In a similar vein, American case law held that :
“... the territorial concept of jurisdiction is neither exclusive nor a full and accurate characterization of the powers of state to exercise jurisdiction beyond the confines of their geographical boundaries” (United States v. King, Supra [74], at p. 851).
And therefore -
“... the Congress may pick and choose whatever recognized principle of international jurisdiction is necessary to accomplish the purpose sought by the legislation” (United States v. Rodriguez (1960) [81],
at p. 491).
Although we have said that the extension is not subject in principle to the rules of international law, it is customary to relate to four main expansive affiliations recognized therein: protective affiliation, which concerns acts committed abroad that have harmed, or are intended to harm, vital interests of the state or the functioning of its institutions; a passive personal connection (the passive personality relationship), which relates to the connection between the legal system and the victim of the offense; an active personal connection (the connection of the active personality or the national affinity) and the connection between the legal system and the perpetrator of the offense; A universal connection, which brings under its wings particularly serious offenses that are in the universal human interest, including offenses against the law of nations, war crimes, and piracy.
This categorization, based on a 1935 work by Harvard University scholars in international law, "Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime" [143], at p. 445), which is now accepted in many legal systems (see: Y. Dinstein, "Criminal Jurisdiction: Limits and Limitations" [131]; in Israeli case law: Criminal Appeal 163/82, supra [29], at p. 628; Criminal Appeal 7230/96 Anonymous [22], at p. 521; In American case law: Rocha v. United States (1961) [82], at p. 547; Rivard v. United States (1967) [83], at p. 885; United States v. King, supra [74], at p. 851; United States v. Yousef, supra [73], at p. 91).