INDEX: LAW22/02/0292

The Lotus Case (1927) PCIJ Reports

FACTS
 Turkey’s (D) assertion of jurisdiction over a French citizen who had been the first officer of a
ship that collided with a Turkish ship on the high seas was challenged by France (P) as a
violation of international law which happened August 2nd, 1926, between the steamships
Boz-Kourt and Lotus.

ISSUES
Whether or not the rule of international law prohibits a state from exercising criminal
jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of the state’s national
jurisdiction exists.

HOLDINGS
Held, (Per Curiam) 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 that relates to acts that have taken place abroad which
it cannot rely on some permissive rule of international law. In this situation, it is impossible
to hold that there is a rule of international law that prohibits Turkey (D) 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 regard to collision cases to the effect that criminal
proceedings are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state whose flag is flown.
DISCUSSION.
 In 1975, France enacted a law regarding its criminal jurisdiction over aliens because of this
the situation surrounding this case. The law stipulates that aliens who commit a crime
outside the territory of the Republic may be prosecuted and judged pursuant to French law
when the victim is of French nationality. This is contained in 102 Journal Du Droit
International 962 (Clunet 1975). Several eminent scholars have criticized the holding in this
case for seeming to imply that international law permits all that it does not forbid.