https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-y...
There are countless examples of state sponsored hacking. There's no way the actor would be punished in the country of origin if their country of origin was not only OK with their actions but supporting them. Does that mean whoever did it should be free to travel anywhere they want without repercussions? You're essentially saying that countries are no longer allowed to enforce their laws on any foreign citizens... that seems EXTREMELY short sighted.
Furthermore, how would the country of origin even prosecute when the victim wasn't one of their citizens. What are the mental gymnastics to say that your citizens can't be prosecuted anywhere but their country of origin...b ut the victims have to what? Travel to your country to get justice? If a nigerian scammer is caught, you expect a US citizen to fly to nigeria on their own dime to try make their case?
Countries are sovereign, a Nigerian person living in Nigeria is only beholden to laws of Nigeria.
In your world, you can accuse someone who lives in Mongolia of a crime that doesn't even exist is Mongolian legal system, such as some peculiarities of US copyright or packaging of lobsters. You seem to think they should be flown to the US to be tried at your convenience to in a language they don't speak, in a legal system they don't understand at their expense?
You could prosecute him in Australia for hacking in whatever form it broke Australian law. How can any non-US citizen be held responsible for some vague 'damage to US national security' if they have nothing to do with the US? Why should a hypothetical person living in Nigeria be responsible for US, UK, Russian, Saudi, Israeli and everyone else's national security?
Service is considered to be delivered in the country where the service beneficiary is.
That's why financial services cannot be delivered cross border, without legal approval in the "destination" country.
On the other hand sales of goods is something that happens in the seller's country - that's how companies in countries without consumer protection can just tell you to STFU on thing you bought from them.
On the other hand, this is also a very obvious slippery slope if now the jurisdiction of any country were to be applied globally.
What if a country abuses this to get rid of political opponents, to gain an economic advantage or to cover up its own crimes? (See e.g. the recent threats from China about showing solidarity with the Hong Kong movement even outside of China. See the US covering up war crimes.)
What happens if two countries have mutually exclusive laws? (e.g. at least for some time, it was a crime in Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide while in France it was a crime to not acknowledge it)
If we don't want this to devolve simply to "rule of the strongest", more detailed rules are needed.
