Jurisdictions having no common point over a certain issue
<p>Let's say there's an adult man from a western country having no extraterritorial jurisdiction and does an act in an African country that would be abhorrent and obviously illegal accordint to the laws of his country but it's legal in the country he's doing the act in. 
According to my logic he wouldn't meet chargen in none of the two countries because, as mentioned;</p>

<p>-the country he's from doesn't have extraterritorial jurisdiction</p>

<p>-the country he does the act in  doesn't mandate penalty or prosecution for the former act</p>

<p>so, as far as my layman international law knowledge is concerned (yup, it's pretty little), there's no common intersection between the two countries' laws for which the man can be charged and prosecuted, hence he could even show a video of him doing the thing in front of a police station, if the video shows clearly that the thing is done in that country.</p>

<p>Am I wrong here? Obviously, the question is hypothetical in nature and don't tell me "it depends upon the 2 countries", because I stated the conditions that leave no ambiguity or genericness in the situation above.</p>

<p>Break down the question into its two main parts:</p>

<p>Will country A prosecute the person for an act in country B if country A has no jurisdiction? No. </p>

<p>Will country B prosecute the person for an act in country B if it's not a criminal offence in country B? No.</p>

<p>Therefore it's obvious that the person will not be prosecuted by country A or B.</p>

<h2>Yes, there are such “crimes”</h2>

<p>For example, possession of cannabis is illegal in, say <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Indonesia" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Indonesia</a>, but legal in, say <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_laws_of_Canada_by_province_or_territory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Canada</a>. An Indonesian citizen in Canada can possess cannabis without legal consequence.</p>

<p>I would consider it quite unlikely that a country consideres a certain crime “abhorrent and obviously illegal” but at the same time doesn't assume extraterritorial jurisdiction. In the unlikely event that this happens, neither country A nor country B would prosecute the act in question. However, “abhorrent and obviously illegal” crimes would still quite likely be subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction in otherwise unrelated countries C, D and E so an offender would have to plan very carefully where he travels.</p>

<p>As an example, I suggest that you take a look at § 4 et seq. StGB which governs the application of German penal law to crimes committed abroad.</p>

<p>§4 - Application to offences committed on German ships and aircraft<br />
§5 - Offenses committed abroad with specific domestic connection<br />
§6 - Offences committed abroad against internationally protected legal interests<br />
§7 - Other offences committed abroad<br /></p>

<p>For instance, if you tamper with an ATM in Somalia and Somali authorities don't care, you can be arrested and put on trial in Germany, no matter what your nationality is. (Sect. 6 para. 1 sentence 1 item 7 StGB)</p>

<p><a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html</a></p>

international comparative-law