在國際法之下，規範管轄(prescriptive jurisdiction)所依循的規則，就是大家常常看到的領域管轄（territorial jurisdiction，下面又再區分「行為地」（subjective）與「犯罪結果地」(objective)、國籍管轄也分為犯罪人國籍（principle of nationality）與被害人國籍（principle of passive personality)、保護管轄（protective jurisdiction）或是普遍管轄(universal jurisdiction)等等。為什麼要有這些原則呢？
引渡的部分，因為是否將人送走與國家主權高度相關，引渡源自國家間的禮貌或禮儀禮讓而來（the principle of comity），習慣國際法沒有要求國家一定要引渡，也沒有要求國家必須事前要有引渡條約的存在方能引渡。此外，兩個國家為引渡行為就是一個意思表示合致（agreement）的表現，因為引渡行為本身就是透過國家雙方同意之下所作成的行為，雙方已經同意了，才會有引渡以及後續的程序，如果從事後觀察，在一個完整引渡程序中，當事國所為每一個行為，都可以將他想成是一個具備雙方同意的內容。
註一：A.V. Lowe教授在Malcolm D. Evans教授主編由OUP出版的International Law中的Jurisdiction章節，2014年最新版換作者但是如同新作者Christopher Staker教授所言，核心內容不變。“Jurisdiction” is the term that describe the limits of the legal competence of a State or other regulatory authority (such as the European Community) to make, apply , and enforce rules of conduct upon persons. It ‘concerns essentially the extent of each State’s right to regulate conduct or the consequences of events.
註二：Ilias Bantekas教授在Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law 所著Criminal Jurisdiction of States under International Law 第13段: The nationality principle confers on States the power to subject their own nationals to judicial and legislative criminal jurisdiction for crimes they have committed abroad. The mere fact of nationality does not give rise to this type of jurisdiction in respect of all crimes committed abroad; rather, it has to be preceded either by particular or general criminal legislation, otherwise it may be deemed to offend the principle against the application of retroactive legislation (Nullapoenanullumcrimen sine lege). The historic origins of nationality jurisdiction can be traced to the prosecution of the crime of treason, which is quintessentially predicated on national allegiance and which is broken when the vow of allegiance is violated. Some courts have held that treason persists even where the assumption of nationality was made possible through fraudulent means (Joyce v Director of Public Prosecutions UKHL  AC 347, 359–60).
註三：The best view is that it is necessary for there to be some clear connecting factor, of a kind whose use is approved by international law, between the legislating State and the conduct that it seeks to regulate. This notion of the need for a linking point, which has been adopted by some prominent jurists, accords closely with the actual practice of States. If there exists such a linking point, one may presume that the State is entitled to legislate; if there does not, the State must show why it is entitled to legislate for anyone other than persons in its territory, or for its nationals abroad (who are covered by the territorial and the national principles respectively).
註四：I. A. Shearer 所著Extradition in International Law （1971）76頁以下。
Theoretically there should be on confusion between extradition and deportation. They are clearly distinct in purpose. The object of extradition is to restore a fugitive criminal to the jurisdiction of a State which has a lawful claim to try or punish him for an offence. To ensure that the fugitive is restore to that jurisdiction is therefore of the very essence of extradition. Deportation on the other hand, is the means by which a State rids itself of an undesired alien. Its purpose is achieved as soon as the alien has deported from its territory; the ultimate destination of a deportee is of no significance in this respect.
註五： Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law內的Aliens, Expulsion and Deportation由Walter Kälin 所著。Expulsions and deportations are a State’s unilateral acts of ordering a person to leave its territory and, if necessary, of forcefully removing him or her. The terminology used at the domestic or international level is not uniform but there is a clear tendency to call expulsion the legal order to leave the territory of a State, and deportation the actual implementation of such order in cases where the person concerned does not follow it voluntarily. Expulsion and deportation as unilateral acts must be distinguished from extradition, ie the surrender of a person accused or convicted of a criminal act from one country to another on the basis of the latter’s request.
註六：Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law內的 Torsten Stein 所著 Extradition。
Extradition designates the official surrender of an alleged offender from justice, regardless of his or her consent, by the authorities of the State of residence to the authorities of another State for the purpose of criminal prosecution or the execution of a sentence.
註七：由CUP出版 Robert Cryer et al., An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (2010) ，Extradition的章節。
Extradition is the surrender of a person by one State to another, the person being either accused of a (extraditable) crime in the requesting State or unlawfully at large after conviction. This is a considerable intrusion in the liberty of the person concerned, but one which is justified by the common interest of States in combating crimes and expunging safe havens for fugitives.
註八：由CUP出版 Robert Cryer et al., An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (2010) ，第101頁。
State authorities sometimes choose to deport a fugitive under immigration laws instead of dealing with the matter as extradition. This is usually much faster and the surrender normally unconditional. But as the South African Constitutional Court has stated, deportation and extradition serve different purposes and the former method must not, as in that case, be used unlawfully and with the effect that no undertaking was obtained regarding the non-imposition of the death penalty. As for human rights protection, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the Soering principle also applies to deportation and other forms of expulsion. Deportation, as a disguised form of extradition when the latter was not possible, may also amount to a violation of the ECHR.1 .
註九：2014年由 ILC（國際法委員會）所作成兩份Draft articles on the expulsion of aliens, with commentaries
與The obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare), Final Report of the International Law Commission。
註十：European Court of Human Rights, Bozano v. France, Judgment of 18 December 1986, Application No. 9990/82, paras. 52–60, where the European Court of Human Rights has held that extradition, disguised as deportation in order to circumvent the requirements of extradition, is illegal and incompatible with the right to security of person guaranteed under art. 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
註十一：參考OUP出版，The Oxford Handbook of The Law of The Sea (2015)，頁209-210。