International law strives to promote and maintain peaceful relations among States. The concept of sovereignty which helps in maintaining equality among States is enshrined in the United Nations Charter under the principle of non-interference and the prohibition on the threat or use of force against each other. The traditional jurisdictional rules of international law were developed on these above values and aim to lessen regulatory conflict and maintain the peaceful coexistence of States. But from late twentieth century, there has been a dramatic rise in the criminal activities such as terrorism, child trafficking, etc., and when the preparation, commission and presence of accused do not limit at one place. Therefore, territoriality principle is no more suitable to deal with the crimes having extraterritorial reach. Hence, increased assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction on different grounds—such as territoriality, nationality, protective and universality—has emerged as the preferred approach to bring perpetrator of crime to justice. However, this approach pulls jurisdictional conflicts among the States. The conflict of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction is an emerging area of concern. These conflicts lead to challenges in collection of evidence, extradition of accused and violation of ne bis in idem and ultimately cause delay in justice to victim as well as accused. Hence, resolving or preventing the jurisdictional conflict that becomes a major concern of international community is an emerging area of concern. The conflict of jurisdiction is competency conflict, as to which State has adjudicative authority to try the crime. It is not deniable that international law is dominated by international relations and politics. There have been many instances of competing jurisdictional claims turned into internal or international politics. The international cooperation is guided by political, economic and social affinity, which ideally should not be the case especially in respect of criminal conduct. This research work will address the ambiguity in the law of jurisdiction and the conflicts/constraints in asserting the extraterritorial jurisdiction and provide suggestions to resolve the problems identified in exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction.