In many countries, courts are competent to try crimes that involve one of their citizens (as the victim or as the perpetrator), regardless of where the crime has been committed.
Actually, I believe it’s the case in Mexico, so possibly also in other former Spanish colonies. So, you might be prosecuted in Guatemala for a crime committed in Mexico, if you or the victim is a citizen of Guatemala.
It would apply to Bush too. He could be prosecuted in a foreign country, not because he broke some principle of the international law or another, but just because his actions caused harm to a citizen of said foreign country. That’s what almost happened to Pinochet, when Spain requested his extradition from the UK.
And of course, the immunity a former head of State may benefit from in his own country is irrelevant in a foreign country (a current foreign head of state would benefit from diplomatic immunity, hence couldn’t be prosecuted).
I understand that, but it really doesn’t answer my question.
I don’t know.
But I wasn’t using the phrase as a term of art, but just as a general shorthand for “soldiers killed by events in a combat zone.”
When they finally caught the D.C. snipers, there was a long list of prosecutors that could have brought charges against them.
The Indian Penal Code applies to extra-territorial crimes committed by Nationals:
http://punjabrevenue.nic.in/crime1.htm#ch1
This is called the Nationality principle of jurisdiction. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mlawofsea.html