Criminal jurisdiction to prescribe and the “place of conduct” in transnational remote hearings
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2665Keywords:
remote hearings, criminal jurisdiction, international judicial cooperation, speech crimesAbstract
In this contribution, I examine the problem of criminal jurisdiction to prescribe in transnational remote hearings. To address this issue, I consider the possibility of redefining the notion of the perpetrator’s place of conduct, which constitutes a cornerstone of the prevailing territoriality principle. Applying theoretical and dogmatic methods, I first analyse and critically assess the current legal framework. Second, I determine which state’s jurisdiction to prescribe would be most appropriate for acts committed by a person being questioned during a transnational remote hearing, taking into account the specific and conventional nature of speech. Finally, I advocate for the introduction of the necessary changes, considering the evolving understanding of the notion of “presence”—not as the place where an individual is physically located, but as the place where, through remote forms of communication, they interact with others.
Downloads
Metrics
Global Statistics ℹ️
|
41
Views
|
23
Downloads
|
|
64
Total
|
|
References
Ambos, K., 2019. European criminal law. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316348628
Austin, J. L., 1984. How to do things with words. In: J. O. Urmson and M. Sbisà, eds., The William James lectures. Oxford University Press.
Coca-Vila, I., 2025. The violation of individual rights as a principle of criminalisation. In: P.-A. Hirsch and E. Moser, eds., Rights in Criminal Law: Studies on a New Paradigm in Criminal Law and Procedure. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 51–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509973507.ch-003
Collier, Ch. W., 2009. Meaning in Law: A Theory of Speech, Oxford University Press.Decroos, M., 2005. Criminal jurisdiction over transnational speech offenses. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice [online], 13(3), 365–400. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/1571817054604128 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/1571817054604128
Demenko, A., 2021. Przestępstwa popełniane przez wypowiedź. Warsaw: C. H. Beck.
Demenko, A., 2024. Jurisdiction in criminal law in the EU – Revised. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice [online], 32(3), 243–265. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10058 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10058
Demenko, A., 2025. Jurisdiction in online speech crime cases in the European Union. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice [online], 80. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2024.100718 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2024.100718
Dorneanu, L., Malka, J., and Coeckelberghs, L., 2021. Impact of COVID-19 on access to justice and documents. ERA Forum, 22, 407–419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-021-00684-4
Duff, R. A., 2020. Criminal law. In: J. Tasioulas, ed., The Cambridge companion to the philosophy of law. Cambridge University Press, 313–330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316104439.017
Dyson, M., and Meyer, F., 2022. Structures within criminal legal reasoning. In: K. Ambos et al., eds., Core concepts in criminal law and criminal justice. Cambridge University Press, 13–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009037136.002
Erb, V., and Schäfer J., eds., 2025. Münchener Kommentar zum StGB. Munich: C. H. Beck.
Ferguson, A., 2023. Courts without court. Vanderbilt Law Review [online], 75(5), 1461–1521. Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol75/iss5/5
Fish, S., 1980. Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.
Fish, S., 1994. There's no such thing as free speech: And it's a good thing, too. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195080186.001.0001
Flower, L., 2025. The digital courtroom: Participation, attendance, engagement and consumption [online]. London: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003344643 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003344643
Fuhr, T., 2001. Die Äußerung im Strafgesetzbuch. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-50212-7
Geary, R., 2002. Understanding criminal law [online]. London: Routledge-Cavendish. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843144823 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843144823
Greenawalt, K., 1992. Speech, crime, and the uses of language. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195077117.001.0001
Grice, H., 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Heinsch, M., et al., 2021. Death sentencing by Zoom: An actor-network theory analysis. Alternative Law Journal [online], 46(1), 13–19. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X20966147 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X20966147
Herring, J., 2021. Criminal law: The basics [online]. London: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003118831 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003118831
Hörnle, J., 2021. Internet jurisdiction law and practice. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198806929.001.0001
Hörnle, T., 2004. “Rights of others” in criminalisation theory. In: A. P. Simester, A. d., Bois-Pedain and U. Neumann, ed. and trans., Liberal criminal theory: Essays for Andreas von Hirsch [online]. London: Hart, 169–186. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781474200868.ch-009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474200868.ch-009
Hynes, J., 2025. Physical and virtual spaces across a continuum of remoteness: Exploring spatial ruptures in remote court hearings. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers [online], 50, e12694. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12694 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12694
Kohl, U., 2007. Jurisdiction and the internet: Regulatory competence over online activity. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511495311
McCann, A., 2020. Virtual criminal justice and good governance during COVID-19. European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance [online], 7(3), 225–229. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00703001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00703001
Meehan, K. A., 2008. The continuing conundrum of international internet jurisdiction. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 2, 345–369.
Mulcahy, L., and Tsalapatanis, A., 2024. Digital justice: Engineering disadvantage? London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65265-3
Oehler, D., 1973. Internationales Strafrecht: Geltungsbereich des Strafrechts, internationales Rechtshilferecht, Recht der Gemeinschaften, Völkerstrafrecht. Cologne/Berlin/Bonn/Munich: Carl Heymanns.
Ozaki, M., 2025. Basic theory of criminal law: Deterrence by norm in liberal democracy [online]. Springer Singapore. Available at: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-95-0816-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-0816-7
Povylius, K., 2024. Virtual criminal proceedings: The Lithuanian experience. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics [online], 17(1), 21–45. Available at: https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjlp-2024-0002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2024-0002
Roe, D., 2005. Criminal law. London: Hodder Education.
Rossner, M., 2021. Remote rituals in virtual courts. Journal of Law and Society [online], 48(3), 334–36. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jols.12304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12304
Ryngaert, C., 2009. Territorial jurisdiction over cross-frontier offences: Revisiting a classic problem of international criminal law. International Criminal Law Review [online], 9(1), 187–209. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/157181209X398880 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/157181209X398880
Ryngaert, C., 2015. Jurisdiction in international law. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199688517.001.0001
Ryngaert, C., 2017. Territory in the law of jurisdiction: Imagining alternatives. In: M. Kuijer and W. Werner, eds., Netherlands yearbook of international law 2016 [online]. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 49–82. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-207-1_3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-207-1_3
Sbisà, M., 2009. Uptake and Conventionality in Illocution. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics [online], 5(1), 33–52. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-009-0003-0.Searle, J. R., 1970. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-009-0003-0
Sieber, U., Jarvers, K., and Silverman, E., eds., 2017. National criminal law in a comparative legal context. Volume 2.2. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Simester, A. P., 2021. Fundamentals of criminal law: Responsibility, culpability, and wrongdoing. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198853145.001.0001
Svantesson, D. J. B., 2017. Solving the internet jurisdiction puzzle. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198795674.001.0001
Svantesson, D. J. B., and Symeonides, S. C., 2023. Cross-border internet defamation conflicts and what to do about them: Two proposals. Journal of Private International Law, 19(2), 137–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2023.2236419
Svantesson, D.J. B., 2015. A new jurisprudential framework for jurisdiction: Beyond the Harvard draft. American Journal of International Law Unbound [online], 109, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398772300001197 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398772300001197
Szigeti, P., 2017. The illusion of territorial jurisdiction. Texas International Law Journal [online], 52(3), 369–400. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3034602
Thorhauer, N. I., 2019. Jurisdiktionskonflikte im Rahmen transnationaler Kriminalität. Baden-Baden: Nomos. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845295725
Zimmermann, F., 2015. Conflicts of criminal jurisdiction in the European Union. Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice [online], 3(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.15845/bjclcj.v3i1.832 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15845/bjclcj.v3i1.832
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Anna Demenko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence and it regulates how others can use your work. Further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
