001 S.S. Lotus Case (France v.
Turkey) (Daguman) that relates to acts that have taken place abroad which it cannot
September 07, 1927 | PCIJ | Criminal Jurisdiction
PETITIONER: FRANCE: Basdevant, Professor at the Faculty at the Law
of Paris
RESPONDENTS: TURKEY: His Excellency Mahmout Essat Bey,
Minister of Justice
SUMMARY
A collision occurred on the high seas between a French vessel –
Lotus – and a Turkish vessel – Boz-Kourt. The Boz-Kourt sank and
killed eight Turkish nationals on board the Turkish vessel. The 10
survivors of the Boz-Kourt (including its captain) were taken to
Turkey on board the Lotus. In Turkey, the officer on watch of the
Lotus (Demons), and the captain of the Turkish ship were
charged with manslaughter. Demons, a French national, was
sentenced to 80 days of imprisonment and a fine. The French
government protested, demanding the release of Demons or the
transfer of his case to the French Courts. Turkey and France agreed
to refer this dispute on the jurisdiction to the Permanent Court of
International Justice (PCIJ). Basically, France went to the Permanent
Court of International Justice (P.C.I.J.) and argued that Turkey did not
have jurisdiction to try the French officers, because they were on a French
boat in international waters at the time of the accident. Turkey argued that
since their nationals were killed, they had jurisdiction to try those
responsible for the deaths. France argued that as a matter of customary
international law, the flag of the vessel (in this case France) has exclusive
jurisdiction. WoN Turkey violated international law when Turkish courts
exercised jurisdiction over a crime committed by a French national, outside
Turkey? NO
 A rule of international law, which prohibits a state from exercising
criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts
outside of the state’s national jurisdiction, does not exist.
 Failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary is the first
and foremost restriction imposed by international law on a state
and it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of
another state.
 This does not imply that international law prohibits a state from
exercising jurisdiction in its own territory, in respect of any case
rely on some permissive rule of international law.
 In this case, it is impossible to hold that there is a rule of
international law that prohibits Turkey from prosecuting Demons
because he was aboard a French ship.
 This stems from the fact that the effects of the alleged offense
occurred on a Turkish vessel.
 Hence, both states here may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over
this matter because there is no rule of international law in regards
to collision cases to the effect that criminal proceedings are
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state whose flag is flown.
DOCTRINE:
A rule of international law, which prohibits a state from exercising
criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of
the state’s national jurisdiction, does not exist.
FACTS:
1. Aug 2, 1926- S.S. Lotus, A French Steamship, collided on the high
seas with Boz-Kourt, a Turkish Collier (ship that transports coal). The
Boz Kourt split in two and sank, and 8 of its crew members were
killed.
2. Lotus remained to assist the survivors of Boz Kourt, including its
captain, Hassan Bey, and then continued with survivors to
Constantinople.
3. Turkish authorities subsequently requested that Lieutenant Demons,
the officer of the watch on board the Lotus when the collision
occurred, come ashore to give evidence.
4. Turkish authorities placed Demons and Hassan Bey under arrest
pending trial on charges of manslaughter. At trial, Demons argued that
the Turkish court lacked jurisdiction, but the court convicted both
Demons and Hassan Bey with imprisonment for 80 days plus fine.
5. The French Government protested the arrest and the conviction and
requested that the case be transferred to the French Court.
6. Turkey proposed, and France agreed, to pose the following question
to the PCIJ (Permanent Court of International Judges): “Has Turkey
acted in conflict with the principles of international law—and if so,
what principles by institutiong criminal proceedings in pursuance of
Turkish Law against Demons?”
7. The French Govt. invoked the 1923 Convention of Lausanne in
arguing against Turkish jurisdiction. Art. 15 of the Convention stated
 that “all questions of jurisdiction shall, as between Turkey and other
contracting Powers, be decided in accordance with the principles of
international law”
8. France maintained that such principles precluded criminal jurisdiction
in this case.
9. The French Government contends that the Turkish Courts, in order to
have jurisdiction, should be able to point to some title to jurisdiction
recognized by international law in favor of Turkey.
10. On the other hand, the Turkish Government takes the view that Art.
15 allows Turkey jurisdiction whenever such jurisdiction does not
come into conflict with a principle of international law.
11. Basically, France went to the Permanent Court of International Justice
(P.C.I.J.) and argued that Turkey did not have jurisdiction to try the
French officers, because they were on a French boat in international
waters at the time of the accident.
12. Turkey argued that since their nationals were killed, they had
jurisdiction to try those responsible for the deaths. France argued that
as a matter of customary international law, the flag of the vessel (in
this case France) has exclusive jurisdiction.
ISSUE/s:
WoN Turkey violated international law when Turkish courts exercised
jurisdiction over a crime committed by a French national, outside Turkey? NO.
The PCIJ found that Turkey did have the right to try the French sailors. The
PCIJ basically found that since the two ships were involved in the same
accident, that both countries had concurrent jurisdiction over the accident. The
PCIJ found that customary international law gave France jurisdiction, but it
didn't give them exclusive jurisdiction. "Under international law, everything
that isn't prohibited is permitted."
RULING: Judgment in question is affirmed.
RATIO:
A State cannot exercise its jurisdiction outside its territory unless an
international treaty or customary law permits it to do so.
1. The Court stated: “Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by
international law upon a State is that – failing the existence of a
permissive rule to the contrary – it may not exercise its power in any
form in the territory of another State.
2. In this sense, jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised
by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule
derived from international custom or from a convention.”
Within its territory, a State may exercise its jurisdiction, in any matter, even
if there is no specific rule of international law permitting it to do so. In these
instances, States have a wide measure of discretion, which is only limited by
the prohibitive rules of international law.
1. The Court stated that: “It does not, however, follow that international
law prohibits a State from exercising jurisdiction in its own territory,
in respect of any case which relates to acts which have taken place
abroad, and in which it cannot rely on some permissive rule of
international law.
2. Such a view would only be tenable if international law contained a
general prohibition to States to extend the application of their laws and
the jurisdiction of their courts to persons, property and acts outside
their territory, and if, as an exception to this general prohibition, it
allowed States to do so in certain specific cases.
3. But this is certainly not the case under international law as it stands at
present.
4. Far from laying down a general prohibition to the effect that States
may not extend the application of their laws and the jurisdiction of
their courts to persons, property and acts outside their territory, it
leaves them in this respect a wide measure of discretion, which is only
limited in certain cases by prohibitive rules; as regards other cases,
every State remains free to adopt the principles which it regards as
best and most suitable.
5. This discretion left to States by international law explains the great
variety of rules which they have been able to adopt without objections
or complaints on the part of other States
6. In these circumstances all that can be required of a State is that it
should not overstep the limits which international law places upon its
jurisdiction; within these limits, its title to exercise jurisdiction rests
in its sovereignty.
7. This applied to civil and criminal cases.
8. If the existence of a specific rule was a pre-requisite to exercise
jurisdiction, the Court argued, then “it would… in many cases result
in paralysing the action of the courts, owing to the impossibility of
citing a universally accepted rule on which to support the exercise of
their [States’] jurisdiction”
9. The Court based this finding on the sovereign will of States.
 10. It held: “International law governs relations between independent outside its territory, so long as a constitutive element of the crime was
States. The rules of law binding upon States therefor emanate from committed in that State.
their own free will as expressed in conventions or by usages generally
accepted as expressing principles of law and established in order to Subjective Territorial Jurisdiction
regulate the relations between these co-existing independent
communities or with a view to the achievement of common aims. 1. In order for subjective territorial jurisdiction to be established,
Restrictions upon the independence of States cannot therefore be one must prove that the element of the crime and the actual crime
presumed” are entirely inseparable: in other words, if the constituent element
was absent – the crime would not have happened.
Criminal Jurisdiction: Territorial Jurisdiction (TOPIC) 2. The Court said: “The offence for which Lieutenant Demons appears
to have been prosecuted was an act – of negligence or imprudence –
1. France alleged that the flag State of a vessel has exclusive jurisdiction having its origin on board the Lotus, whilst its effects made themselves
over offences committed on board the ship in high seas. felt on board the Boz-Kourt. These two elements are, legally, entirely
2. The Court disagreed. inseparable, so much so that their separation renders the offence non-
3. It held that France, as the flag State, did not enjoy exclusive existent… It is only natural that each should be able to exercise
territorial jurisdiction in the high seas in respect of a collision with jurisdiction and to do so in respect of the incident as a whole. It is
a vessel carrying the flag of another State. therefore a case of concurrent jurisdiction.”
4. Turkey and France both have jurisdiction in respect of the whole
incident: in other words, there was concurrent jurisdiction.
5. The Court held that a ship in the high seas is assimilated to the territory
of the flag State.
6. This State may exercise its jurisdiction over the ship, in the same way
as it exercises its jurisdiction over its land, to the exclusion of all other
States.
7. In this case, the Court equated the Turkish vessel to Turkish territory.
8. The Court held: “… offence produced its effects on the Turkish vessel
and consequently in a place assimilated to Turkish territory in which
the application of Turkish criminal law cannot be challenged, even in
regard to offences committed there by foreigners.” The Court
concluded that Turkey had jurisdiction over this case.
9. It further said: “If, therefore, a guilty act committed on the high seas
produces its effects on a vessel flying another flag or in foreign
territory, the same principles must be applied as if the territories of
two different States were concerned, and the conclusion must
therefore be drawn that there is no rule of international law prohibiting
the State to which the ship on which the effects of the offence have
taken place belongs, from regarding the offence as having been
committed in its territory and prosecuting, accordingly, the
delinquent.”
10. The Lotus Case is also significant in that the Court said that a State
would have territorial jurisdiction, even if the crime was committed