Jurisdiction: The power of a State under international law to govern persons and property by

its municipal law.

The jurisdiction of a State may be concurrent in that two or more States may be entitled to
exercise jurisdiction over the same person in respect of the same event.

- However, no State is to prosecute or punish a foreigner after it is proven that he has

been prosecuted in another State (Art. 13, Harvard Research Draft Convention)

Universality principle: A State may exercise jurisdiction against persons accused of

international crimes committed anywhere in the world, irrespective of the nationality of the
accused and the victim.

- Some crimes are so universally repugnant that their perpetrators are considered as
enemies of all mankind.
- Concerns mainly the ‘core crimes’ of customary international law, including slavery,
genocide, crimes against humanity and breaches of the laws of war, especially of the
Hague Convention of 1907 and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
- The Four Geneva Conventions obligate State Parties to prosecute and punish
grave breaches of the conventions.
- Especially breaches of the 3rd and 4th Conventions governing the treatment of
prisoners of war and protection of civilian persons in times of war.
- The prosecuting State acts on behalf of all States.

Only the State where the accused is in custody may prosecute him. Presence of the accused
in the territory is a condition for the exercise of jurisdiction.

- If the accused is not within the territory, unless the court is prepared to conduct
proceedings in the absence of the accused (in absentia), the State must make a
request for his extradition to a State where he is present.
- Pinochet case: Spain requested the extradition of the former dictator and President of
Chile, Augusto Pinochet, from the UK pursuant to the 1972 European Convention on
Extradition to which Spain and the UK are contracting parties. HOL ruled that as a
former Head of State, he was no longer immune form charges of systematic torture,
and therefore, his extradition to Spain could proceed.
- Cavallo case: Spain requested solely on the basis of the universality principle that an
Argentinean national on a visit to Mexico be extradited to Spain to stand trial there
for genocide and terrorism strictly for the nature of the crimes committed. The
Supreme Court of Mexico allowed the extradition.

AG of Israel v Eichmann: Adolf Eichmann was illegally abducted from Argentina by Israeli
agents. There he was prosecuted under the Israeli Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment)
Law 1950 for war crimes, crimes against Jews and crimes against humanity. He was
convicted and sentenced to death. Eichmann challenged the jurisdiction of the Israeli court
on the grounds that he was illegally abducted and that Israel had no right to hold him. Held:
The abhorrent crimes defined in this law are not crimes under Israel law alone. These crimes
are grave offences against the law of nations itself, and must be deemed to have always
been
international crimes, entailing individual criminal responsibility. The jurisdiction to try crimes
under international law is universal. The manner in which the accused was arrested does not
affect such jurisdiction. Thus, Eichmann was found guilty and executed.

- The State which prosecutes and punishes a person for that offence acts solely as the
organ and agent of the international community, and metes out punishment to the
offender for his breach of the prohibition imposed by the law of nations.

- Issue of manner of arrest: A person being tried for an offence against the laws of a
State may not oppose his trial by reason of the illegality of his arrest or of the means
whereby he was brought within the jurisdiction of that State.
- In the absence of an extradition agreement, and even if there existed such an
agreement, but the offender was not extradited, the Court will not investigate the
circumstances in which he was detained and brought to the area of jurisdiction.
- This also applies where the offender's contention is that the abduction was carried out
by the agents of the State prosecuting him, since in such a case the right violated is
not that of the offender, but the sovereign right of the State aggrieved.
- The aggrieved State may condone the violation of its sovereignty and waive its claims,
including the claim for the return of the offender to its territory, and such waiver may
be explicit or by acquiescence.
- If the State, from which the offender was taken demands his return, two conditions
must be fulfilled:
- The State must be the forum most suitable for his trial, and
- The State declares an intention to put the offender on trial

Territorial principle: A State can exercise jurisdiction over persons, property, acts or event
occurring within its territory.

- Subjective territorial principle: A State has jurisdiction over crimes commenced within
its territory even if completed abroad.
- Objective territorial principle: A State has jurisdiction where any essential constituent
element of a crime is commenced in another State, but completed in its territory. - Lotus
case: There was a collision in the Mediterranean between a French steamer, the
SS Lotus, and a Turkish steamer, which caused the Turkish steamer to sink, killing
eight Turkish soldiers. When the SS Lotus reached a Turkish port, its French officer of
the watch at the time of the collision was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
France objected to the Turkish exercise of jurisdiction over its national. Held: The
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 by foreigners. By
 assimilating the Turkish vessel to Turkish territory, the majority of the court brought
the case under the objective territorial principle.

Nationality principle: A State may exercise jurisdiction over its nationals for crimes
committed anywhere in the world.

- The jurisdiction will only be exercised once the national physically comes within the
territory of the home State.
- Joyce v DPP: The accused, William Joyce, was charged with treason under the Treason
Act 1951 for having made propaganda broadcasts to the UK from Germany during
WWII. Joyce was a US citizen born in the US, but had spent most of his adult life in
England. It was argued that because he was a US citizen, he did not owe allegiance to
the Crown and could not be held guilty of treason. Held: HOL found that allegiance
was necessary and that the accused, who held a British passport, still in force at the
time of his broadcasts, was entitled to protection by the Crown, and thus, owed the
Crown allegiance.

Protective principle: A State can punish acts prejudicial to its security, integrity, or national
interest, irrespective of where those acts take place or by whom they are committed.

- AG of Israel v Eichmann: A mere political, economic, commercial or social interest does

not in itself constitute a sufficient connection.
- Joyce v DPP: It was found that although the accused had obtained the British passport
by fraud, it was immaterial. HOL relied on the protective principle and found that a
proper regard for the security of the UK required that an alien who committed
treason whether abroad or within the realm should be subjected to British laws.
- However, under the effects doctrine (extraterritorial application of national laws):
What is protected by a State’s legislation is not limited to national security or
interest.

Passive personality principle: A State has jurisdiction to punish foreigners for harmful acts
committed abroad against its nationals.