This article examines the contribution of scholarly work on`policy transfer' and related concepts to our knowledge of how far, and in what ways, particular policy`models' of security and justice travel across national boundaries, and what might explain this phenomenon. The article begins by summarizing the key findings of extant empirical studies of cross-national policy movement in the fields of crime, security, and justice. It then considers the normative dimension to debates about policy transfer, observing that much of the literature adopts a pessimistic position about the problematic nature of international policy movement in security and justice, and discusses some of the reasons for such pessimism. The article then reflects on ways in which normative principles could be applied to considerations of prospective policy transfer, and the implications for the broader possibilities for`progressive' policy transfer in relation to crime, security, and justice.In security and justice, as with other areas of public policy, it often appears that the world is getting smaller. The increasingly transnational nature of social problems and their associated public policy responses has been widely recognized in contemporary scholarly analysis, not least within research on crime control, security, and justice. 1 Criminologists and socio-legal scholars have become particularly interested in`extra-jurisdictional' influences that shape policies, and in the potential value of cross-national comparative research in helping us to understand such phenomena. In relation to crime S12