This is exactly the problem that is solved by an extradition treaty.
More often than not the alleged crime is a crime in both countries and so extradition is a reasonable approach to the problem.
I do agree that the Internet has created jurisdiction issues and criminal issues that aren't well covered by existing law/treaties.
I don't think the local/international dichomtomy you describe is as clear cut as you are asserting. Whenever you have international commerce you are going to have all sorts of activities that raise criminal or civil issues that can only be adjudicated via bi-lateral treaties. These issues exist whether the commerce is conducted in-person, by phone, by fax, by email, via HTTP, etc.
I think a 'global national with one book of laws' would create way more problems than it would solve and in any case isn't going to happen anytime soon.
> I do agree that the Internet has created jurisdiction issues and criminal issues that aren't well covered by existing law/treaties.
A big problem is that the US only needs "reasonable suspicion" when asking to extradite someone from England. But the UK needs "probable cause" when asking to extradite someone from the US. That means that in the UK the evidence is not tested before a Judge agrees to extradition, yet a US Judge tests the evidence before agreeing the extradition.
Babar Ahmed, held for 7 years in a UK prison without a trial, has asked to be tried in the UK. He ran a website that was (supposedly) pro-terrorist. The site was hosted in the US. The US wants to extradite him and try him in America.
This case is interesting because he's not a sympathetic character, yet he claims all he wants is a trial (in a UK court) and a sentence. And also because he's not free, he's been in prison for 7 years already, so it's not as if the UK is an easy option for him.
More often than not the alleged crime is a crime in both countries and so extradition is a reasonable approach to the problem.
I do agree that the Internet has created jurisdiction issues and criminal issues that aren't well covered by existing law/treaties.
I don't think the local/international dichomtomy you describe is as clear cut as you are asserting. Whenever you have international commerce you are going to have all sorts of activities that raise criminal or civil issues that can only be adjudicated via bi-lateral treaties. These issues exist whether the commerce is conducted in-person, by phone, by fax, by email, via HTTP, etc.
I think a 'global national with one book of laws' would create way more problems than it would solve and in any case isn't going to happen anytime soon.