Jurisdiction

A governments general power to exercise authority

over all persons and entities within its territory is
called jurisdiction.
This jurisdiction includes judicial powers (to hear and
decide on matters: adjudicative jurisdiction),
legislative powers (to make laws: we called
this prescriptive jurisdiction) and
executive powers (to enforce the laws, for example by
investigating a crime or arresting a suspect or
punishing a suspect in national courts: we called this
enforcement jurisdiction).

Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction: anything takes place within the

territory of a state, the sate has full jurisdiction on the
issue.
Sea, land, air, subsoil,
A. Subjective territorial principle
a state may claim jurisdiction over crimes commenced
within its territory but completed or consummated outside
its territory
Examples of the exercise of such power is rare (Regina v.
Doot, 1973)
Some examples: Geneva Convention for the Suppression
of Counterfeiting of Currency 1929; the Convention for the
Supervision of the Illicit Drug Traffic 1936

Jurisdiction

B. Objective territorial principle

a state gets jurisdiction over crime, if any of the
constituent elements of the crime is consummated in
its territory
The act must have produced some harmful effect
within or on the territory of the state
The S.S. Lotus Case: P.C.I.J. Ser. A, No. 10, p. 4
(1927), France Vs Turkey

Jurisdiction

Issue:
Did Turkey violate international law when Turkish courts exercised
jurisdiction over a crime committed by a French national, outside
Turkey? If yes, should Turkey pay compensation to France?
Decision:
Turkey, by instituting criminal proceedings against Monsieur Demons,
did not violate international law.
Reasoning

Far from laying down a general prohibition to the effect that States
may not extend the application of their laws and the jurisdiction
of their courts to persons, property and acts outside their territory,
it leaves them in this respect a wide measure of discretion, which
is only limited in certain cases by prohibitive rules

Jurisdiction

Reasoning

France presented a number of historical examples to

demonstrate that the state of nationality or the state whose
flag the ship had flown had exclusive jurisdiction in cases
such as this.
However, the Permanent Court of International Justice (a
precursor to the ICJ) declared that the evidence showed
merely that "States had often, in practice, abstained from
instituting criminal proceedings, and not that they
recognized themselves as being obliged to do so; for only if
such abstention were based on their being conscious of
having a duty to abstain would it be possible to speak of an
international custom

Jurisdiction

Principles:

First:
A State cannot exercise its jurisdiction outside its
territory unless an international treaty or customary
law permits it to do so.
Second:
States have a wide measure of discretion, which is only
limited by the prohibitive rules of international law.

Jurisdiction

Objective territorial principle

The Lotus principle: sovereign states may act in any way
they wish so long as they do not contravene an explicit
prohibition.
The application of this principle was changed by article
11[1] of the 1958 High Seas Convention.
The convention, held in Geneva, laid emphasis on the
fact that only the flag state or the state of which the
alleged offender was a national had jurisdiction over
sailors regarding incidents occurring in high seas.

Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction: Nationality principle

1. Active nationality principle: state may exercise civil
and criminal jurisdiction over its national on the
basis that nationality is a mark of allegiance
2. Passive nationality principle: A state may assume
extra-territorial jurisdiction over aliens if the person
suffering injury or a civil damage is its national
. In the Lotus case, the Art. 6 of the Turkish Penal
Code that allowed them to punish Monsieur
Demons (the French officer on watch duty at the
time of the collision) contrary to international law

Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction: Nationality principle

Passive nationality principle: The Cutting Case,
1887, Mexico Vs USA
After almost 100 years, another case, USA Vs Yunis
(1988, 924 F.2d 1086, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1991)) court
also concluded that the assertion of such jurisdiction
is fully consistent with norms of customary
international law.

Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction: Nationality principle

(Yunis contd )These include the "universal" principle
of extraterritorial jurisdiction under which a state
can prosecute certain offenses recognized by the
community of nations as of universal concern; and
the "passive personality" principle under which a
state can prosecute non-nationals for crimes
committed outside its territory against its nationals

Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction: Nationality principle

However, in the case of Union Carbide Corporation
(UCC) Bhopal vs Union Of India Etc on 4 May,
1989, Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster none of these
principles were followed

AmnestyInternational

Jurisdiction according to protective principle:

Joyce v. D.P.P, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS,
RESPONDENT. ... R. v. Joyce) [1945]

William Joyce,
nicknamed Lord HawHaw, was an IrishAmerican fascist
politician and Nazi
propaganda broadcaster
to the United Kingdom
during the Second
World War

Universal state jurisdiction: Attorney General of the

Government of Israel Vs Eichmann (1962)

Birth name: Otto Adolf

Eichmann
Born19 March 1906
Solingen, Rhine
Province, German Empire
Died31 May
1962 (aged 56)Ramla,
Israel
Allegiance: Nazi
Germany

Universal state jurisdiction: Attorney General of the

Government of Israel Vs Eichmann ()

Red Cross passport

under the name of
"Ricardo Klement" that
Eichmann used to enter
Argentina in 1950
The team captured
Eichmann near his
home in San Fernando,
Buenos Aires, on 11
May 1960

Immunity from jurisdiction

Even though it is undeniable that states have the

capacity to assume jurisdiction over individuals and
articles located within their territories, nations agree
that considering some exceptions regarding certain
people and property is necessary
The diplomatic envoys immunity
Consular immunity
Immunity for international organization
Foreign embassies
Foreign sovereigns- state/king/head of state
(Mighell v. Sultan of Johor)

IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION

(Mighell v. Sultan of Johor)

The Sultan' s sovereign status was an issue in a court

case in England. When Miss Mighell sued a certain
Albert Baker (Sultan of Johor), travelling incognito in
the United Kingdom) for breach of promise of
marriage, the Court granted the Sultan as an
"independent sovereign" immunity from jurisdiction.46
The decision was based on a letter from the Secretary
of State for the Colonies stating that "generally
speaking, [the Sultan] exercises without question the
usual attributes of a sovereign ruler." This further
demonstrates the British recognition of the Sultanate of
Johor as an independent State.