This chapter studies the insufficiency of the so-called traditional principles of jurisdiction—territoriality, nationality, protection, universality, and passive personality—when set against jurisdictional provisions of treaties and in customary international law. In increasing and discernible measure, treaties have invoked a veritable suite of ‘jurisdictional possibilities’ over time, often making greater demands on states than is found in—to take an early example—the 1926 Slavery Convention. By way of treaty design, states have accentuated the form and shape of the jurisdictional power of states that is to be engaged: there is no question that jurisdiction has come to form a much more pronounced and explicit part of the strategization toward common ends on a host of matters ranging from the counterfeiting of currency to human trafficking.