There is a consensus in international lawyers' analyses on jurisdiction, that jurisdiction doctrine is unworkable. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is no longer exceptional; at the same time, it is almost impossible to distinguish between territorial and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Legal experts have had three reactions to this crisis of extra/territorial jurisdiction. Some of them continue to pretend that nothing is wrong, and territorial jurisdiction is well and alive: this can be called 'zombie territoriality'. Others acquiesce to the end of territoriality by affirming a type of limitless jurisdiction based on 'genuine connections', 'substantial links', or the like. Thirdly, some lawyers have set different limits for different sub-domains of international law, thereby fragmenting the law of jurisdiction and creating different meanings of 'territoriality' for international criminal law, international financial law, antitrust law, human rights law, etc. In this explosion of jurisdictional sub-domains, territoriality is strict in human rights law and refugee law, but remarkably flexible in criminal law and antitrust law. Is there any way out of this crisis of jurisdiction? Limitless jurisdiction seems to be winning out, but some scholars have tried to reformulate non-intervention or self-determination as substantive bulwarks against extraterritoriality. Developing multilateral institutions would also prevent jurisdictional overreach. In truth, though, all the proposed ways out of the crisis of jurisdiction mean the end of jurisdiction doctrine. It may be time to accept that we now live in a post-jurisdictional system of international law.