Abstract:Purpose The issue of concurrent jurisdiction over cross-border crimes has become common in a globalizing world, while the rigid compliance with territoriality and active personality jurisdiction has created a legal vacuum for cross-border crimes in many situations. The jurisdiction dispute between mainland China and Taiwan over cross-border telecom fraud crimes is a good example. In recent years, the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China cracked down a series of cross-border telecom fraud crimes against mainland residents and extradited suspects to mainland China. Given a certain proportion of Taiwan residents in criminal gangs, the Taiwan side raised jurisdiction objections, arguing that mainland China had no right to exercise jurisdiction over Taiwanese criminals. The essence of the jurisdiction dispute between two sides is the concurrence of Taiwan’s right to exercise active personality jurisdiction and the mainland’s right to exercise passive personality jurisdiction. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the connotation of different jurisdiction principles (namely, territorial, active personality, protective and passive personality jurisdiction) and reinterpret their prioritization of applicability from a jurisprudential perspective, and thus, enhance the theoretical basis for resolving the issue of concurrent jurisdiction over cross-border crimes. Design/methodology/approach By reviewing the historical trajectory of major jurisdiction principles since the 1920s, and studying the specificities of the case in this context, this paper argues that territorial jurisdiction and active personality jurisdiction have presumed priority but not an absolute priority for resolving the issue of concurrent jurisdiction. The applicability of protective and passive personality jurisdiction could precede the former provided the jurisdictions of territoriality or active personality are inadequate, incompetent or lack of motivation to combat crimes, which harm other jurisdictions. Findings The developmental trajectory and contemporary connotation of major jurisdiction principles suggests that the legitimacy of the mainland’s exercise of passive personality jurisdiction over Taiwan criminal suspects lies in the urgent need to recover mainland victims’ significant property loss, the incompetence of Taiwan in detecting and prosecuting telecom fraud crimes committed by Taiwanese residents and targeting mainland victims and that the mainland has guaranteed the Taiwan side’s right to be timely informed and fully participate in its exercise of criminal jurisdiction over crimes involving Taiwan suspects. Originality/value Current literature on jurisdiction doctrines mainly uses a historical or descriptive approach to reveal the attitudes of different countries toward jurisdiction principles, which helps little in resolving the issue of concurrent jurisdiction over cross-border crimes in an era of globalization. This paper uses an interpretative approach, reinterprets the contemporary connotation of different jurisdiction principles and redefines the criteria for determining their prioritization in the context of the specificities of a case. It is expected to update the academic literature for resolving concurrent jurisdiction, fill the legal vacuum for combating cross-border crimes created by rigid compliance with territorial jurisdiction, and meanwhile relieve concerns about abuse of extraterritorial jurisdiction as it provides concrete standards for weighting the applicability of jurisdiction principles.

Comment on the Case:Big Sky Network Canada, Ltd. v. Sichuan Provincial Government

A Comparative Study of Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanisms: the Case of China and Pakistan Ф

FG Hemisphere Associates V. Democratic Republic of the Congo

On the Legal Bases for some Chinese Enterprises against the American Court’s Jurisdiction in the Case of the Extraterritorial Application of American Anti-trust Law——Comment on the Case: American Consumers of Magnesite-based Products Brought Putative Cl

The Depoliticization of Law in the News: BBC Reporting on US Use of Extraterritorial or 'Long-Arm' Law Against China

Politics Behind the Law: Unveiling the Discursive Strategies in Extradition Hearings on Meng Wanzhou

The “act of State Doctrine” As Immunity for the Extraterritorial Application of U.S.Antitrust Law ——comment on the Case “in Re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation”

Friendly judicial challenges from the North: The decision of the Canada Supreme Court in Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya

The Extra-territorial Application of Hong Kong Security Law on Data Stored Overseas: a preliminary conflict-of-laws analysis

Internationalization with Backward International Law

The anti-suit injunctions in patent litigation in China: what role for judicial self-restraint?

Public policy rule as a ground for refusing in recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards in china mainland

Parallel Proceedings under Chinese BITs: the Case of Hela Schwarz GmbH V PR China

'Limited sovereignty' or 'community of interests'? A review of the Indus Water Kishenganga Awards

Jurisdiction Expansion of International Private Law in the Legal Personality Conflict of MNC

The Company’s Self- government and Governmental Interfere——From Jianlibao Case to Look Into Our Important Principles of Company Law

International Civil Litigation in China: A Practical Analysis of the Chinese Judicial System

Tackling Local Protectionism in Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in China: an Empirical Study of the Supreme People's Court's Review Decisions,1995–2015

Comment on "Shanghai ZhongYuan Property Consultant Limited Company vs. Tao Dehua Brokerage Contract Dispute Case"

Development of Hosting ISPs’ Secondary Liability for Primary Copyright Infringement in China – As Compared to the US and German Routes

A jurisprudential analysis of the concurrent criminal jurisdiction over cross-border telecom fraud crime