which one is regarded as a presumption when reading or interpreting legislation
Answer:
There are several presumptions that are commonly used when reading or interpreting legislation, but one of the most important is the “presumption against extraterritoriality.” This presumption holds that laws enacted by a legislative body are presumed to only apply within that body’s territorial jurisdiction, unless there is clear evidence that the law was intended to have extraterritorial effect.
In other words, if a law is passed in one country, it is generally assumed to only apply within that country’s borders, unless the law explicitly states otherwise or there is strong evidence that the lawmakers intended for the law to have global reach. This means that courts and other legal interpreters will generally be reluctant to read a law as applying beyond a country’s borders unless there is a clear indication that this was the intention.
The presumption against extraterritoriality is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation in many countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom. It is designed to prevent conflicts between different legal systems and maintain a degree of international comity between nations. However, it is not an absolute rule and there may be cases where a law’s extraterritorial effect is necessary or desirable.
Overall, the presumption against extraterritoriality is an important tool for legal interpreters to use when reading and applying legislation. It helps to ensure that laws are applied fairly and consistently within the jurisdiction where they were passed, while also respecting the sovereignty of other nations.