You should start off by explaining the meaning of passive personality jurisdiction—that is, jurisdiction based on the nationality of the victim(s). Then, you should provide a historical overview of this type of jurisdiction, starting with its near rejection during the early part of the twentieth century, mentioning the Cutty case and the Harvard Draft Study on Jurisdiction of the 1930s. You must explain here the reasons for the disinclination of States, particularly the fact that the harm to victims was seen as a weak jurisdictional link as opposed to territorial and nationality jurisdiction in particular. This will lead you to present times whereby the advent of militant terrorism exhorted a number of target nations, particularly the USA, to enact broad extraterritorial legislation that brought within its ambit suspected terrorists that had inflicted harm again US nationals and interests abroad. An additional rationale for the emergence of such jurisdiction was the fact that many international crimes went unpunished because relevant States declined to exercise their jurisdictional competences. As a result, passive personality jurisdiction is a response to the impunity afforded to many criminals.