由於交通工具發展迅速，跨境犯罪的案件越來越多，目前國際上立法趨勢，各國為了盡可能的保護本國各項利益，除屬地原則之外，均於其本國刑法確立屬人管轄、保護管轄、世界原則，用以主張其刑事審判權。其中，大陸法系國家刑法，採屬人原則，而普通法系國家，則採嚴格的屬地原則。本文基於權利利益理論法理，從國際法「屬人原則」管轄權觀點，分析兩岸域外刑事管轄權衝突。結果發現，以刑法第5條「境外涉犯電信詐騙案件」修正為例，可以從兩方面評價。從管轄權之「保護原則」法理而論，該發生在境外之犯罪對於其本國以及生活在該國內之人民，並不會對他們產生損害利益之結果。我國修正後之刑法，將電信詐騙案件列入保護原則的犯罪類型，立法上殊值商榷。相反的，若從管轄權之「屬人原則」法理而論，刑法屬人原則之處罰欠缺法理上之堅強依據。因此，我國修
正後之刑法，對於該類案件並未以「屬人原則」之方式取得管轄權，則是一正確之立法選擇。
Due to the rapid development of transportation, there are more and more cases of cross-border crimes. The current international legislative trend requires countries to protect their national interests as much as possible. In addition to the principle of territoriality, all countries establish personal jurisdiction and protection in their own criminal laws. Jurisdiction and universal principles are used to assert their criminal jurisdiction. Among them, the civil law countries adopts the principle of nationality. However, common law countries, such as the United Kingdom, adopt a strict territorial principle.Based on the legal grounds of the "interest theory" of rights, this article analyzes the conflicts of criminal jurisdiction between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait from the perspective of the "personal principle" jurisdiction of international law.It turns out that, taking the amendment to Article 5 of the Criminal Law "Foreign Telecom Fraud Cases" as an example, it can be evaluated from two aspects. From the legal grounds of the "Protection principle" of jurisdiction, the crimes committed outside the country will not cause harm to their own country and the people living in that country. Taiwan’s revised Criminal Law lists telecom fraud cases as crime types under the protection principle, Such revision needs further discussion. On the contrary, if it is considered from the legal grounds of the " Nationality principle" of jurisdiction, the punishment of the criminal law person principle lacks a strong legal basis. Therefore, Taiwan's revised criminal law did not obtain jurisdiction in the form of "personal principle", and it is a correct legislative choice.
