In the age of a globalized economy, what problems might arise if each country decided to regulate economic activities outside its own country what were perceived as having an effect on that country?
Can you think of reasons why a state might be hesitant to assert jurisdiction on the basis of nationality where the person is living abroad and the activities take place outside the state?
On what bases did the court justify the exercise of jurisdiction over Yunis? To what extent did the court rely on a determination that the prosecution was compatible with international law?
Was the exercise of jurisdiction over Yunis's act compatible with international law? Is it relevant that Lebanon was not then a party to the treaty that the Hostage Taking Act was passed to implement?
In general, do you think a state should assert jurisdiction over an offense where all the elements of the crime took place abroad, where the perpetrator is a non-national, and where the victim was not singled out for having been a national of the prosecuting State? Are the relevant considerations altered where states have undertaken a multilateral effort to suppress a particular crime?
If states' own courts will enforce domestic statutes irrespective of compliance with international law, as the court indicates, how can international legal constraints ever be given effect? Is there any forum where such a violation of international law can be remedied?
Why did the court find that Odeh's participation in blowing up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania fell within the scope of prohibited activities under statutes outlawing malicious damage to U.S. property even though Odeh was not a citizen of the U.S. and the activities did not take place in the U.S.?
Using the protective principle, do you think that the U.S. could pass laws making it an offense for anyone to destroy U.S. government owned property or U.S. citizen owned property anywhere in the world?