international law. Hence, this article explores to what extent international law informs the reach of domestic penal power and concludes that international law is Janus-faced with regard to the question of the geographical scope of domestic criminal law. While some of its rules push for long-arm jurisdiction, others put limits on the domestic legislature's endeavour to expand the reach of its domestic criminal law. In light of this, the idea of adopting, on an international level, general principles governing the definition of the scope of domestic prescriptive and adjudicative jurisdiction for transnational cases is tempting, albeit difficult to realize.

As a process of raising monetary contributions from a large number of persons, crowdfunding may take many forms: from traditional benefit events and television fundraising campaigns to increasingly popular internet platform fundraising. The online environment in which the newest forms of CF emerge facilitates its unprecedented ability to cross borders and attract persons from various countries. This having been said, the same environment complicates legal assessment. The issues that inevitably arise in cross-border dealing are particularly intricate: which court decides and which law applies? At the outset, one must differentiate between various types of CF models. Furthermore, the tripartite structure of the CF model involving the specialised internet platforms adds another layer of complexity because the conflict of laws analysis demands the preliminary identification of legal relationships and their legal characterisation. Finally, there is a constant debate about whether investors may be legally characterised as consumers or not, which may significantly affect conclusions on jurisdiction and applicable law. In answering these questions, the author considers national and supranational legal instruments containing provisions on international jurisdiction and applicable law, with the focus on the EU ones. In the course of legal analysis, the interpretational principles set by the Court of Justice of the European Union will be taken into account. Since no such principle is directly related to the internet-based CF, they need to be assessed in terms of their relevancy and potential to be used as starting points in analogical reasoning. Besides drawing a clearer image about the conflict of laws issues for participants in CF, the aim of this article is also to assess the validity of some of the legal terms under which these participants join the CF process.

Over the last few decades, a global trend of extending the reach of domestic penal power can be observed, namely driven by the changing face of crime as it becomes increasingly transnational in nature. It is demonstrated in this article that the Swiss legislature has clearly followed this global trend of broadening the extraterritorial reach of domestic criminal law, most notably since the 1980s. It has acted with particular resolve in the last decade, adding jurisdictional bases to the Swiss Criminal Code by virtue of which Swiss criminal law can be applied to many instances of conduct taking place abroad. Certain offences – specified crimes against minors and female genital mutilation – have even been subjected to an absolute and unrestricted universality principle. The Swiss legislature is not indifferent to the problems that such an expansive approach to jurisdiction may create, notably in terms of conflicts of jurisdiction. Yet, the rules it adopted to temper the effects of applying Swiss criminal law to extraterritorial conduct only partially remedy the situation. This development in Swiss law begs the question whether such an expansive approach towards jurisdiction is permissible – or even encouraged or requested by international law. Hence, this article explores to what extent international law informs the reach of domestic penal power and concludes that international law is Janus-faced with regard to the question of the geographical scope of domestic criminal law. While some of its rules push for long-arm jurisdiction, others put limits on the domestic legislature's endeavour to expand the reach of its domestic criminal law. In light of this, the idea of adopting, on an international level, general principles governing the definition of the scope of domestic prescriptive and adjudicative jurisdiction for transnational cases is tempting, albeit difficult to realize.

Due to the increase in the number of cross-border disputes in arbitration in recent years, the process of ADR and ODR has become international. International commercial arbitration has become a system of private transnational dispute resolution, consisting of multilateral conventions, bilateral agreements, national arbitration rules and principles and rules for resolving private informal disputes. In the 1920s, new legislation regulating international commercial arbitration emerged, and in 1958, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, known as the New York Convention, was adopted. This was followed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law of 1976 on Arbitration Rules and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 on International Trade Arbitration. The arbitration process was harmonized on the basis of the Model Law.

Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept in law, as it provides the link between a government, its territory, and its people. Data travels through the internet without concern for any borders. This book argues how and why the concept of jurisdiction needs to be adapted across public and private areas - from criminal to commercial law.