But as killing is already forbidden inn every country on Earth the sine lege part falls. All that has to be decided is whether it was murder, homicide or accidental death, which country will have jurisprudence and the like. But that the deed is punible is not in question.
It seems interesting… possibly a conflict of jurisdiction… if, say, a Canadian is murdered by an American in an American space station.
But extradition and jurisdiction negotiation are existing processes, so it doesn’t have to be cut and dried.
Not necessarily. The criminal law of a country normally only applies to events committed in that country. If a Canadian shoots and kills an American in Florida, that is not an offence under Canadian law and they cannot be prosecuted in Canada.
Piracy is an example of universal jurisdiction: it is an offence under the laws of most countries, even if committed in international waters. However, universal jurisdiction is an exception.
But Canada is bound by the Outer Space Treaty. If it attempted to exercise jurisdiction in a case in which international law (the OST, in this case) does not allow Canada to exercise jurisdiction, it would be in violation of international law. Most likely there is a provision of Canadian law preventing this in domestic law. If there isn’t, Canadian courts might claim jurisdiction because Canadian law would tell them to, but they’d be violating international law in doing so, and that breach would be attributed to Canada as a state.
I’m not aware of it, but it’s not my area, so I may be missing something. Canada tends to be very dualist with respect to international treaties, in part because of federalism issues, and in part because of parliamentary jurisdiction under our separation of powers.
I wouldn’t say a conflict, but overlapping jurisdiction. That applies now with cross-border activities. Drug trafficking, for example, where the drug ring operates across the US Canada border. They would likely be committing crimes in both jurisdictions, and could be prosecuted by either.
Just thought of an example where violation of an international treaty did not take effect in Canada until Parliament changed the statute law.
-
Under the Indian Act in the 1970s, if a female Indian married a non-Indian, she lost her Band status. That was not the case for a male Indian who married a non-Indian; he would keep his Band status.
-
Two Indian women challenged this under the Canadian Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court upheld the loss of Band status as not violating the equality clause of the Bill of Rights.
-
Another Indian woman then took it to the UN, alleging a breach of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
-
In 1981, the UN body held that the statutory policy was a breach of the Covenant.
-
That decision did not mean that the disqualification ceased to exist in Canadian law.
-
In 1985, the federal government introduced a bill in Parliament to amend the Indian Act, eliminating the disqualification and restoring Band status to affected Indian women.
-
Once the amendment took effect, then the women could get their Band status back. The amendment was necessary to implement the decision under international treaty.
Hmm. International Earth Law would only apply until new countries or polities are established in space, which might develop new laws which are different to Earth Laws. For instance, Murder might not be illegal on the Moon, under native Moon Law.
If (for instance) the Lunarites have developed a form of teleportation that kills the victim subject and reconstitutes them somewhere else, this might be considered murder under Earth Law and not under Lunar law; indeed, it might even be an obligation for every citizen of the Moon to be teleported at least once during their lifetime, especially if the process reconstitutes them into a more healthy body. Lunar Law in this case would make murder (as perceived by Earth Law) to be mandatory.
When Captain Cook went to Hawaii, he found that there was a terrible problem with what he perceived as theft under English law. From the point of view of the Hawaiians, the British sailors had so much cool stuff it was impolite of them not to share it with everyone. The only reason Cook thought he could enforce British Law in Hawaii was that his men had muskets and the Hawaiians did not; this mistake cost him his life.
Interesting. Perhaps the result would have been different if the international law rule in question had come from customary law rather than a treaty? The 18th century case of Triquet v Bath has held that customary international law is part of the common law (at least this is how it is traditionally interpreted). Of course it could still be overridden by statute domestically, but at least you’d have something to start with.
Nothing to add to the legal discussion, just noting my amusement that when I reached the last post, the next thread under “New and unread threads” was, “Ways in which you are annoyingly pedantic”.
But new countries or polities would not be recognized under Earth law and jurisdiction just like that: the process would impose some conditions on them, probably including accepting jurisprudence viewed as valid under Earth Law (whatever subset of Earths many jurisdictions that may be). As Earth has the ressources the Outer Space Polities need and will need for the foreseeable future, Earth has a very strong negotiating position.
Until the Moonies build their electric mass-catapult, of course.
It is a long stretch from mass-weddings to mass-catapults, fortunately.
You’ll be hearing from my solicitor in due course. 
“Xiya na pelésh to, paxoniski!”
Stranger
That’s my understanding, but getting way out of my area.
I get often told that some of my languages are not widely understood in this board. Finally time has come for me to use that argument too. 
“This isn’t your place, shorty.”
Stranger
I believe the Stranger is referring to this:
Just stay calm and everything will be ok.