scholarly journals Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: From Theory to International Practices and the Case of Vietnam Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Thi Thu Phuong Tran

Extraterritorial jurisdiction is a concept that has been studied and applied for a long time in the legal practice of a number of states. With the evolution of international law, the jurisdiction of each state is established not only on the basis of territorial factor, but also of other factors that represent certain relationship with the state, such as the nationality, the effect of the act on the nation and national sovereignty. These jurisdictions are extraterritorials. However, the grounds for establishing this extraterritorial jurisdiction arouse a lot of debate. The paper analyzes the relationships that make up extraterritorial jurisdiction in accordance with international law and relates to the practice of Vietnam law to clarify the changes of the legal system of Vietnam at present in establishing its jurisdiction over persons and things.

Author(s):  
V. V. Shatskaya

This article examines the process of formation of the national legal system of the Republic of Namibia from a historical and legal perspective. Namibia, as a small state, which was for a long time under the influence of the occupying states, which completely ignored the democratic principles of international law, started to form its own legal system only after gaining sovereignty in 1990. This explains the monistic approach in the domestic legal regime of the Republic of Namibia, which enshrines the direct application of international law throughout the state. The incorporation of the rules and principles of international law into Namibia’s domestic legal system has taken place at the highest legislative level, in the Constitution of the State, which demonstrates the commitment of both Namibia’s domestic and foreign policies to the principles of the world community.


1990 ◽  
Vol 24 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 451-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Lapidoth

Since the establishment of the State and up to the present day, Israeli law has had to deal with a great number of various problems in the field of international law, e.g. whether the State of Israel is a successor to the obligations of the Mandatory government; the jurisdiction of the Israeli courts with regard to offences committed in demilitarized zones or beyond the State's boundaries (on the high seas or abroad); the immunity of foreign states and their representatives from the jurisdiction of Israeli courts and from measures of execution; the status of international organizations and of their employees; the effect and implications of official acts performed within the territory of a state which is at war with Israel; the effect of international treaties in Israel; the question whether the Eastern neighbourhoods of Jerusalem are part of Israel; various issues concerning extradition, and of course, many questions regarding the laws of war: the powers of the military governor, and in particular his power to expropriate land in the territories under Israeli control and to expel residents from the territories, the extent of his legislative powers, etc.


1935 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shalom Kassan

It is now an established principle of modern international law, that there exists in every independent State but one body of law. This body of law is administered by all the courts alike over all persons and things within its territorial limits. These courts, within the limits of their respective jurisdictions, do not discriminate between the various inhabitants of the State. The origin, nationality or religion of the people who appear before the courts is not questioned, and is not of any importance.


2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wisnu Aryo Dewanto

<p><strong><em>A</em></strong><strong><em>bstract</em></strong><strong><em></em></strong></p><p><em>Ratification in</em><em> Indonesia does not have any legal consequences for the application of the treaties at national level.  The reason is that ratification only binds Indonesia as a subject of international law. In comparison, parliamentary approval in the Indonesian context is not the same as the United States Senate’s approval. </em><em>The Indonesian Government signed the Palermo Convention on December 12, 2000 and ratified it on April 20, 2009. The issue discussed here regards the legal status of this Convention.  In the 80’s it was assumed that any treaties ratified or acceded, would ipso facto be enforceable in Indonesia. I argued that Indonesia should be regarded as a state applying the monist approach, which legal practice seems to reject.  I stand for the monist approach especially with regard to the legal status of the 2000 Palermo Convention. In addition I also argue about the importance of differentiating between Indonesia’s international obligations and the issue of direct applicaton of the Convention by national couts.</em></p><p> </p><p align="right"><strong><em>Keywords: </em></strong><strong><em></em></strong></p><em>Ratification, Integration, Implementation, Treaty, Indonesia’s legal system</em>


1985 ◽  
Vol 20 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 206-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoram Dinstein

The individual human being is manifestly the object of every legal system on this planet, and consequently also of international law. The ordinary subject of international law is the international corporate entity: first and foremost (though not exclusively) the State. Yet, the corporate entity is not a tangible res that exists in reality, but an abstract notion, moulded through legal manipulation by and within the ambit of a superior legal system. When the veil is pierced, one can see that behind the legal personality of the State (or any other international corporate entity) there are natural persons: flesh-and-blood human beings. In the final analysis, Westlake was indubitably right when he stated: The duties and rights of States are only the duties and rights of the men who compose them.That is to say, in actuality, the international rights and duties of States devolve on human beings, albeit indirectly and collectively. In other words, the individual human being is not merely the object of international law, but indirectly also its subject, notwithstanding the fact that, ostensibly, the subject is the international corporate entity.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 872-904
Author(s):  
Alicia de la Cour Venning

Although armed opposition actors are increasingly prevalent within contemporary conflicts, ethnographies seeking to understand and explain their relationship with international law are scarce. While scholars highlight the state-centric nature of international law, discussing at length how it privileges state over non-state actors, few examine the way rebels perceive and relate to the international legal system. Drawing on seven months of field research among Kachin civil society and the Kachin Independence Organisation / Army (kio/A), this article demonstrates how the kio/A’s nascent engagement with international law is being strategically pursued as part of a broader rebel governance project. Ethnographic research exposes the oft neglected rebel perspective. It reveals how rebels interact with international humanitarian norms as a means to facilitate and mediate relations with both local and international actors, in an attempt to promote nation building aspirations and thereby strengthen resistance to state violence.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-142
Author(s):  
Prischa Listiningrum

AbstractThis article examines access to justice for victims of the Southeast Asian haze pollution within the legal system of Indonesia as the source-of-origin state. It argues that bringing civil claims against the polluting companies before Indonesian courts offers a more effective avenue towards justice than relying on resolution at the level of state to state. The article first discusses barriers to resolving the problem through the state-to-state level. It then considers whether, under international law, the source-of-origin state is obliged to provide remedies for victims of transboundary environmental damage. The article then reviews the efficacy of pursuing remedies for transboundary civil claims against polluters through the legal system of the source-of-origin state. Finally, the article considers the limitations of the laws of the affected states, which, as a consequence, mean that transboundary civil litigation in the source-of-origin state may be the most effective avenue for redress.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 126-137
Author(s):  
Елена Березина

The article analyzes such a principle of the rule-of-law state as the rule of law, which is reflected both in the legal doctrine and in the legislation of many states of the world, as well as in international law, becoming an international legal standard. The content of this principle differs depending on the specifics of society legal system and a type of legal understanding. For uniform understanding and application of this principle, it is necessary to enshrine this principle in the Russian Constitution. The paper substantiates the following statement: while implementing the idea of the rule of law, a special role is played by legal technologies that allow the synthesis of legal science, legal practice and legal education in order to transform and improve the legal system of society.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 5-14
Author(s):  
V. V. Ershov ◽  

The article analyses both general scientific and special research methods, including comparative legal and historical legal methods. The following conclusion was made: In accordance with the scientifically grounded concept of the integrative understanding of law, objective law is primarily expressed in its principles and norms contained in a single, evolving and multilevel system of forms of national and/or international law implemented in the state, traditionally in legal acts and legal agreements in the modern period.


Author(s):  
Frédéric Mégret

This chapter examines how international law might be understood as a legally pluralistic system. International law is rooted in value pluralism, but that value pluralism does not translate evidently into legal pluralism. What legal pluralism there is within the international legal system is very much at its discretion and characterized by the ascendancy of states, themselves often not paragons of pluralism. That is not the end, however, of the ways in which international law and legal pluralism might be conceptualized. To say that international law is pluralistic might mean that there are distinct regimes of international law within international law, that international law is uniquely decentralized, that spaces exist between states that manifest plurality, that international law is a series of functional systems of regulation, that international law encourages domestic legal pluralism, or that international law includes a range of actors that are already shaping it plurally beyond the state. The chapter concludes with some thoughts on the desirability and challenges of ordering pluralism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document