Zusammenfassung der Ressource
6. Jurisdiction and sovereignty
- General Principles of Jurisdiction
- Two competing General Rules of Jurisdiction
- A state may not exercise
its power of jurisdiction in
the territory of another
state (LOTUS CASE)
- A state is free to project its
jurisdiction outside its
territory, so long as it is not
prohibited by a contrary
rule of international law in
a specific case
- The Absolute Nature if Territorial
Jurisdiction = a fundamental rule
of international law where the
jurisdiction of a state within its
own territory incomplete and
absolute -> 1st principle of the
Lotus Case
- The Jurisdiction to precribe= the
power if a state to bring any matter
withing the awareness of its national
law -> 2nd principle of the Lotus Case
- The Jurisdiction to enforce=
enforcement of jurisdiction takes
place within ones territory, unless
there is an agreement that the
enforcement can take place
elsewhere
- Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction (Generally the
scopes of jurisdiction in civil and criminal
matters are of equal extent - According to
the Harvard Research Draft there are five
heads of jurisdiction over persons in
international law that apply equally to civil
and criminal matters
- Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction -
Acts occurring abroad may
cause an offence with local
jurisdiction. Individual may be
subject to local courts (an
unusual form of jurisdiction)
- Territorial Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction
over matters arising in its own
territory: 1. Obejective Teritoriality
= an offense completed in your
territory 2. Subjective Territoriality
= an offense started in your
territory
- Nationality Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over
matters relating to the national of a state
(wherever the action may have happened) 1. A
national is entitled to 'diplomatic protection' of
their state at all times 2. Jurisdiction will not be
exercised until the national has return within
the territorial boundary 3. Home state may not
exercise jurisdiction if the matter has already
been dealt with in the other state(s)
- Protective Jurisdiction and the 'Effects' Doctrine -
Jurisdiction over matters that have a harmful
effect on 'the state', irrespective of where and by
whom they happen, can be regarded as an
accepted head of jurisdiction under customary
international law - 'effects doctrine' = many states
have legislated to include as many incidents as
possible as having 'harmful effect' on the state, so
as to claim more jurisdiction rights
- Universal Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over crimes
that reach a certain 'destructive' level (agains
ius cogens) - can be done by any state ->
Jurisdiction will depend on the nature of the
offence
- Passive Personality Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over
matters relating to the national of a state who has
been the victim of the crime, irrespective of the
nationality of the offender or where the crime
occurred. Concurrent Jurisdiction = The different
heads of jurisdiction exist so that two or more
states may be entitled to exercise their jurisdiction
over the same person(s) in repsect of that same
even. Double Jeopardy= It is possible that if
enforcement action has or will be taken against an
individual, that this person will be subject to a
'second punishment' by another state.
- Firmly Established Principles : territorial, nationality
(in both forms) and universal principles. Increasing
Importance : Protective and effects principles
- The acquisition of Sovereignty over Territory
- The exercise of effective control - occupation and prescription: The control of territory
and peaceful and effective exercise of the functions of a state therein is the primary
means of acquiring title to territory in international law; this can be subdivided into two
classes: Occupation= when the exercise of authority over territory occurs that does not
belong to another state; Precription= when the exercise of authority over a territory
occurs that formally belongs to another state. Kasikili/ Sedudu Island Case (Botswana v
Namibia) four conditions for a successful claim of prescription were laid out: 1. the
possession had to be exercised in the character of a sovereign 2. the possession must be
peaceful and uninterrupted 3. The possession must be public 4. The possession must
endure for a length of time
- The following are further requirements
that need to be met/ need to be present
- Intention to Acquire
Sovereignty - There must
also be a clear-cut intention
of the sovereign to acquire
this territory
- Apparent Display of Sovereignty - The state claiming title
must have exercised the powers of a state within the territory
has to show that it has set up an effective local
administration, that it can control and protect the population
or that it has established a system of national law -> this
display may vary according to the type of territory in question
-> absence of protests by other states is significant
- Continuous Display and the
'Critical Date' - The 'critical date'
is the date at which the question
of sovereignty is to be assessed -
sovereignty must be present
from the acquisition of the
territory up to this date without
interference
- Peaceful Display- There may be no objection
by other states (but this must have extensive
nature in order to pose a threat)
- Intertemporal Law - The law to be applied to
a given dispute is the law in existence at the
time the dispute is settled - the critical date.
Consequently, title to territory may be validly
created under the rules of international law
existing at the critical date
- Discovery - Must be followed by acts of effective
occupation to mature into full sovereignty otherwise
other state can claim territoriy (Island of Palmas Case)
- Cession and Treaty -
(cession =gift) Treaty ex.
=Tge transfer of Alaska
from the USSR to the USA
- Use of force - Conquest - was legal
before 1945, but today such an
acquisition of a territory is seen as
being void/ illegal
- Accretion and Avulsion- Accretion=gain over new
territory as a result of the expansion of its
territory- ex. soil deposits in river deltas. Avulsion=
more dramatic gains of new territories- ex. the
creation of new islands in territorial waters due to
volcanic activity
- Judicial Decisions - Judicial
decisions ca give sovereignty over a
territory based on the above
principles, but only once the
decision falls
- Uti possidetis and other Principles Relating to territorial Acquisition. Uti
possidetis= the frontiers of newly independent states are to follow the
boundaries of the old territory from which they emerged and they cannot be
easily altered through unilateral action. Continuity Principle= a state may
claim title over territory not forming part of its land mass - such as islands- by
virtue of being the nearest sovereign state
- Self-Determination - This relates to a territory (often colonies or
former union states such as with the USSR) becoming
independent - the crucial point here is that self-determination
requires a free and genuine expression of the will of the people
concerned
- RIghts over Foreign Territory - It is possible for
one state to grant limited rights over its
territory to another state, which may be done
by treaty or it may arise by way of customary
law
- Areas outside the exclusive jurisdiction of any state
- Outer Space - Every state enjoys jurisdiction over
the airspace immediately above its territory and
territorial sea - but how far up does it go? It ceases
to exist where outer space begins = somewhere
between 150 & 200 miles up from earth (unequal
disagreement on where space really begins
according to various states) -> 1963 Declaration of
Legal principles governing the activities of states in
the exploration and use of outer space
- The Arctic- Consists mainly of frozen
sea and isolated islands claims for
sovereignty by Denmark & Norway.
The greater area is composed of
permanently shifting pack-ice claims of
sovereignty by Russia and Canada -
resistance by Norway & USA.
Currently= there is some disagreement
over the precise status of the Arctic ->
there is no treaty in regime
- The Antarctic- The area is subject to claims of sovereignty of 7
states: The UK, Argentina, Chile, France, Australia, New Zealand
and Norway. It was suggested that the Antarctic should be part
of 'the common heritage of mankind' -> 1959 the Antarctic Treaty
- Jurisdiction over Airspace and Aircraft- A state has exclusive
jurisdiction over the airspace immediately above its territory -
unless otherwise agreed, a state may prohibit all aircraft
movement over its territory and may take any action
necessary to preserve its sovereignty. Formulation of the basic
principles regarding jurisdiction over airspace-> 1944 Chicago
Conference on International Civil Aviation