But in that case then the country has extraterritorial jurisdiction, while I meant that it hasn't, hence the answer doesn't reflect the above scenario.

@user depends on your exact definition of "extraterritorial jurisdiction". There are different ones. And then, depending on your definition you have to find a country which actually matches that definition.

Extraterriorial jurisdiction is meant as the prosecution of someone who does an illegal act inside the jurisdiction where the illegality of that act applies, I don't know how there can be another type.

@user e.g. Wikipedia has different definitions. So is your question basically: "If a country is not prosecuting people for crimes committed abroad, is this country not prosecuting people for crimes committed abroad?" Because by trivial logic this is always true.

But in this case the type of extraterritoriality is known.

Ok, then it means that I'm right and not wrong about the case above.

But if a country is prosecuting people for crimes committed abroad, this country is prosecuting people for crimes committed abroad!

This doesn't deny my assertion, because I assumed otherwise.

I didn't deny that countries that have extraterritoriality do not prosecute for thing committed abroad.

If you assume A, then A => A is true!

So this fact applies: if a man from a country having no extraterritoriality over its citizens goes to a country and does a thing that is not a crime in the latter but is in the former, he's unattackable.

No, that's implying too much.

But the jurisdictions I assumed in the above scenario have no common ground to prosecute the perpetrator, and a western country is not supposed to go against its laws, even with the "exemption" pretext. Ehehe

This is not the country right to prosecute over acts that have occurred outside the country itself while it doesn't prosecute abroad. How can you explain this?

What rights a country has is mostly just decided by this country itself.

Yes, but if that country states that it has no extraterritorial jurisdiction over his citizens, it means that it can do nothing, otherwise it should be claiming that it enacts extraterritorial jurisdiction, period. It cannot go against its rules with the excuse of the exemption, get it?

A country can decide its own laws over his citizens, but NOT to decide to go against them, that's the difference. I didn't say that it has no sovereignity. It can decide whatever it wants in terms of dictating laws, but not going against them.

Who exactly would stop a country from breaking or changing its own rules they themselves created?

Nothing, but their concept of law would be meaningless and it would entail that they're a bunch of hypocrites. :)

If the state exempts itself from abiding to a certain law, that wouldn't be contradictory, because the exemption is entailed, but if it doesn't exempt itself, then that's a contradiction, henceforth, hypocrisy.

That's simple logic: If a country states that all or only a few acts are under extraterritorial jurisdiction, fine, it's their own right to decide so, but if they state that there's no extraterritorial jurisdiction whatsoever over its own citizens and one of those citizens goes and commits an act that is legal in that place but not in their own country, than the country itself can do nothing UNDER this premises.

By the way you agreed with me a few comments ago.

I definitely did not, I stated a simple fact of logic, which is that A = > A is always true if A is true. There are a lot more cases, and without clarifying your question, no other answer is possible.

State A: No extraterritorial jurisdiction in any case over its citizens, the country of perpetration is the responsible of the act. State B: Such and such act is legal and permissible. This leads me to say there's no persecution ground.

I mentioned you the premises, you keep answering out of them.

Unless someone gives me a detailed answer, I'm still inclined to think that any ill-minded person matching the scenario above can go to another country (in light of the premises above) and do abhorrent acts.

Common sense doesn't prevail in this context.

By the way my question is for curiosity purposes only, don't think that I intend something far-fetched.