This is an extract of our Jurisdiction And Immunities document, which we sell as part of our International Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our International Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Supv 7 - Jurisdiction & Immunities Jurisdiction & Immunities Note the earlier distinction in the Lotus Case - You can extend your law into acts committed abroad, but to enforce it abroad would be a breach of that state's territorial sovereignty. So jurisdiction to enforce curtails prescriptive jurisdiction. Jennings & Watts define jurisdiction as the extent of each state's right to regulate conduct. State's jurisdiction is limited as follows:
1. Territorial Principle a. The state can try ANYONE within its territory, and any crime committed on its territory but not without permission abroad, per Lockerbie Case. Art 11 High Seas Convention states the flag holder state has jurisdiction over crimes on board a ship reversing The Lotus Case where it was held the damaged Turkish ship equated to damage to Turkish territory. Equally, in Guantanamo bay, the US is in occupation, but not sovereignty. Thus courts have no jurisdiction to hear the human rights abuses per Detainee Treatment Act. b. As far as hijacking, the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts on Board Aircraft 1963, grants jurisdiction to the state registered on the plane while over the high seas. The Hague Convention on Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft 1970 gives jurisdiction to either the registered state or the state which the plane lands in and Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Aviation 1971.
2. Nationality Principle a. Conditions of nationality are for the domestic state (Art 1 Hague Convention on Conflicts of Laws) so many states claim jurisdiction by nationality for offences committed abroad.
3. The Universality Principle a. This plugs the gaps - Prescriptive jurisdiction over offences committed extraterritorially by non-nationals against non-nationals with no impact on the state. So very narrow doctrine! Most states don't exercise it anyway as it's so political and diplomatic, unless criminal resident in their state. b. ANY state can try piracy (pirates outside the law, so any state can try them) and war crimes. Thus Israel could try Eichmann. In US v Mexico it was held that the breach of a separate obligation (Lotus Principle) doesn't infect the jurisdiction to enforce the other crime, eg the kidnapping didn't preclude the trial of Eichmann. Or Pinchoet (No 3) in UK. c. The Arrest Warrants Case 2002 held that criminal jurisdiction only extends to piracy. But other judges mooted that it extends to war crimes, crimes against humanity (definitely slavery, but torture?) genocide and piracy. O'Kiefe says it extends to all four. This case says diplomatic immunity is no defence against universal jurisdiction as does Pinochet. d. Note - Convention on Genocide obliges the state to take action when a 16
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our International Law Notes.