THE LOTUS CASE (France v Turkey):

Facts: The French steamer Lotus collided with the Turkish cargo ship Bos-Kourt 5-6 nautical miles north of Cape Sigri (around the
area between Greece and Turkey). The Boz-Kourt was cut in two, causing it to sink, and leading to eight deaths. The L otus tried
to support the shipwrecked persons, leading to ten rescues, but ended up continuing to Constantinople. The officer on watch on
board the Lotus was Monsieur Demons, a Frenchman, who was tried by the Turkish Court for involuntary manslaughter (the
Turkish captain was also tried, but this is irrelevant), and subsequently convicted. His lone defence was lack of jurisdiction, which
the French government echoed on appeal, lea ding to the case in the ICJ.
France's primary argument is that in a collision in the high seas, where no other countries are involved except the flags of the
ships involved, jurisdiction lies in whose flag the errant vessel sails. The Turkish prosecution was improper because it was not in
accord with principles of international law.
The Turkish base their jurisdiction on Art. 6 of their Penal Code, which allows extraterritorial jurisdiction in cases such as these.
The issue then is not so much whether or not Art. 6 is in line with international law (which can't really change their local law), but
merely on who has jurisdiction over the offense.
Applicable Law: Art. 15 of the Convention of Lausanne, of which both states are parties. Questions of jurisdiction are to be
decided in accordance with the principles of international law.
France: Decide based on the evolution of the Convention. When the Turkish government adopted Art. 6 of their Penal Code, it was
rejected by the British, while the French entered into a reservation with respect to it. Based on this, taking jurisdiction over
Demons is contrary to the intention behind Lausanne.
Court: No. It is general international law that applies. Treaties are generally interpreted based on the ordinary meaning of words,
hence when we speak of international law, we refer to the general principles that all states adhere to. Moreover, there was no
explanation as to the French reservation-- unless alleged, one cannot know how the relations under the treaty may be modified.
Weighing these two, IL in the Lausanne Convention can only refer to GP/IL.
Basis of Turkish Jurisdiction and the Concept of Territoriality:
France: The Turkish courts must find some title to jurisdiction in international law in favour of it in order to take jurisdiction.
Turkey: Art. 15 alone can apply for as long as it does not conflict with a principle of international law.
- It is established that a state may generally exercise jurisdiction only within its define territory. However, this rule in IL does not
preclude the possibility that a State can take jurisdiction over offenses committed outside its territory. The only limitation is that
such laws promulgated should not conflict with the limits set by international law.
- Presumption: Restrictions on the independence of States are not presumed. They must be established.
- Hence, the question is whether or not there is support for the French contention that Turkey's actions conflict with such limits.
Issue: Whether or not there is a source of law prohibiting Turkey from assuming jurisdiction. NO. In fact, the sources of law show
that there is concurrent jurisdiction between Turkey and France. Turkey exercised jurisdiction FIRST, barring France.
France's arguments are three-fold: (1) IL does not allow a State to take proceedings with regard to offenses committed by
foreigners abroad merely because the victims were their Nationals, (2) IL recognizes the exclusive jurisdiction of the State whose
flag is flown over all offenses on board ships on the high seas, an d (3) any such principles derived are applicable to collision
cases.
As to the first argument: No such law exists. What nations tend to do is that offenses, the authors of which are in the territory of
another State, are regarded as having been committed in the national territory for as long as one or more constituent elements
OR effects occur there. Both Courts have applied this principle, and there have been no records of protests challenging this
principle. Hence, with the offense committed on a French ship and the effects felt on a Turkish ship, it seems Turkish cognizance
was proper.
Even then, if Art. 6 were held incompatible if IL, it may still be possible to find some other general principle that would allow the
Turks to have jurisdiction. Such an error with respect to applicable law is a municipal issue that does not extend to IL unless a
treaty provision enters into account, or when the possibility of a denial of justice arises.
As for the argument that manslaughter cannot be localized at the point where mortal effect is felt: Manslaughter is punished
precisely due to the effect. No source of IL has established a contrary rule.
As to the second argument: In these situations, it's established that the ships are treated in the same position as national
territory. Hence, when they clash and collide, it can be treated as if there were a territorial dispute/overlap bet ween the two
States-- this is a corollary of the basic rule of freedom on the high seas. This implies that the state of the victim can take
cognizance-- no rule of IL prevents them.
The French rely on publicists, decisions, and conventions to prove that they should have exclusive jurisdiction. To start, there is no
shortage of publicists that argue that in a case when offenses were committed on board a foreign ship on the high seas, it can
still be treated as if the offense was committed within that foreign territory. Next, precedent is actually lacking with respect to
cases in favour of France. Finally, most conventions do not refer to common law offense s, which ought to be treated differently
from matters such as slave trade, submarine sables, fisheries, etc.

As to the third argument: it appears that there may be state practice where the foreign State would defer to the State of the
offender, but again, there is no belief that they had a duty to defer/abstain. This means that a view pointing towards jurisdiction
on the hand of the offended State is not prohibited. Though there are municipal cases that may bolster the French side, these are
only part of a rich body of jurisprudence that actually favors the Turkish.
Conclusion: They have concurrent jurisdiction; it's just that Turkey exercised i t first, to the exclusion of France.