as those who voluntarily exposed themselves to the laws of this country, and this is detached from the question of where the connection was forged and whether it was ultimately realized or not.
Affiliation with more than one legal system
- Reading everything that has been said so far, the conclusion arises that it is also possible that one transgressive act will give rise to an affinity to several legal systeMs. In the words of Prof. Dinstein:
"By virtue of [the existence of the principle, which grants a state criminal jurisdiction based on its links to the offense or the offender, etc., it stands to reason that there may be competing jurisdiction between two or more states with respect to a person. The competing authority exists when, for example, Reuven - a citizen of State A - commits an offense in State B: the latter is entitled to exercise jurisdiction by virtue of the principle of territoriality, while State A is entitled to exercise it by virtue of the principle of loyalty.
...
From time to time, the competition between the powers turns into a clash between them, with each state (which is legally granted jurisdiction) seeking to exercise it despite the existence of a competing authority" (Dinstein, in his aforementioned article [131], at p. 312).
And as it stands, the question arises as to which system will acquire the status of primacy for itself, and on what basis the competition in question will be decided. Exceptions are cases in which international law establishes norms for deciding between competing methods. This is the case, for example, in offences committed on the high seas (see articles 6, 8, 9 and 19 of the Convention on the High Seas (1958) [151]). However, in most cases, contractual international law is expressed in extradition treaties, multilateral or bilateral. These usually anchor a prohibition on exposure to double jeopardy. This prevents the possibility that each of the methods, in the Torah, will seek to bring the defendant to justice. Thus, once the laws of one are applied to the act of transgression, the laws of the other will no longer be able to do so. The basic principle of international law teaches: "Aut dedere aut judicare" - either extradition or self-judgment. International law is not interested in the outcome of the "competition" between legal systems that maintain a connection to a particular offense. Its purpose is one: that the offender will be prosecuted, and one is whether it will be done in the requesting country or alternatively in the requested country.