The way in which the reach of international law has been extended in recent decades has not, shall we say, been an unalloyed good, but it has never been more pernicious than when it comes to recent extensions of “international jurisdiction,” the notion that country A has the right to try a citizen of country B for acts committed outside country A and which had no direct impact on country A.

Prompted partly by the news that the Israeli opposition leader could have faced arrest in Britain as a result of Israel’s actions in Gaza, British MEP Daniel Hannan makes some useful points on this question:

Territorial jurisdiction has been a remarkably successful concept. Ever since the Treaty of Westphalia, it has been broadly understood that crimes are the responsibility of the state where they are committed. . . . Western liberals might say: “Since Karadzic won’t get justice in Serbia, he should get it at The Hague.” But an Iranian judge might apply precisely the same logic and say: “Adulterers in Western countries are going unpunished: we must kidnap them and bring them to a place where they will face consequences.”
International jurisdiction breaks the link between legislators and law. Instead of legislation being passed by representatives who are, in some way, accountable to their populations, laws are generated by international jurists. We are, in other words, reverting to the pre-modern notion that law-givers should be accountable to their own consciences rather than to those who must live under their rulings.

Indeed.