Who has jurisdiction if a crime is committed across an international border?
<p>Just out of curiosity, which set of laws would be used if you committed a crime across a border?</p>

<p>For example, suppose I were standing on the American side of the America-Canada border. If I were to shoot and kill someone on the Canadian side, which country's laws would be followed?</p>

<p>The US has jurisdiction because you committed a crime in the US. Canada has jurisdiction because you committed a crime in Canada.</p>

<p>As added complications, if you are a Mexican citizen then Mexico has jurisdiction and if your victim is Chinese then China has jurisdiction. If you get arrested on an Interpol warrant in Spain then Spain has jurisdiction. And so on ...</p>

<p>Your implicit assumption is that jurisdiction is <em>exclusive</em>, it isn't. Any country (or sub-national jurisdiction) that claims jurisdiction has jurisdiction, at least to the extent of testing that claim. Whether any given polity has jurisdiction depends on the particular law involved, some laws are only applicable within that countries borders others are extra-territorial, some are applicable to citizens but not non-citizens or vice-versa, etc.</p>

<p>In short, the laws of whichever country decided to prosecute you.<br>
All of the overt acts that you committed for this crime were in the US (let's assume that's the case, anyway) and the US clearly has jurisdiction over the place where you were standing, so the US could prosecute you for this.  Canada might <strong>also</strong> have jurisdiction because the effects of what you did occurred in Canada.   </p>

<p>As said elsewhere both countries have jurisdiction (can prosecute the accused within the limits of their laws).</p>

<p>What would actually happen would depend upon several factors, the most important being not where the crime was committed, but who apprehended the accused. One country might try for extradition, the other may or may not agree to it. Montana has the death penalty, if the crime was committed there by a Canadian citizen, they might want to take custody in order to avoid having their citizen killed by another country. </p>

<p>Double jeopardy may or may not apply depending upon the law of the country claiming jurisdiction (for instance if our hypothetical killer was Iranian, he could serve his time in either the US or Canada and still be re-prosecuted in Iran).</p>

<p>Basically international law exists only as a voluntary amendment/adoption to a countries laws, and so there is no defitive statement that can be made without describing the exact circumstances.  For instance if the crime had been drug dealing with the money and drugs being tossed across the border, our Iranian subject wouldn’t have had to worry about re-prosecution as Iran law would have been satisfied with his conviction and punishment by either.</p>

<p>But it’s a nigh universal fact that you can’t imprison someone that is beyond your reach, so...it do nes upon whee you are.</p>

united-states canada murder borders