Bryan Kevin O. Tung Public International Law 2B A Reaction Paper on U.S. vs.

Clark Defendant-Appellant Michael Lewis Clark is a seventy-one year old U.S. citizen and military veteran who is residing in Cambodia since 1998 until his extradition to the US in 2003. He was convicted of traveling to Cambodia to engage in commercial sex with a minor in violation of the provision of Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 which provides that, Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both." Clark argued that the federal law violated the international law principle on prescriptive jurisdiction. Prescriptive jurisdiction limits legislative power. When a sovereign state has jurisdiction to prescribe, it legitimately may apply its legal norms to conduct. It proceeds from principle of territoriality. His contention must fall. Extraterritoriality principle is generally frown upon but the statute expressly provides its application outside the jurisdiction of the US. The PROTECT Act of 2003 complied with international law principle of nationality. Civil law countries like the US provide for jurisdiction to prosecute certain criminal acts by their citizens committed anywhere. The law provides that it is unlawful for a US citizen or permanent resident alien, who travels in foreign commerce, or conspires to do so, for the purpose of engaging in any illegal sexual act with another purpose. Hence, it is very clear as the broad daylight that defendant-appellant transgressed the said provision of the PROTECT Act of 2003. The Clark case centers on the issue of nationality principle under the public international law. The nationality principle is a mechanism in public international law for exercising jurisdiction over an international defendant. The nationality principle permits a country to exercise criminal jurisdiction over any of its nationals accused of criminal offenses in another state. Otherwise stated, nationality principle permits a country to apply its statutes to extraterritorial acts of its own nationals. The jurisdiction of the State over its citizen who violated a statute while in another State is proper under the nationality principle. The government of a citizen can obtain jurisdiction over its citizen even when that citizen is abroad. The nationality principle is usually adopted by civil law countries. Common law countries usually apply the territoriality principle rather that the nationality principle. It seems that nationality or citizenship is the link between the territory and its inhabitants. Nationality or citizenship is derived from jus sanguinis or those born nationals and jus soli or those born in the territory. A State may exercise jurisdiction over its nationals living abroad, regardless of where the crime is committed. By virtue of the nationality principle, a State can now claim and acquire jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by its citizen in another country.