State Jurisdiction.

State Jurisdiction meaning:

Jurisdiction is the government’s general power to exercise authority over all persons and entities within its territory.

The term ‘jurisdiction’ refers to the power of States to subject persons or property to their laws, judicial institutions, or enforcement capacity. 

Jurisdiction is a  vital  and  indeed  central  feature  of  state  sovereignty,  for  it  is  an  exercise of  authority  which  may  alter  or  create  or  terminate  legal  relationships and  obligations.  It  may  be  achieved  by  means  of  legislative  action  or  by executive  action  or  by  judicial  action.

In  the  UK,  Parliament  passes  binding  statutes,  the  courts make  binding decisions  and  the  administrative machinery  of  government has  the  power  and  jurisdiction  (or  legal  authority)  to  enforce  the  rules of  law.  These  differences,  particularly  between  the  capacity  to  make  law (the prescriptive  jurisdiction)  and  the  capacity  to  ensure  compliance  with such  law  (the enforcement  jurisdiction),  are  basic  to  an  understanding  of the  legal  competence  of  a  state.

To  give  an  instance,  if  a  man  kills  somebody  in  Britain  and  then  manages  to  reach  the  Netherlands,  the  British  courts  have  jurisdiction  to  try him,  but  they  cannot  enforce  it  by  sending  officers  to  the  Netherlands to  apprehend  him.  They  must  apply  to  the  Dutch  authorities  for  his  arrest  and  dispatch  to  Britain.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  murderer  remains in  Britain  then  he  may  be  arrested  and  tried  there,  even  if  it  becomes apparent  that  he  is  a German national.

Thus,  while  prescriptive  jurisdiction  (or the  competence  to  make  law)  may  be  exercised  as  regards  events happening  within  the  territorial  limits  irrespective  of  whether  or  not  the actors  are  nationals, enforcement jurisdiction  is  another  matter  entirely  and  is  essentially  restricted  to  the presence  of  the  suspect  in  the  territorial limits.

 While  jurisdiction  is  closely  linked  with  territory  it  is  not  exclusively  so  tied.  Many states  have  jurisdiction  to  try  offences  that  have  taken place  outside  their  territory. And  in  addition  certain  persons,  property and  situations  are  immune  from  the territorial  jurisdiction  in  spite  of  being  situated  or  taking  place  there.  Diplomats,  for  example,  have  extensive immunity  from  the  laws  of  the  country  in  which  they  are  working and various  sovereign  acts  by  states  may  not  be  questioned  or  overturned  in the  courts  of  a  foreign country.

There are 3 types of state jurisdiction

1. Legislative Jurisdiction.

2. Executive Jurisdiction.

3. Judicial Jurisdiction.

1. Legislative Jurisdiction: 

It is a power of state to make laws. A State has the supremacy to make binding laws within its territory.Such  acts  of  legislation  may  extend  abroad  in  certain circumstances.International Law, for example, accepts that a State may levy taxes against persons not within its territory as long as there is a real link between the State and the proposed taxpayer, whether it is nationality or domicile. A state  may  nationalise  foreign-owned property situated  within  its  borders,"  but  it  cannot  purport  to  take  over  foreign-owned  property situated  abroad.

For example, NAB Ordinance of 1999 says that it is enforceable in whole of pakistan and its citizens whether here or abroad.

Although  legislative supremacy  within  a  state  cannot  be  denied,  it  may be  challenged. State will be held liable if it passes laws against the provisions of International law. It is  also  possible  that  a  state  which  abuses  the  rights  it  possesses  to  legislate for  its  nationals  abroad  may  be  guilty  of  a  breach  of  international  law. For  example,  if  France  were  to  order  its  citizens  living  abroad  to  drive only  French  cars,  this  would  most  certainly  infringe  the  sovereignty  and independence  of  the states  in  which  such  citizens  were  residing  and would constitute  an  illegitimate  exercise  of  French  legislative Jurisdiction.

2. Executive Jurisdiction:

 Executive  jurisdiction  relates  to  the  capacity  of  the  state  to  act  within the  borders  of  its state.Respect territorial sovereignty of other state. It  is  also  contrary  to  international  law  for  state agents  to  apprehend  persons  or  property  abroad.  The  seizure  of  the  Nazi criminal  Eichmann  by  Israeli  agents  in  Argentina  in  1960  was  a  clear breach  of Argentina's territorial sovereignty and an illegal exercise of Israeli jurisdiction.

3. Judicial Jurisdiction: 

Judicial  jurisdiction  concerns  the  power  of  the  courts  of  a  particular country  to  try  cases  in  which  a  foreign  factor  is  present.  There  are  a number of  grounds upon  which  the courts  of  a  state  may  claim  to exercise such  jurisdiction.  In  criminal  matters  these  range  from  the  territorial principle  to  the  universality  principle  and  in  civil  matters  from  the  mere presence  of  the  defendant  in  the  country  to  the  nationality  and  domicile principles.  It  is  judicial  jurisdiction  which  forms  the most  discussed  aspect of  jurisdiction  and  criminal  questions  are  the  most  important  manifesta- tion  of  this.

Principles or Grounds of Jurisdiction:

1. Civil 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 because of two main reasons. Firstly, because the consequent reaction by other State with this regard has been much mild. Secondly, because public opinion is far more vigorous when a person is tried in foreign territory for criminal offences than if a person is involved in a civil case.

For example, In Civil Law countries, the usual ground for jurisdiction is the habitual residence of the defendant in the country.

In some countries such as Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, generally courts assert their jurisdiction if the defendant possesses assets in the country.

2. Criminal Jurisdiction:

Apart from civil jurisdiction, criminal jurisdiction is a complex phenomenon. This jurisdiction involves crimes committed whether in indigenous or foreign country. Following are the bases on which criminal jurisdiction can be exercised. 

 2.1: Territorial Jurisdiction:

The territorial principle is derived from the concept of State sovereignty. It means that a State has the primary jurisdiction over all events taking place in its territory regardless of the nationality of the person responsible.  It is the dominant ground of jurisdiction in International Law.  All other State must respect the supremacy of the State over its territory, and consequently must not interfere neither in its internal affairs nor in its territorial jurisdiction.

Thus,  all  crimes  committed  (or alleged  to have  been  committed) within the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  a  state  may come  before  the municipal  courts and  the  accused  if  convicted  may  be  sentenced. This  is  so  even  where  the offenders  are  foreign  citizens.

        However,  the  territorial  concept  is  more  extensive  than  at  first  appears since  it  encompasses  not  only  crimes  committed  on  the  territory  of  a state  but  also  crimes  in  which  only  part  of  the  offence  has  occurred  in the  state,  for  example  where  a  person  fires  a  weapon  across  a  frontier killing  somebody.  Both  the  state  where  the  gun  was  fired  and  the  state where  the  injury  actually  took  place  have  jurisdiction  to  try  the  offender, the  former  under  the  so-called  objective  territorial  principle.  Of  course, which  of  the  states  will  in  the  event  exercise  its  jurisdiction  will  depend upon  where  the  offender  is  situated,  but  the  point  remains  that  both  the state  where  the  offence  was  commenced  and  the  state  where  the  offence was  concluded  may  validly  try  the offender. For  example,  the  Scottish Solicitor  General  made  it  clear  that  Scottish  courts  had  jurisdiction  with regard  to  the  alleged  bombers  of  the  airplane  which  exploded  over  the Scottish  town  of  Lockerbie  as  the locus  of  the offences.

The  nature  of  territorial  sovereignty  in  relation  to  criminal  acts  was examined  in  the  Lotus case.The  relevant  facts  may  be  summarised  as follows.  The  French steamer,  the  Lotus,  was  involved in a collision  on  the high seas with the Boz-Kourt, a Turkish  collier.  The  latter vessel sank and eight sailors and  passengers  died  as  a  result.  Because  of  this  the  Turkish authorities  arrested  the  French  officer  of  the  watch  (at  the  time  of  the incident) when the Lotus reached Turkish  port.  The  French  officer  was charged  with  manslaughter and France protested strongly  against  this action,  alleging that Turkey did  not  have  the  jurisdiction  to try the offence. The case came before the Permanent Court of  International  Justice, which was  called  upon  to  decide  whether  there  existed  an  international  rule prohibiting  the  Turkish  exercise  of  jurisdiction.

The  Court  rejected the  French  claim  that  the  flag  state  had  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the ship  on  the  high  seas,  saying  that  no  rule  to  that  effect  had  emerged  in international  law,  and  stated  that  the  damage  to  the  Turkish  vessel  was equivalent  to  affecting  Turkish  territory  so  as  to  enable  that  country  to exercise  jurisdiction  on  the  objective  territorial  principle,  unrestricted  by any  rule  of  international  law  prohibiting this.

Note: This judgment is no longer valid because

article  ll(1) of  the  High  Seas Convention,  1958, emphasised  that  only  the  flag  state  or  the  state of  which  the  alleged  offender  was  a  national  has  jurisdiction  over  sailors regarding  incidents  occurring  on  the  high  seas.

The territorial jurisdiction of State extents over its land, its national airspace, its internal water, its territorial sea, its national aircrafts, and its national vessels.  It encompasses not only crimes committed on its territory but also crimes have effects within its territory.  In such a case a concurrent jurisdiction occurs, a subjective territorial jurisdiction may be exercised by the State in whose territory the crime was committed, and an objective territorial jurisdiction may be exercised by the State in whose territory the crime had its effect.

Although jurisdiction is primarily and predominantly territorial, it is not exclusive. A State is free to confer upon other States the right to exercise certain jurisdiction within its national territory. States are free to arrange the right of each one to exercise certain jurisdiction within each national territory.  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.

2.2: The Nationality Principle:

 State is nothing but a collection of individual human beings. So it is essential to create a link between a state and its people. And this link is managed through the concept of nationality.

The nationality principle implies that a State jurisdiction extends to its nationals and actions they take beyond its territory.

In  general,  the  two  most  important  principles  upon  which  nationality is  founded  in  states  are  first  by  descent  from  parents  who  are  nationals (  jus  sanguinis) and  second  by  virtue  of  being  born  within  the  territory  of the  state  (jus soli).

It  is  commonly  accepted  that  a  child  born  of  nationals  of  a  particular state  should  be  granted  the  nationality  of  that  state  by  reason  of  descent. This  idea  is  particularly  utilised  in  continental  European  countries,  for example,  France,  Germany  and  Switzerland,  where  the  child  will  receive the  nationality  of  his  father,  although  many  municipal  systems  do  provide  that  an  illegitimate  child  will  take  the  nationality  of  his  mother.  On the  other  hand,  in  common  law  countries  such  as  Britain  and  the  US  the doctrine  of  the jus sanguinis is  more  restricted,  so  that  where  a  father  has become a  national  by  descent  it does  not always follow  that  that  fact  alone will  be  sufficient  to  make  the  child  a  national. The  common  law  countries  have  tended  to  adopt  the  jus  soli  rule, whereby  any  child  born  within  the  territorial  limits  of  the  state  automatically  becomes  a  national thereof. There  is  an  exception  to  this,  however,  which  applies  to  virtually every  country  applying  the  jus  soli  rule,  and  that  is  with  regard  to  persons entitled  to  immunity  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  state.  In  other  words, the  children  of  diplomatic  personnel  born  within  the  country  do  not automatically  acquire  its nationality.

Nationality  may  also  be  acquired  by  the  wives  of  nationals,  although here  again  the  position  varies  from  state  to  state.  Some  states  provide for  the  automatic  acquisition  of  the  husband's  nationality,  others  for  the conditional  acquisition  of  nationality  and  others  merely  state  that  the marriage has  no effect  as  regards  nationality.  Problems were  also  caused  in the  past  by the fact  that  many countries  stipulated  that  a woman  marrying a  foreigner  would  thereby  lose  her  nationality.

A State may prosecute its nationals for crimes committed anywhere in the world; the ground of this jurisdiction is known as active nationality principle. Also, it may claim jurisdiction for crimes committed by aliens against their nationals abroad; the ground of this jurisdiction is known as passive nationality principle.

 This last principle has been viewed as much weaker than the territorial or active nationality principle as a basis for jurisdiction. It has been considered as a secondary basis for jurisdiction, and a matter of considerable controversy among States.  However, in recent years this principle has come to be much acceptable by the international community in the sphere of terrorist and other internationally condemned crimes.

It  should  be  finally  noted  that  by  virtue  of  article  91  of  the  1982  Convention  on the  Law  of  the Sea, ships  have  the nationality  of the state whose flag  they  are  entitled  to  fly.  Each  state  is  entitled  to  fix  the  conditions  for the  grant  of  its  nationality  to  ships,  for  the registration  of  ships  in  its  territory  and for  the  right  to  fly  its  flag.  However,  there  must  be  a  genuine  link between  the  state  and  the ship. By  article  17  of  the  Chicago  Convention on  International  Civil  Aviation,  1944,  aircraft  have  the  nationality  of  the state  in  which  they are  registered,  although  the  conditions  for  registration are  a  matter  for  domestic law.

2.3: The Passive Personality Principle:

Under  this  principle,  a  state  may  claim  jurisdiction  to  try  an  individual for  offences  committed abroad  which  have  affected  or  will  affect  nationals of  the  state.

The leading  case on this  particular  principle is  the  Cutting case  in  1886" which  concerned  the  publication  in  Texas  of  a  statement  defamatory  to a  Mexican  by  an  American  citizen.  Cutting  was  arrested  while  in  Mexico and  convicted  of  the  offence  (a  crime  under  Mexican  law)  with  Mexico maintaining  its  right  to  jurisdiction  upon  the  basis  of  the  passive  person- ality  principle.  The  United States  strongly  protested  against  this,  but  there was  an  inconclusive  end  to  the  incident,  the  charges  being  withdrawn  by the  injured party.

          A strong  attack  on this  principle was  made by Judge Moore, in  a Dissenting  Opinion  in  the  Lotus case.The  overall  opinion  has  been  that  the  passive  personality  principle  is rather  a  dubious  ground  upon  which  to  base  claims  to  jurisdiction  under international  law  and  it  has  been  strenuously  opposed  by  the US and the  UK,  although  a  number  of  states  apply  it.

2.4: The Protective Principle:

This  principle  provides  that  states  may  exercise  jurisdiction  over  aliens who  have  committed  an  act  abroad  which  is  deemed  prejudicial  to  the security  of  the  particular  state  concerned.  It  is  a  well-established  concept,  although  there  are  uncertainties  as  to  how  far  it  extends  in  practice and  particularly  which  acts  are  included within  the  net  of  the  claimed jurisdiction.

                    This  doctrine  seems  to  have  been  applied  in  the  British  case  of  Joyce  v. Director  of  Public Prosecutions involving  the  infamous  pro-Nazi  propagandist  'Lord  Haw-Haw'.  Joyce was  born  in  America,  but  in  1933  fraudulently  acquired  a  British  passport  by  declaring  that  he  had  been  born  in Ireland.  In  1939,  he  left  Britain  and  started  working  for  German  radio. The  following year,  he  claimed  to  have  acquired  German  nationality.  The case  turned  on  whether  the  British  court  had  jurisdiction  to  try him  after the  war,  on  a  charge  of  treason.  The  House  of  Lords  decided  that  jurisdiction  did  exist  in  this  case.  Joyce  had  held  himself  out  to  be  a  British subject  and  had  availed  himself  of  the  protection  (albeit  fraudulently) of  a  British  passport.  Accordingly  he  could  be  deemed  to  owe  allegiance to  the  Crown,  and  be  liable  for  a  breach  of  that  duty.  The  fact  that  the treason  occurred  outside  the  territory  of  the  UK  was  of  no  consequence since  states  were  not  obliged  to  ignore  the  crime  of  treason  committed against  them  outside  their  territory.  Joyce was  convicted  and  suffered  the penalty  for  his actions.

2.5: The Universality Principle:

Under  this  principle,  each  and every  state  has  jurisdiction  to try particular offences.  The  basis  for  this  is  that  the  crimes  involved  are  regarded  as particularly offensive to the international  community as  a whole. There are two  categories  that  clearly  belong  to  the  sphere  of  universal  jurisdiction. These  are  piracy  and  war  crimes or crimes  against  peace  and  crimes  against  humanity. 

Piracy: Universal  jurisdiction  over  piracy  has  been  accepted  under  international law  for  many  centuries  and  constitutes  a  long-established  principle  of  the world community. All  states  may  both  arrest  and  punish  pirates,  provided  of  course  that  they  have  been  apprehended  on  the  high seas or within  the  territory  of  the state  concerned. The  punishment  of  the  offenders  takes  place  whatever  their  nationality  and  wherever  they  happened  to carry  out  their  criminal  activities.

Questions:

1. Define territorial jurisdiction?

2. Types of Jurisdiction in international law? 

3. Define criminal jurisdiction in international law?