I suppose when the question is meant to understand legal theories, our when I want to compare approaches between different jurisdictions, then including jurisdiction isn't needed. However, many of my questions are meant to understand legal theories, but folks say that without knowing jurisdiction they can't provide answer. But I also see many opened questions that are really no different than mine, yet include no jurisdiction. So I would like to know when a legal question wouldn't need to include jurisdiction.
We really need to get a Jurisdiction Policy in place and put it into some of the help pages ... but based on my review of jurisdiction Q&A to date:
A question need not specify a jurisdiction unless the question does not make sense without one. In which case the question could be closed as "Needs details or clarity."
In fact, even if the asker specifies a jurisdiction, answers for different jurisdictions are welcome as they may be helpful to other visitors with the same question. Given: the structure of SE, the massive number of different legal jurisdictions, and the small number of active answerers; promoting separate instances of the same essential question for myriad other jurisdictions would be far more of a mess than a help to anyone.