“Basis of Jurisdiction in International Law”

(Project Report)

Submitted to

Mohd.. Atif khan

(Facutly of International Law, HNLU)

Submitted by

Alankrit Bajpai
(Sem – IV; Sec- ‘C’; Roll no. - 008)

Date of submission - 29th April, 2017

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY CHHATTISGARH

Post-Uparwara, Naya Raipur -492002 (C.G.)

 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

Declaration

I, Alankrit Bajpai, of Semester IV, Section C, declare that this project submitted to H.N.L.U.,
Raipur is an original work done by me under the able guidance of Mr. Mohammad Atif Khan,
Faculty of Public International Law. The work is a bona fide creation done by me. Due references
in terms of footnotes have been duly given wherever necessary.

Alankrit Bajpai

Roll No. 008

Page | 2
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

Acknowledgements

At the very beginning, I would like to thank all those who were the ‘guiding lights’ behind this
project. First of all I would like to take this opportunity with esteem privilege to express my
heartfelt thanks and gratitude to my course teacher Mohammad Atif Khan, (Faculty for Public
International Law, H.N.L.U.) for having faith in me in awarding me this very significant project
topic. His consistent supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of
immense help in carrying out the project work with success.

Subsequently I would like to thank my university for providing such an enriched Library, the
computer lab, internet facility without which this project would have been in a distant realm.

I extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and friends for their support and encouragement. I also
take this opportunity to thank all those people who contributed in their own small ways for the
completion of this project.

Page | 3
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

Table of Contents
Declaration..................................................................................................................................... 1

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 3

Research Methodology ................................................................................................................. 5

Objectives....................................................................................................................................... 5

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 6

1. JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW- AN OVERVIEW ................................. 7

1.1 Ports ...................................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Technical extensions of the territorial jurisdiction ............................................................... 9

1.3 Territorial jurisdiction over aliens ...................................................................................... 11

1.4 Territorial jurisdiction over criminals ................................................................................. 11

1.5 Exemption from and restrictions upon the territorial jurisdiction ...................................... 12

1.6 Foreign states and heads of foreign states........................................................................... 12

2. JURISDICTION OF A STATE IN RELATION TO A CRIME ........................................ 13

2.1 NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE-SCOPE .............................................................................. 13

2.1.1 THE ACTIVE PERSONALITY (NATIONALITY) ................................................. 13

2.1.2 PASSIVE PERSONALITY PRINCIPLE ........................................................................ 14

2.2 THE PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE ...................................................................................... 14

3. UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE OF JURSIDICTION ............................................................... 15

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 17

Refrences ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 18

Page | 4
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

Research Methodology

The researcher has based his research on secondary sources of information like books, journals,
newspapers, and internet, more importantly on faculty advice. All other authorities relied on have
been duly mentioned in ‘Bibliography’ and various footnotes.

Objectives
The main objectives of this research project are-

1. To know about the concept of Jurisdiction

2. To study the territorial jurisdiction and its various aspects.
3. To understand the various types and basis of jurisdiction in international law.

Page | 5
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

INTRODUCTION

“Jurisdiction” is arguably the most versatile term in current international law. Frequently used in
international legal instruments and yet never defined, the term can have different meanings in
different contexts. Depending on the circumstances, jurisdiction may refer to the totality of the
power or authority that a state has or exercises, in which case it is fully identifiable with
“sovereignty,” another often-used but likewise never clearly defined term in international law. The
term may also simply denote the power or authority of a state in a specific field, such as the levy
of taxes or the adjudication of cases by courts or other judicial authorities. Despite the fuzziness
of its contours, jurisdiction should be considered a central concept of international law. The reason
for this is that it signifies not only the endowment of each and every state with the internal capacity
to govern and the external standing to enter into international intercourse with other states, but also
the parameters, under international law, for the actual realization of such endowment. In a word,
jurisdiction describes, with varying degrees of precision in diverse situations, what a state can do
and what a state does. In this sense, jurisdiction can justifiably be regarded as the dynamic aspect
of the idea of sovereignty; it is what makes the notion of sovereignty visible and describable in
strictly legal (i.e., technical) terms. Through the concept of jurisdiction, sovereignty, otherwise an
elevated but amorphous notion, can now be assessed more or less accurately—both qualitatively
and quantitatively. However, it must be borne in mind that jurisdiction does much more than
simply give substance to the idea of sovereignty; it may also refer to those situations in which
sovereignty is restricted, reduced, or nonexistent. Moreover, jurisdiction may be subject to various
conditions and restrictions under international law, the most notable among these being sovereign
or state immunity.

Page | 6
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

1. JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW- AN

OVERVIEW
International law sets little or no restriction on the jurisdiction which a particular state may arrogate
to itself. It would appear to follow from the much discussed Lotus case(1927)1, decided by the
Permanent Court of International Justice, that there is no restriction on the exercise of jurisdiction
by any state unless that restriction can be shown by the most conclusive evidence that exist as a
principle of international law. In that case the Permanent court did not accept the French thesis-
France being one of the parties- that a claim to jurisdiction by a state must be shown to be justified
by international law and practice. In the court’s opinion, the onus lay on the state claiming that
such exercise of jurisdiction was unjustified, to show that it was prohibited by the international
law. A State has unlimited prescriptive jurisdiction: this means that the legislature can create,
amend or repeal legislation covering any subject or any person, irrespective of the person’s
nationality or location. The ICJ stated that “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 (para 47 of the Lotus
case).”

At the same time, international law does not allow a state to enforce its legislation outside its
territory without an international agreement or a rule of customary international law permitting the
state to do so.

For example, state A’s law says: adultery is an offence that is punishable by death. This law is
enforceable in the territory of state A; but, state A cannot enforce that law in state B even against
a citizen of state A. This means, for example, that state A cannot investigate the crime or arrest the
accused in state B’s territory without state B’s consent. The exercise of jurisdiction by a state over
property, persons, acts or even occurring within its territory is clearly conceded by international
law to all members of the society of states. The principle has been well put by Lord Macmillan :

1
(1927) PCIJ Series A, No 10.

Page | 7
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

‘it is an essential attribute of the sovereignty of this realm, as of all sovereign independent States,
that it should possess jurisdiction over all persons and things within it’s territorial limits and in
all causes civil and criminal arising within these limits.’

According to the British practice, the mere physical presence of any person or thing within the
territory is sufficient to attract jurisdiction without the nocessiry for either domicile or residence.’
Indeed, under the so-called principle of ‘transient jurisdiction’, a British court may exercise
jurisdiction in regard to a person, based on the service of proceedings on him during a mere fleeting
visit to British territory.’ Furthermore, the legislature is presumed to intend that its legislation shall
be restricted in its application to persons, property and events in the territory over which it has
territorial jurisdiction, unless a contrary intention appears, and statutes are construed with
reference to this presumed intention.’2 A similar rule of construction is applied in the United States.

For the purposes of the exercise or territory jurisdiction it has been customary to assimilate to state
territory:

(a) The maritime coastal belt or territorial sea;

(b) Bearing the flag of the state wishing to exercise jurisdiction; and

(c) Ports.

1.1 Ports
A port is part of internal waters, and therefore is as fully portion of state territory as the land itself.
Nevertheless, ships of other states are subject to a special régime in port which has grown from
usage, and varies according to the practice of the state to which the port belongs. The general rule
is chat a merchant vessel enters the port of a foreign state subject to the local jurisdiction. The
derogations from this rule depend on the practice followed by each state. There is, however, an
important exception which belongs to the field of Customary international law, namely, that a
vessel in distress has a right to seek shelter in a foreign port, and on account of the circumstances
of its entry is considered immune from local jurisdiction, subject perhaps to the limitation that no
deliberate breaches of local municipal law are committed while it is in port. On the other hand,

2
Blackwood v. R 260 US 94 (1922).

Page | 8
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

some authorities concede only a qualified immunity to such vessels. As we shall see below,’
foreign public vessels are subject to special rules of jurisdiction and their status in port is
considered in connection with these rules. Where offences or misdemeanors are committed on
hoard vessels berthed in foreign ports, jurisdiction depends on the practice followed by the
territorial state of the port concerned. The practice of the United States and of France is somewhat
different from that of Great Britain, a distinction being drawn between:

a) matters of internal discipline or internal economy of the vessel, over which the authorities of
the flag state, including consuls, are considered to have primary jurisdiction; and

(b) matters affecting the peace or good order of the port, which are reserved for the jurisdiction of
local courts and local authorities.

Thus, in ‘Wildehus’ Case’3 the United States Supreme Court held that the stabbing and killing of
one Belgian seaman by another on board a Belgian ship in an American port was subject to
Prosecution, and was excluded from the jurisdiction of the Belgian Consul.

1.2 Technical extensions of the territorial jurisdiction

Apart from the assimilation to territory of the territorial sea, of ships at Sea, and of ports, certain
technical extensions of the principle of territorial jurisdiction became necessary in order to justify
action taken by states in cases where one or more constituent elements of an act or offence took
place outside their territory. These extensions were occasioned by the increasing facilities for
speedy international communication and transport, leading to the commission of crimes in one
state which were engineered or prepared in another state. Some states in whose territory such
ancillary acts took place, declined to prosecute or punish the offenders responsible on the ground
that, as the acts were accessory to a principal offence committed elsewhere, the territorial
jurisdiction did not apply. But several states met the new conditions by technically extending the
territorial jurisdiction:

3
120 US 1 (1887).

Page | 9
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

a. Applying the subjective territorial principle, these states arrogated to themselves a

jurisdiction to prosecute and punish crimes commenced within their territory, but
completed or consummated in the territory of another state. Although this principle was
not so generally adopted by states as to amount to a general rule of the law of nations,
particular applications of it did become a part of international law as a result of the
provisions of two international conventions, the Geneva Convention for the Suppression
of Counterfeiting Currency (1929), and the Geneva Convention for the Suppression of the
Illicit Drug Traffic (1936).14 Under these conventions, the states parties bound themselves
to punish, if taking place within their territory, conspiracies to commit and intentional
participation in the commission of counterfeiting and drug traffic offences wherever the
final act of commission took place, as also attempts to commit and acts preparatory to the
commission of such offences, and in addition agreed to treat certain specific acts as distinct
offences and not to consider them as necessary to principal offences committed elsewhere
(in which case these specific acts would not have been punishable by the state in whose
territory they took place).

b. Pursuant to the Objective territorial Principle, certain states applied their territorial
jurisdiction to offences or acts commenced in another state, but: (i) consummated or
completed within their territory; or (ii) producing gravely harmful consequences to the
social or economic order inside their territory. The objective territorial theory was defined
by Professor Hyde as follows :

‘the setting in motion outside of a state of a force which produces as a direct

consequences as injurious effect therein justifies the territorial sovereign in
prosecuting the actor when he enters its domain.’

The objective principle plays a recognized role in respect of the exercise of the jurisdiction as to
multinational corporations, sometimes called ‘Transnational Corporations’.

Page | 10
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

1.3 Territorial jurisdiction over aliens

Territorial jurisdiction is conceded by international law as much Over aliens as over citizens of the
territorial state. As Judge J. B. Moore pointed out in the Lotus Case, no presumption of immunity
arises from the fact that the person again whom proceedings are taken is an alien; aliens can claim
no exemption from the exercise of such jurisdiction except so far as they may be able to show
either:

(i) that they are, by reason of some special immunity, not subject to the operation of
the local law; or

(ii) that the local law is not in conformity with international law.

1.4 Territorial jurisdiction over criminals

Great Britain (by long tradition), the United States, and several other countries,adhere for the most
part to a territorial theory of criminal competence. Indeed, the British theory, which has been
modified as a result of the two international conventions mentioned above,4 goes so far as to deny
to states the right to assume over non-nationals a criminal jurisdiction which is not properly
territorial.’ But the practice of most other states departs from an exclusive territorial theory. The
territorial criminal jurisdiction is founded on various principles. Its normal justification is that, as
a matter of convenience, crimes should be dealt with by the states whose social order is most
closely affected, and in general this will be the state on whose territory the crimes are committed.’
Important considerations also are that the territorial state has the strongest interest, the greatest
facilities, and the most powerful instruments for repressing crimes whether committed by subjects
or citizens, or by aliens resident or domiciled within its territory.’ Although, as we have seen above,
the territorial principle has been extended in several ways, it would appear from the Cutting
Case(1887)’ that such principle alone does not of itself justify a state prosecuting a non-national
temporarily within its territory for an alleged offence against its Laws, committed abroad on a prior
occasion. The United States Government maintained this position in Its exchanges with the
Mexican Government over this case, which concerned the arrest in Mexico of an American citizen,
Cutting, for having published in Texas an article alleged to constitute a libel on a Mexican citizen.
On the other hand, the United States Supreme Court has recently upheld the right of United States

Page | 11
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

courts to exercise jurisdiction over a Mexican citizen illegally abducted from Mexico in respect of
crimes committed there against United States Law.’

1.5 Exemption from and restrictions upon the territorial jurisdiction

In the case of categories (a) and (c), whatever may have been the position historically before the
developments in the weight of State practice in the 1970s, in the case of category (d), it would be
now difficult completely and to express the extent of their jurisdictional immunity in terms of
principles of international law, We except to say that international law
or has been permitting to states a wide area of discretion in the degree
to which jurisdictional immunity may be conceded to these categories, and in
new manner in which limits may be set On the extent of such ‘Jurisdictional unity’. International
law certainly does not now prohibit states from prescribing restrictions on the scope of such
immunity from jurisdiction of these
categories. So far as armed forces of foreign states, is concerned,
it is difficult to extrapolate from the domestic legislation of states and from the welter of treaties
and agreements concerning the status of foreign visiting forces located in the territory of host states
any clear-cut general principles of
international law binding states to concede a specific measure.

1.6 Foreign states and heads of foreign states

Historically, it was perhaps true to say that, save and except in the case of the involvement of states
in transactions of a commercial or non-governmental nature, there was a general weight of practice
supporting the existence of a principle of international law that foreign states and heads of foreign
states might sue in territorial courts, but could not as a rule be sued there unless they voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of those courts either ad hoc or generally a treaty or treaties. As
pointed out in Chapter 6, above, such immunity was normally dependent on recognition by the
state in the forum of which proceedings were brought against the foreign state or foreign head of
state. In English courts, as dàstinct from the courts in a number of continental countries, the rule
of absolute jurisdictional immunity prevailed, without exception, for the case of Involvement of
foreign states in transactions of a commercial or non-nature. The same principles were applicable
to foreign states as to the sovereigns of CII States, but it was a curious fact that the rule of

Page | 12
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

jurisdictional immunity used be Stated_as for example by Chief Justice Marshall of the United
States Supreme Court in 1812 in the classical case of Schooner Exchange.4

2. JURISDICTION OF A STATE IN RELATION TO A CRIME

State jurisdiction is one of the most important and ongoing topics of contemporary international
law. Historically, it is clear that the existence of state jurisdiction in its basic utilization represented
by territoriality was concurrent with the emergence of international law in its classic concept. In
the era of globalisation the restriction on states to exercise the jurisdiction only on their territory
proved to be outdated. However, this nature of state jurisdiction had to change to meet new
conditions in the international society. These kinds of crimes are called Trans boundary offenses,
and it is impossible to prosecute them by applying territoriality in its basic concept. May give rise
to positive and negative conflicts. Thus, Nationality, Universality and protective Principles of
Jurisdiction of States evolved.

2.1 NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE-SCOPE

Strict application of territoriality could be harmful for the peaceful existence of international
society. Therefore states recognized necessity of having an independent basis of jurisdiction. As a
result of it Nationality evolved as a basis of jurisdiction. Principle can be applied on two bases
Active Personality Passive Personality

2.1.1 THE ACTIVE PERSONALITY (NATIONALITY)

A state has a fundamental right to apply its laws to prosecute illegal conduct committed by its
citizens overseas. It allows State to legislate regulating the conduct of its citizen abroad.
Although Principle is mostly prevalent in the civil law Jurisdictions, it is generally recognized
in Common Law states. In UK, the Principle applies to treason, murder and manslaughter ,and
more recently ,conspiring or inciting sexual offences against children. Since 1945, with
awareness in Human Rights the use of nationality principle has been expanded to cover most
of the Human rights aspects also. The principle is used to protect the interest of the state from
abroad. The classic example is of the offence of treason. In Public Prosecutor v. Antoni, the
accused a Sweden national was involved in a road traffic accident in Germany. One of his
defense when prosecuted in Sweden was that the traffic laws of Sweden were never intended

4
(1812) 7 Cranch 116.

Page | 13
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

to be applicable outside Sweden. The Supreme Court held the Principle that “every crime
committed by a Sweden National may be punished even if committed abroad. During the
operation of UNPROFOR in former Yugoslavia, the Czech soldiers killed their captain, the
Czech authorities asserted jurisdiction based on Active Personality Principle. Thus, the ambit
of Active Personality Principle is extremely wide.

2.1.2 PASSIVE PERSONALITY PRINCIPLE

Jurisdiction is exercised by the State of the nationality of the victim where the offence took
place outside its territory. Common law states opposed it but by the emergence of transnational
crimes approved it. The justification is to protect the welfare of the nationals abroad. In Cutting
case a US citizen was arrested in Mexico for a Libel charge against a Mexican national the
action for which the alleged libel was charged had been committed whilst its author was in US
,the arrest of the author was effectuated during his subsequent visit to Mexico . The US
Government vigorously opposed Mexico’s claim of Jurisdiction and the case was finally
discontinued. The Principle again faced the same rejection in Lotus case by the Permanent
Court Of International Justice. Following the Achille Lauro incident and subsequent murder of
a US citizen , the US congress enacted Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism
act,1986 which granted US courts Jurisdictions over persons charged with the murder of US
nationals. Similar Provisions are Section 3(4) of UK Taking Of Hostages Act,1982,Art 689(1)
of French Code Of Penal Procedure. In US v. Yunis the Principle was unequivocally upheld
by the court of Appeals, that Passive Personality principle over the accused for hijacking a
Jordanian Airline with two US nationals onboard was assumed on the basis of Anti Hijacking
Act 1974 . Treaty based Passive Personality is much more effective than Statute based Passive
Personality.

2.2 THE PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE

It is unequivocally accepted that every country is competent to take any measures that are
compatible with the law of nations in order to safeguard its national security interests. Above
provided implication is the basis for the Protective or Security Principle. The necessity of the
Principle arose by the lack of municipal legislations to criminalize or to prosecute the person
though committing an act abroad but is directed against the security of a Foreign State. The State
shall have the Jurisdiction over the conduct meeting the requisites whether committed by a national

Page | 14
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

or a Foreigner. Under US law this principle is relevant when an extraterritorial offence has or could
have an adverse effect on the internal security, Sovereignty, Integrity, treasury or other
governmental functions. The focus of this Principle is the nature of interest which is or may be
harmed rather than the place where it occurs. In United States v. Layton,5 the defendant Larry
Layton was charged with conspiracy to murder Leo Ryan a representative of US Congress, the US
District Court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction over all counts. The court applied several
bases of jurisdiction included the protective Principle. The Court held that killing a representative
impaired an important governmental function. The killing of representative amounted to an
extraterritorial act of terrorism and generally met the requisites of Protective Principle. It is unclear
whether the Protective Principle of Germany is expansive in nature than U.S. or not. Basic premise
of German Protective Principle is that the State will subject “offences committed abroad by
Foreigners (as well as Citizens) to its punitive power if thereby if domestic interests are endangered
or violated”. German concept of Protective Principle is broader in application than the one
prevalent in U.S. as it covers a number of interests violating which the punitive sanctions can be
taken.

3. UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE OF JURSIDICTION

The term “universal jurisdiction” refers to the idea that a national court may prosecute
individuals for any serious crime against international law — such as crimes against humanity,
war crimes, genocide, and torture — based on the principle that such crimes harm the international
community or international order itself, which individual States may act to protect. Generally,
universal jurisdiction is invoked when other, traditional bases of criminal jurisdiction do not exist,
for example: the defendant is not a national of the State, the defendant did not commit a crime in
that State’s territory or against its nationals, or the State’s own national interests are not adversely
affected.

The definition and exercise of universal jurisdiction varies around the world. A national or
international court’s authority to prosecute individuals for international crimes committed in other
territories depends on the relevant sources of law and jurisdiction, such as national legislation or

5
26 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 988

Page | 15
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

an international agreement, which may, for example, require that only individuals within the
country’s national territory be subject to prosecution. Universal jurisdiction to national jurisdiction
difference gives the courts of any country the power to punish international crimes including
crimes against genocide and war crimes, humanity regardless of the territory where the offense
was committed and the nationality of perpetrator or victim. Universal jurisdiction is therefore, as
a concept applied to a relatively recent phenomenon unknown to the majority.

States are also different ways to implement their international obligations. Other examples are
Germany and Spain, where general provisions have been adopted by which the national criminal
law can also be applied to acts committed abroad when there is an international obligation to
punish. The lack of precision and clarity in the definition of international crimes is a major
constraint in the implementation of universal jurisdiction. The result is a newly developed concept
and little known, the states lack the experience and in many cases the political will to exercise it,
especially when this could cause tensions in foreign relations with other states. In this perspective
some legal systems, such as Germany, have introduced special limitations on the exercise of
universal jurisdiction. In this case, it requires establishing a link with Germany before applying
universal jurisdiction.

The fight against impunity has been at the heart of the fight for a fairer world. Long this struggle
has been reserved to the States, the traditional subjects of international law, each with its national
criminal law, passed laws which it deemed necessary to achieve the greatest degree of justice.
Today a national struggle against impunity, we went to an international struggle, with the
development of international criminal law.

International criminal law is still young. Nevertheless, gained increasing importance, especially
through the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998 and the creation of the International Criminal
Court came into force in 2002. This march toward internationalization of criminal law does not
allow for much believe that states, nationally, are devoid of any function. In contrast, international
criminal law should be seen as complementary and alternative to the struggle of national courts
against impunity. In other words, the priority remains to national, international law only intervenes
in case of deficiency of the latter.

Page | 16
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

CONCLUSION
It is not easy to provide a general overview of the notion of jurisdiction without leaning too much
toward either the theoretical or the practical side. Although earlier authors may have found it
justifiable to resort to purely doctrinal ruminations, it has become increasingly necessary to discuss
jurisdiction in the light of concrete instances of the exercise of jurisdiction or even within the
limited context of, say, criminal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is thus a concept at the same level as
sovereignty. Starting with the Lotus Case (see the Case of the S.S. “Lotus” under the Territoriality
of Jurisdiction) and the territoriality principle, and then discussing the exercise of extraterritorial
criminal jurisdiction before exploring the doctrinal basis of jurisdiction. Because jurisdiction in its
practical sense from the perspective of public international law concerns primarily international
criminal matters, it is always useful to see how the issue of jurisdiction is approached in the context
of international criminal law, which, given the rapidly growing case law and literature, can now
rightfully be regarded as a full discipline of law in its own right. Jurisdiction may refer to the
totality of the power or authority that a state has or exercises, in which case it is fully identifiable
with “sovereignty,” another often-used but likewise never clearly defined term in international
law. The term may also simply denote the power or authority of a state in a specific field, such as
the levy of taxes or the adjudication of cases by courts or other judicial authorities. Despite the
fuzziness of its contours, jurisdiction should be considered a central concept of international law.
The reason for this is that it signifies not only the endowment of each and every state with the
internal capacity to govern and the external standing to enter into international intercourse with
other states, but also the parameters, under international law, for the actual realization of such
endowment. In a word, jurisdiction describes, with varying degrees of precision in diverse
situations, what a state can do and what a state does. In this sense, jurisdiction can justifiably be
regarded as the dynamic aspect of the idea of sovereignty; it is what makes the notion of
sovereignty visible and describable in strictly legal (i.e., technical) terms. Through the concept of
jurisdiction, sovereignty, otherwise an elevated but amorphous notion, can now be assessed more
or less accurately—both qualitatively and quantitatively. However, it must be borne in mind that
jurisdiction does much more than simply give substance to the idea of sovereignty; it may also
refer to those situations in which sovereignty is restricted, reduced, or nonexistent.

Page | 17
 Basis of Jurisdiction in International law | International Law

References

1. Public International Law Approaches to Jurisdiction." Jurisdiction in International Law. :

Oxford University Press, 2008-10-02. Oxford Scholarship Online. 2009-01-01. Date
Accessed 28 Apr. 2017
2. Yang, Xiaodong. "Jurisdiction". In Oxford Bibliographies in International Law. 28-Apr-
2017.
3. Alex Mills; Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law. British Yearbook of International
Law 2014; 84

Bibliography

1. Shearer, I. A., Starke’s International Law, 2015, 11th edition.

2. Shaw, Malcom, International Law, 2008.

Page | 18