Would Australia extradite an Australian fugitive who escaped from an Indonesian prison? If an Australian was convicted of committing a crime in Indonesia, then escaped from an Indonesian prison, and somehow made it back to Australian soil, would the Australian government extradite them back to Indonesia? Let's say the crime was drug trafficking, for which the mandated punishment was death by execution. Australia and Indonesia do have an extradition treaty:
Typically in extraditions, the treaties will only allow for extraditions if both nations have a similar crime and similar punishment for that crime. In this case, there maybe some pause for Australia to grant an extradition as Australia no longer has the death penalty for any crime, so it could be that while the new crime the defendant is being sought for is Escape from Incarceration related (that's a yes in both countries), technically the punishment for an escaped Death Row Inmate is the Death Penalty. Australia can't extradite for any crime where death penalty is on the line, but the requesting nation can say they will give a more lighter sentance that is more compliant with the requested nation's own laws. However, since it is Death for another crime that Austrilia never had jurisdiction over, it complicates matters. There is precidence for procedural reasons for refusing to extradite. For example, while the U.S. and Italy have an extradition treaty and both view murder in the same light, the U.S. refused the extradition of a citizen who was wanted for a murder in Italy that she was previously aquitted of, but new evidnce was uncovered. Because it is illegal for the state to try a person twice for the same crime in the U.S., the U.S. declined the extradition treaty. Some additional notes, extradited persons can only be tried for crimes that they were extradited for, so there is an argument that Australia would refuse unless Indonesia promises to commute the Drug Trafficking sentence to Life Imprisonment
All countries (and some sub-national jurisdictions) have extraterritorial jurisdiction The U.S. Criminal Code asserts the following items to fall within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, much of which is extraterritorial in nature: The high seas and any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, including any vessels owned by US persons that are travelling on them Any US vessel travelling on the Great Lakes, connecting waters or the Saint Lawrence River (where that river forms part of the Canada–United States border) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof Any island claimed under the Guano Islands Act Any US aircraft flying over waters in the same manner as US vessels Any US spacecraft when in flight Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States Any foreign vessel during a voyage having a scheduled departure from or arrival in the United States with respect to an offense committed by or against a national of the United States Offenses committed by or against a national of the United States in diplomatic missions, consulates, military and other missions, together with related residences, outside the US International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act The US is actually pretty narrow in its assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction and the Supreme Court has held that there is a presumption against extraterritoriality. So US laws have to explicitly assert a claim of extraterritoriality. Contrast this with, say, France where the Code pénal asserts general jurisdiction over crimes by, or against, the country's citizens, no matter where they may have occurred. Crimes perpetrated from foreign jurisdictions Notwithstanding, a crime can be perpetrated in a country without the perpetrator ever having been in that country. Hacking of computer systems is an obvious example. However, almost all criminal codes include a crime similar to &quot;Attempted X&quot; or &quot;Conspiracy to commit X&quot; which clearly don't require a physical presence. Terrorist attacks are often planned in third-party countries by a group, only a small number of whom actually go the country to commit the actual attack but all of them have committed a crime under that county's jurisdiction. Extradition Any country (A) may request extradition from any other country (B) where A asserts that it has a case to bring against the individual. No country can demand extradition. B will decide whether to grant the request subject to its own law on the matter and the provisions of any extradition treaty that may be in place between A and B. Dual Criminality A crime committed in country A may engage the jurisdiction country B. If so, country A gets first crack at prosecution. Country A might decide not to prosecute, might prosecute and fail or might prosecute and succeed. Notwithstanding the outcome country B can decide to prosecute as well. Usually if the defendant has been prosecuted by country A (win or lose), country B will not prosecute. A specific example An Australian engages in sex with a French-American child in the US embassy in Rome, Italy. Italy has jurisdiction because the crime was committed in Italy. The US has jurisdiction because the offence was committed against a US national in a US diplomatic mission. France has jurisdiction because the victim was French. Australia has jurisdiction because sex crimes against minors by Australians are prosecutable in Australia. The perpetrator flees to the UK (with whom all four countries have extradition treaties) where they are arrested - the UK government (courts and foreign minister) will decide if and to whom the perpetrator will be extradited (probably Italy). After they are prosecuted there (and serve any sentence) any of the other three may request extradition. And so on.
You could almost define a country as, "an entity that can defend itself against invasions." Non-sovereign entities are indeed generally prohibited from deploying lethal autonomous defense systems like booby-traps. But governments and state-like actors, as a matter of practice, choose their own rules. laws-of-war and international-law are not like "regular" law: When it comes down to it, states only follow international conventions and treaties to the extent that they consider it to be in their own interest to do so. If you start mining your property, you will probably be forced to stop by local law enforcement. If a warlord starts mining his borders, he's going to get away with it until someone with more power convinces or forces him to stop. Was it "illegal" for Turkey to shoot down a Russian military aircraft? One could cite all sorts of laws and conventions to answer that question. But in practice the consequences of that act are limited to whatever Turkey allows, or to what Russia and its allies can impose on Turkey.
If the FBI has reason to believe they have committed a crime under US law Being an official of a foreign (or domestic) government in a military or civilian capacity does not make a person immune from US law except in the specific case of diplomatic immunity. There are some US laws that apply even if the perpetrator is not and has never been in the US, for example, computer hacking and fraud. So, if the FBI has probable cause they can ask for and get an arrest warrant. If the US were at war with this person’s country then, barring war crimes or crimes against humanity, military action against the US is not a crime. Naturally, exactly the same circumstances apply to US citizens vis-a-vis foreign laws.
Sure, but Qatar is not in the jurisdiction of the ECHR! For the ECHR to apply in a jurisdiction, Qatar would need to have signed it or be in the EU or at least have been in it. It never has been. In fact, not even Den Haque would have power over Qatar unless they allowed it to - and that court rules on matters of war crimes... Qatar does not guarantee the same rights you might be familiar with from most western countries. In fact, not even all western countries are the same. In America, you can use the Sieg Heil gesture, in Germany, you can end in jail for it.. Same for Propaganda materials.
Defendants in the US would be charged with racketeering, not bribery, since government officials were not bribed. The DoJ indictment against Webb et al. is here: most of the defendants are not citizens of the US, though none are listed as being government officials. DoJ could certainly seek an indictment of ministers, senators or presidents of foreign countries. If said official were in the US on an ordinary passport, they could be arrested. They also might be arrested by e.g. Argentinian policy and extradited to the US, but whether that would be legal depends on the country (some countries don't extradite their own citizens; there would have to be an extradition treaty between that country and the US). It is inconceivable that any nation would hand over a sitting president because of an indictment by the US, and generally unlikely for any government official, but the official could be locally deposed first. But whether a government would do this is basically a political question, not a legal one.
As a general rule, most countries have what's called Bi-Lateral extradition treaties, which means that Country A (Cedricstan) will only extradite to Country B (Bobtopia) for crimes that were committed in Bobtopia AND are crimes in Cedricstan. So, in this scenario, you, a Cedricstan citizen purchase the book "The Big Book of Banned Things in Bobtopia" and send it to Bobtopian Bob by international mail. Bobtopian Ministry of Banned Stuff police (BMBS) find Bob in possession of the book and through creative interrogation (cause all countries that ban books are surprisingly creative in interrogation techniques) figure out that you sent it to him. The would file an extradition petition with the Cedricstan Embassy, who then call up the Cedricstan Ministry of Justice (CMJ) and discuss the charges (if there's no extradition treaty, the process is basically the embassy staffer politely taking the note and giving it to the Ambassador, who tries not to laugh too much as he dumps it to the bin. If there isn't even diplomatic relationships, this is the same process, but now it's the Swiss Ambassador laughing instead of a Cedricstan Ambassador). Anyway, assuming Cedricstan and Bobtopia have an extradition treaty with each other, it's going to be Bi-Lateral, meaning Cedricstan will only extradite you for crimes committed in Bobtopia that are also crimes in Cedricstan. So, first off, you did not possess the book while in Bobtopia, so the crime didn't happen in Bobtopia and they have jurisdiction over the crime. The legal ramifications are that of Cedricstan, not Bobtopia, so they apply here. Given you bought the book in Cedricstan, you're likely to not face any legal ramifications (well... more on this in a moment). Suppose then, we some how get to the point where you are proven to have been in Bobtopia and possessing the book of very naughty knowledge, Bobtopia Ed. In this case, Cedricstan would have to consider if it is a crime here (kinda... more on this as well). Since Cedricstan has Constitutionally protected Freedom of Speech and Press, there is no equivalent crime for possessing Forbidden Knowledge II: Bobtopia Boogaloo, which not only is legal to own, but a Cedricstan Times Best Seller for the 104th week running. So in this case, Cedricstan laughs in Free Speech and refuse to extradite you. There are again, no legal ramifications (well... more on this in a moment... which would be next paragraph). So, of course, this assumes you're not going to go to any country ever in the future. Obviously, Bobtopia agents from the BMBS will happily greet you if you ever go to Bobtopia... creatively of course... But you should probably review the diplomatic relationships of other nations with Bobtopia and their laws on banned literature... it could be that their extradition treaties will allow an agent of the third nation to arrest you and extradite you to Bobtopia... if you realize this is about to happen, your best bet is to find a Cedricstan Embassy or Consulate and high tail it there. But otherwise there shoudln't be any issues. The other problem here is that nations may have additional rules. For example, the United States does not allow for libel tourism... which is using another nation to sue an American for defamation that doesn't rise to the Defamation under U.S. Law (which is notoriously stricter than most similar nations. Historically, close relations between United States and UK would mean that defamation of a UK person said in the United States could be tried in the UK and the U.S. speaker would be under their jurisdiction... The ban here prevents that by saying the United States would not enforce decisions unless their own courts found the case in a similar way. On the other end, Canada will not extradite murderers to the United States, if said Murderer is eligible for the Death Penalty... but a Prosecutor promising to not seek the Death Penalty in sentencing if guilt is found is good enough for Canada to extradite the murderer back. TL;DR: As long as you stay in your country, you should not be extradited for crimes that are not mutually recognized... be careful when you leave though.
They could be prosecuted in any state where there was evidence that part of the crime was committed. Realistically, either State A or State B could prosecute for conspiracy to murder as an additional charge, because the conspiracy clearly spanned more than one state, even if they can't prove where the crime was committed, although physical evidence (e.g. traces of camp sites, footprints, testimony about landmarks, evidence of poop with human DNA from the victim in it), would usually make it possible to show that some part of the crime was committed in the state. There is probably also a federal crime that could be implicated such as "murder involving flight across a state line" (hypothetical, but I'm sure that there is something similar on the books). I'm not going to address the further hypothetical as it is too bizzare and law is ultimately very context specific. Find a more plausible fact pattern, perhaps with a different crime, and ask a separate question if you want to really address the issue.