PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

SUBMITTED TO :-
MA’AM BAKHTAWAR
SUBMITTED BY :-
JAHAN AMBER KHAN

ASSIGNMENT NO 1 :-
“JURISDICTION OF STATES”
CONTENTS
1. Jurisdiction of states…………………………………………………………………………….1
2. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….2
3. Definition ……………………………………………………………………………………………..3
4. Nature of Jurisdiction…………………………………………………………………………….4
5. Types of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………………………5
5.1. Legislative Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………………5
5.2. Executive Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………………..5
5.3. Judicial Jurisdiction……………………………………………………………………………5
6. Principles of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………………...6
6.1. Territoriality Principle………………………………………………………………………..6
6.2. Protective Principle……………………………………………………………………………6
6.3. Passive Personality…………………………………………………………………………….6
6.4. Nationality Principle…………………………………………………………………………..6
6.4(a) Active nationality………………………………………………………………...…………….6
6.4(b) Passive nationality…………………………………………………………………………..…6
6.5. Universality Principle……………………………………………………………………………..6
7. Importance of Principles……………………………………………………………………………7
8. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………8
9. References…………………………………………………………………………………………………9

JURISDICTION OF STATES :-
INTRODUCTION :-

Jurisdiction refers to the power of a state to affect persons, property, and

circumstances within its territory. Legislative, executive, or judicial actions can be
exercised it. International law particularly addresses questions of criminal law and
essentially leaves civil jurisdiction to national control. According to the territorial
principle, states have exclusive authority to deal with criminal issues arising within
their territories; this principle has been modified to permit officials from one state
to act within another state in certain circumstances (e.g., the Channel
Tunnel arrangements between the United Kingdom and France and the 1994
peace treaty between Israel and Jordan). 
The nationality principle allows a country to exert criminal jurisdiction over any of
its citizens who have been charged with a crime in another country. This idea has
historically been linked with civil-law systems rather than common-law systems,
however its application in common-law systems has expanded in the late
twentieth century .Ships and aeroplanes are subject to the sovereignty of the
state whose flag they fly or in which they are registered.

DEFINITIONS OF JURISDICTION :-
Jurisdiction means, a country’s ability to make its law applicable to persons,
conduct, relations, or interests.
Jurisdiction is a practical authority granted to a legal entity to deal with legal issue
that have consequences. 
The concept of jurisdiction has a significant relation with sovereignty in Public 
International Law. 
Jurisdiction gives states the ability to exercise sovereign independence, which
they pass on to the global system of equal States by establishing laws governing p
eople or activities in which they have a legal concern.

NATURE OF JURISDICTION :-
 State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe
and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and
constitutes its vital and central feature.
It is the authority of a State over persons, property and events which are
primarily within its territories (its land, its national airspace, and its internal and
territorial water). This authority involves the powers to prescribe the rules of
law, to enforce the prescribed rules of law and to adjudicate. The powers
related to State jurisdiction raise the question regarding the types and forms of
State Jurisdiction.
State jurisdiction may extend beyond its territory over persons and things
which have a national link. This extension raises the question regarding the
grounds or the principles upon which the State can assert its jurisdiction within
and beyond its boundaries.

TYPES OF JURISDICTION:-
State jurisdiction implies the competence to prescribe rules of law, the
jurisdiction to enforce the prescribed rules of law and the jurisdiction to
adjudicate. It is of three types:
Legislative jurisdiction
Eexecutive jurisdiction
Judicial jurisdiction

LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION :-
Legislative jurisdiction refers to a state's ability to enact laws the power to
legislate.
 A state has the authority to enact laws that are binding within its borders.
 
 Although legislation is usually enforced inside a State's boundaries it may
in certain situations, extend beyond those boundaries.
  
 International law, for example, recognises that a state may levy taxes on 
nonresidents as long as there is a genuine link between the state and the
intended taxpayer such as nationality or domicile. 

 In the sphere of Private International Law, the question of how far a court
will execute foreign legislation is a topic of discussion (conflict of laws).  It is
common for states to enforce the civil laws of another state, but it is rare
for them to implement the penal or tax laws of another state. 

 In International Law, a State's legislative sovereignty within its territory is

widely established. This supremacy, however, may be challenged if a state
passes laws that are contradictory to international law principles.

 A State shall be responsible for a breach of International Law in such

instances.If a state abuses its right to legislate for its citizens living abroad, i
t may be held liable under international law.

EXECUTIVE JURISDICTION :-
Executive jurisdiction is the capacity of a State to act and to enforce its laws
within its territory.
 In general, because States are independent of one another and have
territorial sovereignty, they have no authority to carry out their functions
on foreign territory.

 No State has the authority to infringe on the territorial sovereignty of

another State.

 A State cannot enforce its laws on foreign territory without the consent of
the other State otherwise it will be liable for breach of international law.
 JUDICIAL JURISDICTION :-

Judicial jurisdiction is the capacity of the courts of a State to try legal

cases.
 A state has exclusive right to establish courts, assign jurisdiction to them,
and establish the processes to be followed.

 However, in doing so, it cannot by any means alter the way in which foreign
courts operate.

 There are a number of principles upon which the courts of a State can claim
jurisdiction.

 In civil matters, the principles range from the mere presence of the
defendant in the territory of a State to the nationality and domicile
principles.

 In the criminal matters, they range from the territorial principle to the
universality principle.

 These principles are subject to following section.

MAIN PRINCIPLES:-
The following are the five acknowledged grounds for asserting prescriptive
jurisdiction:
Territoriality (activity taking place on the territory of a country or intended
to have an effect on the territory of a country)
Nationality (the conduct of the country's citizens)
1. Passive Nationality
2. Active Nationality
 Passive personality (conduct having the country’s nationals as its victims)
Protective principle (behaviour that is harmful to a country's critical
interests)
Universality (behaviour seen to be of "universal concern" by the
international community)

TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE :-
 The territorial principle comes from the concept of state sovereignty, which
states that a state has first authority over all events occurring on its
territory, regardless of the nationality of anyone involved.

 All other states must respect the State's authority over its territory and as a
result must not intervene in its internal affairs or territorial jurisdiction.

 The territorial jurisdiction of a state extends to its :

Land
national airspace
internal waters
territorial sea
national aircrafts
national vessels

 It includes not just crimes committed on its territory but also crimes that
have effects within its territory.

 When concurrent jurisdiction exists, the State in whose territory the crime
was committed may exercise subjective territorial jurisdiction, while the
State in whose territory the crime had its impact may exercise objective
territorial jurisdiction.

 Jurisdiction is not exclusive, even if it is essentially and predominantly

territorial. A state is free to provide other states the right to exercise some
jurisdictions inside its national territory, and states are free to arrange for
each other's rights to exercise certain jurisdictions within their respective
national territories.

FOR EXAMPLE :-

INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS / : TREATIES

The most significant recent examples of such arrangements are:

 The 1991 France-United Kingdom Protocol Concerning Frontier
Control and Policing under which the frontier control laws and
regulations of each State are applicable and may be enforced by its
officers in the control zones of the other.
 The 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, under which the Israeli criminal
laws are applicable to the Israeli nationals and the activities involving
only them in the specified areas under Jordan’s sovereignty and
measures can be taken in the areas by Israel to enforce such laws.

CASE LAW :-

 Director of Public Prosecution vs. DOOT

In this case, the defendant was charged for unlawful acts which are for the
import of dangerous drugs into the UK. Defendants counsel said that they
shouldn’t be tried in England because the offence was committed abroad.
The Court held that the respondents were foreigners which had a secret
plan to import Cannabis in the U.K.
The House of Lords stated that English Courts have jurisdiction over the
offences committed in England.
Lord Wilberforce in this case stated that it constitutes international
elements that the suspect were foreigners and an unlawful act is done
abroad. Hence, there is no question that if there is any breach in the rule of
the law then they will be prosecuted in the country where the crime has
been committed.
 NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE :-

 The nationality principle states that a state's authority extends beyond its b
orders to its citizens and their acts. 

 It is founded on the idea that the relationship between the state and its citi
zens is a personal one that is unaffected by geography. 

 Criminal jurisdiction based on the nationality principle is universally
accepted while Civil Law countries make extensive use of it. Common Law
countries use it only for major crimes like murder and treason.

 Common Law countries, on the other hand, do not object to other
countries extensive use of this principle.

 A State may prosecute its nationals for crimes committed anywhere in the
world the ground of this jurisdiction is known as active nationality principle.

Types Of Nationality Priniciple :-

The following are the two categories of nationality jurisdiction:
Active Nationality
Passive Nationality

Active Nationality :

 This principle protects the state's interests from foreign threats.
Strict territorial application could endanger international society's 
peaceful functioning.
 The state has a basic authority to enforce its laws against illegal
behavior.
 Passive Nationality :

 Passive nationality based on a treaty is more successful than passive
nationality based on a statute.
 The State in where the offence occurred can exercise jurisdiction.
 Common law states have opposed this, but it has been accepted due 
to transnational crimes.

CASE LAWS:-

 Chandler v. United States

 United States v. Clark

PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE :-
 According to the protective principle, a State may exercise jurisdiction over 
an immigrant who commits an act beyond its territory that is regarded to
be damaging to its security and interests. 

 It is universally accepted, though there are questions about its practical sco
pe, particularly in terms of the acts that may fall under its jurisdiction. 
 It is justified on the basis of safeguarding the State's essential interests, 
particularly when the foreigner commits a crime against the State that is no
t punishable under the laws of the nation where he resides and extradition
is refused.

 Despite the fact that the protective principle is used as a secondary basis
for jurisdiction and in a narrower meaning than the territorial or nationality
principles, it can be easily abused, particularly to weaken the jurisdiction of
other States.

 In practice, however, this principle is applied in cases where a person's

actions outside of the country constitute crimes against the state's
sovereignty, such as planning to overthrow a government, treason,
 espionage, forging a currency, economic crimes, and violating immigration
laws and regulations.

INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS / CONVENTIONS :-

This principle is often used in treaties providing for multiple jurisdictional

grounds with regard to specific crimes such as:
 The 1979 Hostage Convention
 The 1970 Hague Aircraft Hijacking Convention
 Article 51 of the UN Charter (Article 51 provides the countries to
engage in self-defence and against an armed attack)
  Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated
Personnel (1994)
CASE LAWS :-
 Nicaragua vs. USA
In this case, the US authorities were alarmed when a pro-Soviet government
known as the Sandini States came to power in Nicaragua in 1979, at the height of
the Cold War.In 1981, the Reagan government agreed to back Somosistas, a
Nicaraguan rebel group led by a US citizen.
The Central Intelligence Agency done multiple illegal and covert operations
against the Nicaraguan army and air force, supplying weaponry, ammunition, and
money, as well as kidnapping Nicaraguan civilians on a regular basis.
Nicaraguan people filed a lawsuit against the United States for violating the UN
Charter Treaty. The United States argued that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear
the case, but the ICJ proceeded forward with it because of a 1955 friendship
treaty between Nicaragua and the United States.The International Court of Justice
held that the United States had knowingly and purposefully violated the UN
Charter, general standards of international law, and Nicaragua's territorial
sovereignty.Nicaragua retracted the complaint in 1992, owing to intense
pressure, and unofficially apologised to the US government.
 United States v. Benitezs
 United States v. Vilches-Navarete
 PASSIVE PERSONALITY :-

Examples of passive personality jurisdiction may be found in matters

including those related to terrorism.
For example: Passive personality has been applied to support jurisdiction
in instances of terrorist or other organized overseas attacks against U.S.
nationals, U.S. government officials or U.S. government property (such as
an embassy or military vessel).
The United States has also exercised passive personality jurisdiction to
create civil liability in some instances. Example : The Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act exception for state sponsors of terrorism.
This principle has been used by the United States to prosecute terrorists
and even to arrest (in 1989–90) the de facto leader of Panama Manuel
Noriega, who was subsequently convicted by an American court of cocaine
trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering. 

Documents and conventions:

 Section 1202 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of

1986
 International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages (1979),
 The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (1984)

UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE :-

 In its broadest form, the universality principle indicates that a State can
claim jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by anyone anywhere in
the globe, regardless of geography, nationality, or special State interest. 

 Prior to World War II, Common Law countries believed such universal
jurisdiction to be contrary to International Law, apart from acts considered
crimes in all countries and crimes against the international community as a
whole, such as piracy and slave trafficking. 
 It deals with genocide, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions,
war crimes, torture and forced disappearances.

 Universal jurisdiction has been widely recognised over certain acts

regarded to be international crimes since the Second World War. 

 World crimes, such as war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against
humanity, are crimes committed against the international community as a
whole or in violation of international law and punished under it. 

 In recent years, international crimes such as hijacking of aircraft, human

rights violations, and terrorism have been included to the list.

 Today, under the universality principle, any and all international crimes
committed by anyone anywhere are subject to the jurisdiction of each and
every State.

DOCUMENTS / CONVENTIONS :-

 Articles 4, 7 and 8 of the 1970 Hague Convention for the

Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft.
 Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the 1971 Montreal Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation.
 Articles 3, 7 and 8 of the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons
including Diplomatic Agents.

CASE LAW :-
  The Schooner Exchange vs. McFaddon 

Two Americans lay down their claims to ownership and entitlements to the
Schooner Exchange in this case.The Court ruled that during the war national ships
are free from any obligations imposed by friendly relations with another country.
A nation’s jurisdiction within its sovereign territory is exclusive and perfect.

IMPORTANCE OF PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION :-

Generally, the exercise of civil jurisdiction by courts of a State has been claimed
upon far wider grounds than has been the case in criminal matters.This is partly
due to the fact that public opinion is significantly more intense when a person is
tried for criminal offences in a foreign country than when a person is involved in a
civil case.
In some countries, such as the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden, courts often
assert jurisdiction if the defendant has assets in the nation nevertheless, in
matrimonial matters, the plaintiff's domicile or residence is the commonly
acknowledged premise for jurisdiction. In terms of criminal jurisdiction the
following grounds or principles of jurisdiction are frequently asserted by states.
The principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction govern the exercise of
jurisdiction by any organ of the United States at every level of government.

CONCLUSION :-
Despite the presence of multilateral and centralised agreements, the national
state plays a prominent role in the global organisation. To avoid territorial border
conflicts, cordial relations between states are required. Territorial and state
jurisdictions are crucial since as it is very important to follow all the rules
stipulated in different provisions.
REFERENCES :-
https://www.asil.org/sites/default/files/benchbook/jurisdiction.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS5TVc2wRvA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Qegb36SWE
https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-law/Jurisdiction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BJcIz1sZ4k
https://www.asil.org/sites/default/files/benchbook/jurisdiction.pdf