6. Sovereignty and jurisdiction

2019 ◽  
pp. 73-85
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
The Us ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

This chapter briefly looks at the nature of sovereignty and its parameters in international law, but essentially focuses on the function and nature of jurisdiction. It first examines the breadth of the space in which sovereignty is exercised; namely land, sea, and air. Thereafter, it assesses territorial jurisdiction (in both its objective and subjective dimensions) and examines the practice of the four extraterritorial principles of jurisdiction, namely nationality-based, the protective principle, passive personality, and universal jurisdiction. The chapter then considers instances where national courts refuse to exercise their ordinary jurisdiction, namely instances where the accused is covered by the privilege of immunity or because his or her arrest was illegal. Finally, it looks at the US practice of extraterritorial jurisdiction whereby sometimes the sovereignty of other nations has been breached.

6. Sovereignty and jurisdiction

2021 ◽  
pp. 78-90
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
The Us ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

This chapter briefly looks at the nature of sovereignty and its parameters in international law, but essentially focuses on the function and nature of jurisdiction. It first examines the breadth of the space in which sovereignty is exercised; namely, land, sea, and air. Thereafter, it assesses territorial jurisdiction (in both its objective and subjective dimensions) and examines the practice of the four extraterritorial principles of jurisdiction; namely, nationality-based, the protective principle, passive personality, and universal jurisdiction. The chapter then considers instances where national courts refuse to exercise their ordinary jurisdiction, namely, instances where the accused is covered by the privilege of immunity or because his or her arrest was illegal. Finally, it looks at the US practice of extraterritorial jurisdiction, whereby sometimes the sovereignty of other nations has been breached.

6. Sovereignty and jurisdiction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
The Us ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

This chapter briefly looks at the nature of sovereignty and its parameters in international law, but essentially focuses on the function and nature of jurisdiction. It firstly examines the breadth of the space in which sovereignty is exercised, namely land, sea, and air. Thereafter, it assesses territorial jurisdiction (in both its objective and subjective dimension) and examines the practice of the four extraterritorial principles of jurisdiction, namely nationality-based, the protective principle, passive personality, and universal jurisdiction. The chapter then considers instances where national courts refuse to exercise their ordinary jurisdiction, namely instances where the accused is covered by the privilege of immunity or because his or her arrest was illegal. Finally, it looks at the US practice of extraterritorial jurisdiction whereby sometimes the sovereignty of other nations was breached.

Jurisdiction and Transnational Ne Bis in Idem in Prosecution of Transnational Crimes

2019 ◽  
pp. 475-498
Author(s):  
André Klip
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Conflicts Of Jurisdiction

This chapter explores the range of jurisdictional principles that have been developed by various states to address the applicability of ne bis in idem to the prosecution of transnational crimes. It first considers two approaches under international law dealing with criminal jurisdiction before discussing state practice on jurisdictional principles, focusing on territorial jurisdiction, the protective principle, the flag principle, and the active nationality principle. The aut dedere, aut judicare principle, passive nationality principle, the domicile principle, the principle of universal jurisdiction, and the principle of complementary jurisdiction/secondary jurisdiction are also examined, along with the justifications for states to vest extraterritorial jurisdiction. The chapter concludes with an analysis of solution mechanisms for the prevention of conflicts of jurisdiction and of limitations to jurisdiction.

International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court

2004 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dapo Akande
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
State Agents ◽  
Humanitarian Values

The tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty is reflected in the debate on whether state officials should be held responsible in external fora for international crimes committed while in office. This debate involves the interplay between two branches of international law. Firstly, there is the well-established law according immunities to the state and its agents from the jurisdiction of other states (state and diplomatic immunities). This law proceeds from notions of sovereign equality and is aimed at ensuring that states do not unduly interfere with other states and their agents. On the other hand, there are those newer principles of international law that are based on humanitarian values and define certain types of conduct as crimes under international law (international criminal law). One of the challenges in this latter area has been to develop international and national mechanisms by which individuals who commit these crimes may be held responsible. Since states often fail to institute domestic prosecution of their own officials and agents alleged to have committed international crimes, renewed attention has been paid to the possibility of subjecting state agents to prosecution in foreign domestic courts or in international courts. For such prosecution in foreign domestic courts to take place, it will usually have to be shown (1) that those courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by foreigners against foreigners (i.e..universalorquasi-universal jurisdiction),and (2) that such jurisdiction extends to state agents (i.e., that international law immunities are unavailable). Recent years have seen a significant increase in attempts to institute prosecutions for alleged international crimes in the national courts of states other than that where the acts occurred. However, it has not proved easy to establish the two propositions identified above. Indeed, it has become apparent that the views that states possess universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed abroad and that incumbent and former state officials are subject to foreign domestic prosecution for such crimes are by no means universally held.

The ICJ's Judgment in the Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000: Some Critical Observations

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 373-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Leen De Smet
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts

On 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice (the Court) delivered its judgment in the case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000. In this case, the Court had the opportunity to take an authoritative stance on, and to contribute to the development of, two major questions in the field of immunities and jurisdiction of contemporary international law: do Ministers for Foreign Affairs enjoy immunity against prosecution by national courts of another state for crimes under international law, and how far can a state go in granting universal jurisdiction to its domestic courts?

scholarly journals The Legality and Propriety of the Trials of Abu Hamza

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 196
Author(s):  
Paul Arnell
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Application Of Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Life Sentence ◽  
The Us ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
The Uk

Abu Hamza is serving a life sentence in an American prison, having been convicted of terrorist offences in 2014. He was previously imprisoned in the United Kingdom. Two central questions arise from his case; whether the UK and US acted lawfully under international law in applying their criminal law against Hamza, and whether that application of law was appropriate. The answers to these questions are that Hamza’s subjection to legal process was of dubious legality and not completely proper. The links between the UK and the US and Hamza, be they territory, nationality or otherwise, were in some instances insufficient per se and lacking relative to third states. His case is a story of justice imperfectly done. Keywords: Legality; Proper Law; Extraterritorial Jurisdiction; Extradition; Abu Hamza 

The Emerging Recognition of Universal Civil Jurisdiction

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Francis Donovan ◽  
Anthea Roberts
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Fundamental Value

Modern international law takes as a fundamental value the condemnation and redress of certain categories of heinous conduct, such as genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity. Recognizing the need to end impunity for those crimes, international law permits a state, by the principle of universal jurisdiction, to prosecute them even when they take place outside its territory and do not involve its nationals.In virtually all domestic legal systems, an individual who engages in wrongful conduct causing personal inj ury or death will be subject not only to criminal prosecution, but to a civil action by the injured party. Yet, though the principle of universal jurisdiction is well established in the criminal sphere, it is still regarded as novel in the civil context.Recent developments—most notably the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain—will cause greater examination of the function and scope of universal jurisdiction as authorization for national courts to hear civil claims based on heinous conduct proscribed by international law. We here consider whether a civil dimension of universal jurisdiction has emerged, whether it should correspond to the criminal dimension, and whether its use as a basis of jurisdiction should depend on the absence of effective remedies in jurisdictions with traditional links to the proscribed conduct.

Between Private and Public International Law: Exorbitant Jurisdiction as Illustrated by the Yukos Case

2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuditta Cordero Moss
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Specific Aspect ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Russian Territory ◽  
The Us ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Bankruptcy Code ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

AbstractThe article analyses one specific aspect of the long and complicated proceedings in which the Russian oil company Yukos was involved: the question of jurisdiction relating to the application that Yukos made to a court in Houston, Texas, to open bankruptcy proceedings under chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code and thus grant protection against the creditors to permit restructuring of the company. Yukos being a Russian company burdened by massive debt connected with taxes owed to the Russian authorities, and virtually the totality of its as-sets being located on Russian territory, the first question that arises is how it is possible for a court in the United States to have jurisdiction in this case. This article examines the question of extraterritorial jurisdiction in civil cases, from the point of view of both private and public international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document