They’re not breaking any law.

Laws apply to actions in the country, they’re not based on citizenship.

If you go to Amsterdam and sleep with a hooker, you didn’t break a law by doing that: despite prostitution (specifically purchasing sex) being illegal in many western countries.

Laws apply to whatever they say they apply to. Limiting their scope to actions in the country, or at least giving precedence to similar foreign laws, is at least as much about the practicalities of enforcement as a matter of principle.

For example, Finland claims jurisdiction over crimes where the action itself or its relevant consequences happen in Finland or the victim is a Finnish citizen, permanent resident, or legal entity. Then there are plenty of rules and exceptions detailing what those principles mean in practice.

That’s not always true, and increasingly less so, particularly the Australians and the crime of child sex tourism. I am sure it’ll be expanded to hate crimes and disturbing the peace laws as well and from there used as a political cudgel to suppress opposition to government policies. At least for now you have to be a citizen of the country but the UK has stated an intention to extradite US citizens for online hate crimes.

In the US there is a federal law related to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_Act

Countries do have laws that apply even when you leave the country. For example, Americans living abroad still have to pay taxes.

The US can be very creative about when its jurisdiction applies ( https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/94-166 ).

Manuel Noriega and “el Chapo” Guzman were both convicted of crimes they committed outside the US but that caused other people to commit crimes inside the US.

Traveling to countries for child sex abuse is illegal and severely punished, although it appears that the law is about the traveling with intent, and not (officially) about the actions that take place overseas: https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/extraterritor... .

Extraterritorial taxation is extremely rare; and its less of a law and more of a “cost of citizenship” since you’re allowed to get rid of it.

Commonwealth countries have extraterritorial jurisdiction. I don't know that it's ever been enforced for something so relatively petty as intoxication or prostitution, but it is nevertheless the law. (Obligatory IANAL though.)

> Commonwealth countries have extraterritorial jurisdiction

No countries have extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Some countries have a lot of influence over the local jurisdiction outside of their own territory.

The UK doesn't have much influence like that.

But if the UK has any minesweepers, I bet this could all be sorted out with a few phone calls.

> Laws apply to actions in the country, they’re not based on citizenship.

According to what? Laws can be whatever a country says, so long as they have the mechanism to enforce it.

See: the US using special forces to kidnap Maduro

> See: the US using special forces to kidnap Maduro

That was very clearly illegal and has nothing to do with laws.

The US special forces also committed several acts of murder on Venezuelan soil

Interestingly if you go to Canada and legally smoke weed then try to go to the US a month later, you can get denied because you did something that is perfectly legal in Canada, but not the US

afaik, prostitution is either legal or partially legal on the majority of Western countries.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...

Normally its considered legal to sell but not legal to buy.

Prostitution is primarily conducted by women, and this is a way for them to still seek protection and healthcare while still technically criminalising the practice.

In most European countries it is legal to both sell and to buy. What is illegal almost everywhere is being a pimp.