It's not completely unusual that criminals get arrested in allied countries through mutual cooperation, then get extradited for trial. This is happens with other countries as well besides the US.
As to whether or not that's right, I personally think it's reasonable. Most all countries seek to enforce their laws regardless of location, especially when they deem a serious crime was committed against them.
No, most countries don’t try to enforce their laws like that. If she has “committed” these acts while in China, obeying Chinese law, there is simply no crime.
This is not “robbed a bank in country X and then fled to Y”, which is what international law-enforcement cooperation was built for. This is like “copied Windows in a country where piracy is legal”. It’s a massive overreach by US and Canada, but then again, they are not new to this (see Kim Dotcom et al).
If you commit a major crime against Chinese law, and then visit China, they are within their rights to arrest you for it.
Similarly, if you commit a major crime against Canadian law and visit Canada, they can arrest you for it. And if you also committed a crime against US law, the US can petition for you to be extradited after the Canadians arrest you.
I fear I don't understand where the overreach is. I've clearly missed an important and nuanced detail. Can you help me?
How can you commit a crime under US law when you are not under US law at all? If I pass a law that bans eating cornflakes, you then have breakfast and enter my country, am I justified in putting you under trial?
International law is never simple - although I suppose having the biggest stick might drive people to ignore certain nuances.
> How can you commit a crime under US law when you are not under US law at all?
What makes this complicated is that Huawei does have a registered company in the US (with multiple offices), and therefore at least some part of Huawei ought to be subject to US laws. By making the choice to establish a US presence they ought to be willing to comply to the local regulations.
> If I pass a law that bans eating cornflakes, you then have breakfast and enter my country, am I justified in putting you under trial?
Yes, though the problem is that this example is trivial. If I pass a law that bans cyber attacks on my country's infrastructure, and you perform attacks in a country where it is legal and travel to my country, I'm well in the grounds to arrest you.
If cornflake eating were against the law, the solution would be to avoid traveling to that country in the same way that some people might not travel to North Korea for fear of being arrested unfairly.
You're absolutely right! That's an absurd scenario and it makes no sense in any way under a basic understanding of how laws work.
It may be worth considering that laws are not always strictly confined to physical borders in what actions they can apply to. In this case, there are nuances that could be worth paying some attention to about Canadian laws and trade embargoes.
