The issue arising out of the Yunis case is the concern over the authority of the United States statues permitting extraterritorial jurisdiction and application of the United States constitution to aliens. Thus, Yunis argued that under general principles of International law, a United States court could not try him because as a foreign national he committed crimes in foreign soil and federal law provided no independent basis for jurisdiction (Clarizo). In the case of Yunis, the United States contended jurisdiction, found in section 1203 of the Hostage Taking Statue and section 32 of the Aircraft Piracy Statue adopted from traditional international legal bases of universal and personality principle, in which provides the court sufficient grounds to assert jurisdiction over Yunis (Emory 116).

Question

The issue arising out of the Yunis case is the concern over the authority of the United States statues permitting extraterritorial jurisdiction and application of the United States constitution to aliens. Thus, Yunis argued that under general principles of International law, a United States court could not try him because as a foreign national he committed crimes in foreign soil and federal law provided no independent basis for jurisdiction (Clarizo). In the case of Yunis, the United States contended jurisdiction, found in section 1203 of the Hostage Taking Statue and section 32 of the Aircraft Piracy Statue adopted from traditional international legal bases of universal and personality principle, in which provides the court sufficient grounds to assert jurisdiction over Yunis (Emory 116).

Answer 1

Please note these corrections:

statues = statutes (laws)
Constitution (capitalized)
Aircraft Piracy Statute, (sp. + comma)
principle, which provides (omit in)

Answer 2

I think you mean statutes, not statues, right? -- twice in this paragraph. If you're not sure of the differences between these two words, you should look them up here: http://www.dictionary.com

Delete the comma after "Thus" and add a comma after "that" in the same sentence.

You need "on foreign soil" not "in..."

You should probably delete "In the case of Yunis," in the last sentence since the entire paragraph is about this case, as you have already stated previously.

You should begin that last sentence like this: "The United States, however, contended..."

Answer 3

In the case of Yunis, the issue at hand revolves around the authority of the United States to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction and apply its constitution to aliens. Yunis, a foreign national, argued that under general principles of international law, a U.S. court could not try him because he committed crimes on foreign soil and there was no independent basis for jurisdiction under federal law.

To understand this issue, we need to look at the specific statutes the United States relied on to assert jurisdiction. These statutes include section 1203 of the Hostage Taking Statute and section 32 of the Aircraft Piracy Statute. These statutes were adopted based on traditional international legal principles, such as the universal and personality principles.

The universal principle allows a state to assert jurisdiction over certain crimes that are universally condemned, regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. The personality principle, on the other hand, permits a state to assert jurisdiction over crimes committed against its nationals, regardless of where the crime took place.

In Yunis' case, the United States argued that these principles provided sufficient grounds to assert jurisdiction over him. The Hostage Taking Statute, for example, prohibits taking hostages, which is considered a universally condemned crime. The Aircraft Piracy Statute similarly prohibits acts of aircraft piracy, which can have grave consequences for the safety of individuals on board.

Therefore, the United States contended that it had the authority to try Yunis in a U.S. court based on these statutes, which were grounded in international legal principles. However, Yunis challenged this assertion, claiming that as a foreign national who committed crimes on foreign soil, he should not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Ultimately, the question of whether the United States had the authority to assert jurisdiction over Yunis in this case would depend on the interpretation of these statutes and the application of international legal principles. The legal arguments and interpretation of international law play a significant role in determining the outcome of such jurisdictional disputes.