Customary International LawCase: The Lotus Case (1927, France v. Turkey, PCIJ)Facts: There was a collision between French steamer Lotus, who was going toConstantinople, and Turkish collier Boz-Kourt, where the Boz-Kourt sank. The Lotustried to save the people on the Turkish vessel, and did save 10, but 8 Turkishnationals who were on board died. The officer on watch onboard the Lotus, Ltn.Demons, and of the Boz-Kourt, Bey, were taken by Turkish police for examination,and then arrested (pending trial) for criminal prosecution of manslaughter,without previous notice given to the French Consul-General. During trial inTurkey, Demons (French national) submitted that Turkish courts had nojurisdiction, but his objection was overruled. Demons was then sentenced to 80days imprisonement, and a fine of 22 pounds. The French government protested this,and both countries agreed to bring the issue before this International court atthe Hague in Geneva.Issue: Whether or not the rules of international law prevent Turkey frominstituting criminal proceedings against a French national under Turkish law. Ifyes, what pecuniary reparation is due to Demons?Holding: Turkey did not act contrary to any existing Int'l law.Reasoning: All that is required of Turkey is that it does not overstep the limitswhich international law places upon its jurisdiction; within these limits, itstitle to exercise jurisdiction rests in its sovereignty. The French gov'targuments to which Turkey's actions conflicted with international law.Int'l law doesn’t allow a state jurisdiction over a foreigner, where the

○

offense was committed abroad, just b/c of the victim's nationality. Here theoffense was committed aboard a French vessel.§ Court says this doesn’t apply here, b/c they are assuming the onlyaffiliation Turkey has to the incident are the victim's nationality. However, thisis not true. The offense was committed against the Turkish vessel, which is partof Turkey's territory. In this context, there is no int'l rule of law prohibitingTurkey's jurisdiction.Since the collision occurred on the high seas, France claimed that only

○

the state whose flag the vessel flew had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.§ Court agrees it is true that on the high seas, vessels are subjectonly to the state of which the flag they fly is. ???There a rule specially applying to collision cases has grown up, according

○

to which criminal proceedings regarding such cases some exclusively within thejurisdiction if the State whose flag is flown.Notes:• Positivism and the Nature of International Law: Positivism is that allinternational legal rules are based on state consent. The court ruled thatTurkey’s state sovereignty is a fundamental principle for International Law• Burden of Proof: In this case, the idea was the presumption that the burden ofproof was on France. France had to prove that there is a rule of customaryinternational law restricting Turkish independence rather than making Turkey provethat its prosecution was sanctioned by international law.• Lotus reversal: In 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas, provides that incases involving collisions on the high seas, only the flag state or the nationalstate of the accused may prosecute the officer.