UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES,

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

PROJECT REPORT
On the topic

Definition of State & State Jurisdiction

Submitted as per curriculum of B.Com. LLB (Hons.) in the
subject of

Public International Law

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Pushpinder Kaur Bhuvesh goyal
Roll No.: 203/20,
Section D
B.Com LL.B.
(Hons.)

1
 Acknowledgement
Presentation, inspiration and motivation have always played a key role in the success
of any venture.

It is my proud privilege to release the feelings of my gratitude to several persons who

helped me directly or indirectly to make this project.

First of all, I would like to thank Almighty God for showering his immense blessings
on me. I pay my deep sense of gratitude to our professor, Dr. Pushpinder Kaur,
University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab university, Chandigarh for encouraging
me to the highest peak and providing me opportunity to prepare project on the topic:
Definition of State & State Jurisdiction
I owe my regards to the entire family of Department of Legal Studies from where I am
learning the basics of law and whose informal support, intellectual discussions helped
me in the entire duration of work.

Bhuvesh goyal

2
 Content

1. Introduction
2. State & its Elements
 Population
 Territory
 Government
 Sovereignty
3. State jurisdiction
 Territorial Jurisdiction
 Extra- Territorial Jurisdiction
4. Some Exceptions of the Exercise of Jurisdiction
5. Case Laws
6. Conclusion
7. Bibliography

3
Introduction

Public International Law (PIL) serves as the foundation for regulating interactions
between sovereign entities on the global stage. Public International Law (PIL) is a
dynamic and intricate field that governs the conduct of states and other international
actors in the global arena. At its core, PIL revolves around the concepts of "State" and
"State Jurisdiction," which are fundamental to understanding the rights and
responsibilities of sovereign entities on the international stage. This project embarks
on an exploration of these pivotal concepts, aiming to shed light on their definitions,
implications, and evolving roles in the ever-changing landscape of Public International
Law.
The concept of a "State" within PIL represents a legally recognized entity possessing a
defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to engage in
international relations. The definition and criteria for statehood are foundational,
shaping the legal status and responsibilities of an entity in the international
community. This project will delve into the historical development of the concept of a
State, emphasizing the significance of statehood in the realm of global governance.
"State Jurisdiction" is the authority of a state to exercise its legislative, executive, and
judicial powers within its territory and, in some instances, beyond. It encompasses
various dimensions, from territorial sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction to
prescriptive jurisdiction in international law. The project will offer an in-depth
examination of the multifaceted nature of state jurisdiction, shedding light on the
complexities and limitations associated with it.
In an age characterized by globalization and interdependence, the definitions and
boundaries of State and State Jurisdiction have undergone significant transformations.
The project will investigate the impact of emerging issues such as cyber warfare,
climate change, and transnational terrorism on the exercise of state jurisdiction and
sovereignty. Additionally, it will analyze how international agreements, including
treaties and conventions, influence the scope of state jurisdiction and its interactions
with the rights and interests of other states.
The study of State and State Jurisdiction in PIL is of paramount importance for legal
scholars, practitioners, policymakers, diplomats, and global citizens alike. These
concepts are integral to the functioning of the international system and the
maintenance of peace and order among nations.

4
State and its elements

The concept of a state in public international law is a foundational and fundamental

principle that underpins the entire framework of international relations. A state, in
this context, refers to a sovereign and independent political entity with specific
characteristics and attributes that distinguish it as a legal person under international
law. In public international law, a state refers to a sovereign entity recognized as
having an independent and defined territory, a permanent population, a government,
and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Attributes of statehood have been discussed with context to the above provisions of
the Montevideo Convention in view of the assumption that the Montevideo
Convention merely codified existing legal norms and is a restatement of customary
international law and therefore it does not apply merely to the signatories but to all
subjects of international law.

STATE has been defined in various ways according to the manner of thinking of the
writer concerned.

According to Salmond, State is a community of people which has been

established for some objectives such as internal order and external security .

The characteristics required under Article 1 of Montevideo Convention 1933 for

statehood are
a permanent population,
a defined territory,
government and
capacity to enter into relations with the other states

Oppenheim has pointed out the following essential elements the state
population, definite territory, government, sovereignty

5
 1. Population

A state fundamentally comprises of a permanent population over which it exercises its

unlimited authority. The nature of the state depends upon the quality and quantity of
its population. No ideal size of population can be stated. Aristotle stated "A population
must be large enough to be self-sufficient, but small enough to be well-governed." A
good population makes a good state; a bad one, a bad state. Since state is human
association the first essential element that constitute it is the people. How much people
constitute state? No exact answer can be given to such a question. It is a different
matter that a philosopher like Plato suggests the figure of 5040 people for his sub
ideal state in the laws and a modern thinker like Rousseau prefers population of
10000 in a real democratic state. The fact in that the states of the world vary in terms
of demographic strength. We have states with the population of 100 millions as china
and with a strength of few thousand people like san marino. In this direction we may
appreciate the view of Aristotle that the population of a state should be neither so large
that administration may be a problem nor so small that the people may not lead a life
peace and security. It should be so much that the people may lead a life self
sufficiency.
Hence, there should be export of population to other countries or a large chunk of the
population should be pushed into a war. In short, it is to be noted that without
population there can be no state.

2. Defined Territory

A state cannot exist without territory. Territory refers to land, surrounding water upto 3
nautical miles, as well as the air above the land and water. Nomadic settlements did
not possess any permanent territory. Hence, they cannot be called a state. There can be
no state without a territory of its own. The nomadic tribes cannot have a state of their
own for the reason that they do not have a fixed territory. The territorial authority of a
state also extends to ships and high season under its flags as well as its embassies and
legations in foreign lands.
The second qualification is territory where the permanent population live on.
However, there is not a necessity of having well-established boundaries international
Court of Justice said in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, "... there is...no rule that
the land frontiers of a state must be fully determined and defined".
6
A State must have a territory. It is immaterial whether the territory where the people
have settled down is small or large. There is no lower limit to the size of a State's
population, Nauru, for example, has less than 10,000 inhabitants. There are many
other States which have exceptionally small population, and are sometimes called
micro-States or mini-States, but they are States. They are eligible for membership of
the United Nations if they satisfy the conditions laid down under Article 4 of the U.N.
Charter. It may consist, as in the case of city States of one
town only. It is not essential that the territory should be 'defined' as laid down by
the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States. The term defined does
not mean that there must be complete certainty over the extent of territory. Even at
present a number of States have border disputes over the precise line of the frontier,
but it does not mean that they are not States. Israel is a State but it does not have a
defined territory.
It was appropriately stated in North Sea Continental Shelf Cases that: “There is for
instance no rule that the land frontiers of a State must be fully delimited and defined,
and often various places and for long periods they are not.” What matters is not the
absolute certainty of the Stat’s territory but that the State is able to consistently control
a sufficiently identifiable core of such territory.

3. Government

It is a body of a few people who administer the population and are meant to express
the will of the state. The government has limited power, as opposed to the state's
unlimited authority. The government is subject to change and is bound to obey will of
the people as well as state. To equate the Government with State is a dangerous, yet
common mistake. Government is that agency which steers the ship of the State.
Without government, state will be directionless. Here the form of government does not
Matter. It could be Presidential System, one party rule or even dictatorship, there has
to be a government. In other words, government is nothing but the implementing arm
of state. Government is that system through which state expresses its will. The
government makes law, punishes law breakers, promotes welfare of people.

The people and the territory should be governed by a Government. A State which does
not have a government (or to say anarchistic community) is not regarded as a State.
There may be different types of government:
7
 1. A de jure government whose origin or existence is in conformity with the
constitutional law of the State represented, and whose legality is uncontested in
international law.
2. A de facto government is a government whose origin and existence is contrary to
the constitutional law of the State concerned and legality is challenged in
3. International Law.
4. A military government
5. A government-in-exile

4. Sovereignty

It is the soul of a state. It implies that the state is independent from external
interference, as well as can maintain integrity within itself. India could not be referred
to as a state prior to 1947, as it did not have an independent government.
Scholars believe that sovereignty is the soul of state. Before 15th august 1947, India
had territory, population and government. But it did not have sovereignty. It shows the
importance of sovereignty.
It has two aspects (i) internal and (ii) external.

In internal sovereignty, the state has ultimate, unlimited power within its territory. It
enjoy final control over all people, associations and other things. Under external
sovereignty, it means a state is free from external control. It can enter into
international treaties. Some scholars believe that after UNO was formed in 1945 and
more specifically after the age of globalization began in 1991, the scope of external
sovereignty has shrunk considerably.
As already pointed out, sovereignty is the attribute of state. It is a creation of modern
times. It is the highest power of the state that distinguishes it from all other associates
of human beings. It has two aspects --- internal and external. It means that inside the
state there can be no other authority that may claim equality with it. In the external
sphere, it implies that the country should be free from foreign control of any kind. It is,
however, a different matter that a state willingly accepts some international obligations
in the form of obligations in the form of membership of the League of Nations or of
the United Nations.

8
State Jurisdiction

By the term 'State jurisdiction' is meant the legal competence which a State enjoys
over the territory which belongs to it. The expression 'competence' is a wide term and
includes judicial, legislative and administrative competence. Thus, power to make
rules or decisions, that is, prescriptive or legislative jurisdiction, and power
to enforce them, that is, enforcement jurisdiction remains within the jurisdiction of a
State. It implies that a State cannot exercise jurisdiction in the territory of another State
unless it is expressly permitted. In the Lotus case, the Permanent Court of
International Justice stated that 'the first and foremost restriction imposed by

International Law upon a State-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.' It
appears from the above that on the one hand, the first and foremost rule is that a State
may not exercise jurisdiction in the territory of another State unless it is permitted by a
contrary rule of International Law, and on the other hand, a State is entirely free to
exercise its jurisdiction over the territory which belongs to it.

Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction is derived from the concept of State territory and therefore all
other States must respect and should not interfere in its internal affairs.
Jurisdiction of a State over its territory is called territorial jurisdiction. It includes land,
sea/water bodies and air, space above. It implies that a State enjoys civil as well as
criminal jurisdiction over all persons, property and things within the territory of a State
which fall under its territorial jurisdiction. Possession of jurisdiction over all persons
and things within its territorial limits and in all causes civil and criminal, arising
within its limits is an attribute of sovereignty. The principle of territorial jurisdiction
extends to land territory within boundaries, internal waters, territorial sea, air-space
above the land territory and sub-soil under- earth. To exercise jurisdiction by a State
over its territory is a right of a State. the violation of State territory is the violation of
State personality itself and of the people living in the State. Kelsen has rightly stated
that "the territory of a State is not a thing; it is specially not the land or a piece of land;
it is an area determined by International Law."A State has a power to exercise
jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters. They have been dealt separately.
9
  Civil Jurisdiction

A State has a right to exercise civil jurisdiction in respect of all those persons who are
found in its territory. Thus, civil cases of aliens may also be decided by it, if they are
found within the limits of its territory. They cannot claim exemption from the exercise
of such jurisdiction except so far as they may be able to show either that they are, by
reason of some special immunity, not subject to the operation of the local law; or that
the local law is not in conformity with International Law.

 Criminal Jurisdiction

An analysis of the national Codes of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and the
writings of the international publicists discloses five general principles on which
the criminal jurisdiction is claimed by States at present time. They are territoriality
principle, nationality principle, protective principle and universality principle.
In Common Law countries such as the United States and United Kingdom, the usual
ground for jurisdiction in civil cases is the service of a writ upon the defendant within
the country, even if the presence of the defendant is temporary and incidental. In Civil
Law countries, the usual ground for jurisdiction is the habitual residence of the
defendant in the country. In some countries such as Netherlands, Denmark and
Sweden, generally courts assert their jurisdiction if the defendant possesses assets in
the country; however, in matrimonial cases the commonly accepted ground for
jurisdiction is the domicile or residence of the plaintiff.

I. Territoriality Principle

According to this principle, jurisdiction is established by reference to the place where

the offence is committed. Thus, a State may punish all the persons, whether he is a
national or an alien, if the crime is committed within its territory.
Territorial theory of criminal competence has been followed by Great Britain, the
United States and by several other countries. The territorial criminal jurisdiction is
founded on various principles. Its normal justification is that crimes should be dealt
with by the States whose social order is most closely affected. Further, the territorial
State has the strongest interest, the greatest facilities, and the most powerful
instruments for representing crimes whether committed by subjects or citizens, or by
10
 aliens resident or domiciled within its territory. Territorial jurisdiction over the
criminal competence poses no problems in those cases where the offence is committed
within the territory of a State. But the problems do arise in those cases where the crime
is planned and set in motion, or to say, when it is commenced in one State, and is
completed in another State. This has led to divide the principle of criminal jurisdiction
into two categories, ie, subjective territorial principle and objective territorial
principle.
While the subjective territorial principle is that where a State claims jurisdiction in
those cases where the crime commenced within its territory but completed or
consummated outside its territory, objective principle is that where any of the elements
of the crime is consummated in its territory. For instance, a man fires a gun across a
frontier and kills another man in a neighbouring State, the jurisdiction of the country
from where the gun is fired is subjective, and that of the country in which the shot
takes effect is objective.

II. Nationality Principle

The nationality principle implies that a State jurisdiction extends to its nationals and
actions they take beyond its territory. It is based upon the notion that the link between
the State and its nationals is personal one independent of location. Since every state
possesses sovereignty and jurisdictional powers and since every state must consist of a
collection of individual human beings, it is essential that a link between the two be
legally established.
That link connecting the state and the people it includes in its territory is provided by
the concept of nationality. By virtue of nationality, a person becomes entitled to a
series of nights ranging from obtaining a valid passport enabling travel abroad to being
able to vote. In addition, nationals may be able to undertake various jobs (for example
in the diplomatic service) that a non national may be barred from.

 Active Nationality Principle:

A State has the right to extend the application of its laws to its nationals even is respect
of events occurring entirely abroad. Jurisdiction of this kind may be referred to as
nationality principle. Since the territorial and nationality principles create parallel
jurisdiction, many states place limitations on the nationality principle, and it is
generally confined to serious offences.
11
  Passive Nationality Principle:
Under this principle, a state may claim jurisdiction to try an individual for offences
committed abroad which have affected or will affect nationals of the state.
According to this principle, jurisdiction of a State is established by reference to the
nationality or national character of a person injured by the offence. Thus, an alien may
be punished for the acts committed by him abroad if such acts cause injury to one of
its nationals irrespective of the nationality of the offender.
In the Cutting case3, the Mexico claimed jurisdiction over the American national-
Cutting for publication of some defamatory matter in a Texas newspaper. Mexico
maintained that it had a right to punish Cutting because, according to its criminal law,
offences committed by foreigners abroad against Mexican subjects were punishable in
Mexico. The Mexican Court decided the case. But Cutting was finally released as the
plaintiff withdrew his action for libel.
It is to be noted that the passive nationality principle is embodied in Criminal Codes of
some States such as Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, and Italy. The United Kingdom and
United States do not admit the propriety of this principle.

III. Protective Principle

According to this principle, jurisdiction of a State is determined by reference to the

national interest injured by the offence. This principle provides that states may
exercise jurisdiction over aliens who have committed an act abroad which is deemed
prejudicial to the security of the particular state concerned. Thus, a State may assert its
jurisdiction over matters which produce a deleterious effect on it, irrespective of where
the acts take place or by whom it is committed. National laws based on this principle
are said to operate extra territorially-that is, in respect of acts which take place wholly
outside State territory. They also refer to activities of non-nationals. Many States claim
jurisdiction over the foreigners committing an act in foreign countries if such acts
jeopardize the safety and public order of the State itself. Such jurisdiction is called
protective principle.
The protective principle rests on the protection of concrete interests which may be of
great importance to the State. However, practice of States regarding extra-territorial
jurisdiction is not uniform. Many States which claim jurisdiction of this kind threaten
punishment for certain acts either against the State itself such as high treason, foreign
12
 bank notes and the like, or against its citizens, such as murder and arson, libel and
slander, and the like. These States, of course, can exercise jurisdiction only when the
foreigner after committing the crime is found in their territory

EXAMPLE: This principle is often used in treaties providing for multiple

jurisdictional grounds with regard to specific crimes, such as the 1979 Hostage
Convention and the 1970 Hague Aircraft Hijacking Convention.

IV. Universality Principle

The universality principle, in its broad sense, implies that a State can claim jurisdiction
over certain crimes committed by any person anywhere in the world, without any
required connection to territory, nationality or special State interest.
The concept of universal jurisdiction is based on the reason that there are certain
offences, which are so destructive of the international order and are contrary to the
interests of the international community as a whole that they are treated as
international crimes. They therefore are of universal concern and can justly be
regarded as an attack on the international legal system.
This is a jurisdiction which exists irrespective of place where the act constituting the
crime takes place and the nationality of the person committing it. It is a jurisdiction
which depends solely on the nature of offence without regard to where the crime has
been committed or the nationality of the alleged perpetrator, the nationality of the
victim or any other connection to the State exercising such jurisdiction. Such
jurisdiction may be exercised by any State in order to try a person who is alleged to
have committed such crimes.
Under customary law, States were permitted to exercise universal jurisdiction over
piracy on the high seas. In the case of piracy, it was a well recognized principle that on
the basis of the universality principle, any State could exercise jurisdiction over a
crime committed abroad irrespective of the nationality of the perpetrators.
Presently, some other offences for which the universality principle has been claimed or
proposed are slave trade (slavery), crimes against humanity, genocide and terrorism.

13
Extra Territorial Jurisdiction

Accordingly, it is of three types: legislative jurisdiction, executive jurisdiction and

judicial jurisdiction.

1. Legislative Jurisdiction
Legislative jurisdiction is the capacity of a State to prescribe rules of law (the power to
legislate). A State has the supremacy to make binding laws within its territory. It has a
legislative exclusivity in many areas. This supremacy is entrusted to constitutionally
recognized organs. Although legislation is primarily enforceable within a State
territory, it may extend beyond its territory in certain circumstances. International
Law, for example, accepts that a State may levy taxes against persons not within its
territory as long as there is a real link between the State and the proposed taxpayer,
whether it is nationality or domicile.5

2. Executive Jurisdiction
Executive jurisdiction is the capacity of a State to act and to enforce its laws within its
territory. Generally, since States are independent of each other and possess territorial
sovereignty, they have no authority to carry out their functions on foreign territory. No
State has the authority to infringe the territorial
sovereignty of another State. In this sense, a State cannot enforce its laws upon foreign
territory without the consent of the host State; otherwise, it will be liable for a breach
of International Law.

3. Judicial Jurisdiction
Judicial jurisdiction is the capacity of the courts of a State to try legal cases. A State
has an exclusive authority to create courts and assign their jurisdiction, and
to lay down the procedures to be followed. However, in doing so, it cannot by any
means alter the way in which foreign courts operate. There are a number of
principles upon which the courts of a State can claim jurisdiction. In civil matters, the
principles range from the mere presence of the defendant in the territory of a State to
the nationality and domicile principles. In the criminal matters, they range from the
territorial principle to the universality principle. These principles are the subject of the
following section.

14
Some Exceptions of the Exercise of Jurisdiction

1. Diplomatic Agents
Diplomatic agents enjoy certain privileges and immunities. They are immune from the
jurisdiction of the civil and criminal courts of the receiving State. In this connection
the old view was that the diplomatic agents enjoy these immunities and privileges
because they were deemed to be outside the jurisdiction of the receiving State. In the
present time this theory has been discarded

2. Foreign Embassies
Foreign Embassies are often considered to be outside the jurisdiction of States in
which they are situated. For the sake of convenience, embassies are to be treated a part
of their home states. The correct view however is that though not part of their home
state, embassies enjoys certain immunities because of the special functions performed
by the diplomatic agents.

3. Foreign Sovereigns
Foreign Sovereigns are often considered to be outside the jurisdiction of other States
and possess many privileges and immunities. This is based upon the principle that one
sovereign cannot exercise jurisdiction over another sovereign.

4. Immunity of Warships and their Crew

Under International Law warships enjoy a great measure of immunity. Warships are
immune from legal process, execution or jurisdictional measures of foreign authorities.
This immunity is applicable to the commander of the crew as well as to the ship itself.
This immunity is not lost for acts of State (1.c. official acts) even if they are illicit (but
not including crimes under international law). The immunity of warships, even for
illicit activities, "rests on the principle par in parem non habet imperium Le, no state
can sit in judgement of another State...even if foreign warships have acted contrary to
international law by engaging in 'spy' missions in peacetime, the members of the crew
have still acted as state agents and are, as such, immune to legal process in municipal
courts

15
.Case Laws

1. The Lotus Case

For this situation, there was a presentation by Turkey over the French resident who
was the primary official of the boat that crashed into a Turkish boat on the High
Sea. It was tested by France as an infringement of the international law.
The Court expressed that Turkey has the power to capture the French official under
the Treaty of Lausanne. It additionally expressed that assuming somebody
challenges the jurisdiction of a Sovereign State, the weight of verification will lie
on the offended party.

On August 2, 1926, a collision occurred between the French mail steamer Lotus,
proceeding to Constantinople and the Turkish collier Boz-Kourt on the high seas.
The Boz-Kourt, which was cut in two, sank and eight Turkish nationals who were
on board perished. Lotus continued on its course to Constantinople, where it
arrived on August 3, and without previous notice being given to the French
Consul-General, Lieutenant Demons, the French Officer of the watch on the Lotus
was placed under arrest. Hassan Bey, the Captain of the Boz-Kourt (who was one
of those saved from the wreck) was also arrested
When the Criminal Court of Stamboul first heard the case, Demons submitted that
the Turkish Courts had no jurisdiction, but this plea was overruled. On September
13, Demons was released on bail fixed at 6000 Turkish pounds. The terms of the
judgment were not communicated to the Permanent Court by the parties. It is,
however, common ground, that it sentenced Demons to eighty days' imprisonment
and a fine of twenty-two pounds, Hassan Bey being sentenced to a slightly more
severe punishment.
The case later on came before the Permanent Court of International Justice which
was to consider whether there any rules of International Law which may have been
violated by the prosecution of Demon in pursuance of Turkish Law. The French
Government contended that the Turkish Courts, in order to have jurisdiction should
be able to point to some title to jurisdiction by International Law, on the other
hand, Turkish Government takes the view it has jurisdiction whenever it does not
come into conflict with a principle of International Law.
The Court held that though it is true that in all systems of law the principle of
16
territorial character of criminal law is fundamental, it is equally true that all or
nearly all those systems of law extend their action to offence committed outside the
territory of the State which adopts them, and they do so in ways which vary from
State to State. The territoriality of criminal law, therefore, is not an absolute
principle of International Law and by no means coincides with territorial
sovereignty.

CRTICAL ANALYSIS
The conclusion at which the Court has, therefore, arrived is that there is no rule of
International Law in regard to collision cases to the effect that original proceedings
are exclusively within the jurisdiction of a State whose flag is flown.
The Court also stated that it must therefore be held that there is no principle of
International Law, which precludes the institution of criminal proceedings under
consideration. Consequently, Turkey, by instituting, in virtue of the discretion that
International Law leaves to every sovereign State, the criminal proceedings in
question has not in the absence of such principles, acted in a manner contrary to
the principles of International Law.
The Court therefore held that following the collision of Lotus and Boz-Kourt,
Turkey by instituting criminal proceedings in pursuance of Turkish Law against
Demons has not acted in conflict with the principles of International Law

2. Nicaragua vs. USA

US authorities were alarmed when a pro-Soviet government known as the Sandini

States came to power in Nicaragua in 1979, at the height of the Cold War .In 1981,
the Reagan government agreed to back Somosistas, a Nicaraguan rebel group led
by a US citizen. The Central Intelligence Agency done multiple illegal and covert
operations against the Nicaraguan army and air force, supplying weaponry,
ammunition, and money, as well as kidnapping Nicaraguan civilians on a regular
basis. Nicaraguan people filed a lawsuit against the United States for violating the
UN Charter Treaty. The United States argued that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to
hear the case, but the ICJ proceeded forward with it because of a 1955 friendship
treaty between Nicaragua and the United States. It held that the United States had
knowingly and purposefully violated the UN Charter, general standards of
international law, and Nicaragua's territorial sovereignty. Nicaragua retracted the
17
complaint in 1992, owing to intense pressure, and unofficially apologised to the
US government.

3. Director of Public Prosecution vs. DOOT

In this case, the defendant was charged for unlawful acts which are for the import
of dangerous drugs into the UK. Defendants counsel said that they shouldn't be
tried in England because the offence was committed abroad.
The Court held that the respondents were foreigners which had a secret plan to
import Cannabis in the U.K. The House of Lords stated that English Courts have
jurisdiction over the offences committed in England.
Lord Wilberforce in this case stated that it constitutes international elements that
the suspect were foreigners and an unlawful act is done abroad. Hence, there is no
question that if there is any breach in the rule of the law then they will be
prosecuted in the country where the crime has been committed.

4 . K.T.M.S. Abdul Cader and others v. Union of India,

The Madras High Court observed that a State has jurisdiction in respect of foreign
nationals for their acts committed in foreign countries, if their acts have
jeopardized or are about to
jeopardise its safety or public order. The Court stated that the protective principle,
on the basis of which a State exercises its jurisdiction over foreigners for its own
preservation, is recognized in International Law. If such a protective jurisdiction is
not given to a sovereign State, its stability and existence itself can be shaken by
acts or things done by foreigners outside its territory and the State will be
powerless to do anything against them. Therefore it should be taken to be the basic
right of any State to protect itself from such prejudicial acts done by foreigners
outside the State by dealing with them in any manner they like.

Conclusion
18
Although sovereign immunity is in various domestic statutes proclaimed as a
general principle, subject to wide-ranging exceptions, it is, of course, itself an
exception to the general rule of territorial jurisdiction. In many instances, it has
only been with practice that it has become apparent how much more extensive the
submission to jurisdiction has become under domestic legislation Jurisdiction is a
practical authority given to a legal body to deal with legal matters by implications.

In Public International Law, the concept of jurisdiction has a strong link with
sovereignty. Jurisdiction allows State for sovereign independence which they pass
on with the global system of equal States stating the laws related to persons or
activities in which they have a legal interest. There must be friendly relations
between the States to avoid conflicts on the territorial borders. Territorial
jurisdiction and State jurisdiction plays an important role as it is very important to
follow all the rules stipulated in different provisions.
Be that as it may, the individual State assumes a main part in the overall
association despite having multilateral arrangements and brought together
arrangements. There should be cordial relations between the States to stay away
from clashes on the territorial
lines. Territorial jurisdiction and State jurisdiction assumes a significant part as it is
vital to keep every one of the principles specified in various arrangements.

Bibliography

19
1. Websites
 https://lawbhoomi.com/
 www.mu.ac.in/myweb_test/Politicals%20Science%20-%20I%20-pdf
 http://www.justice.gov.tr/e-journal/pdf/LW7081.pdf
 https://www.casemine.com/ https://www.scconline.com/
 http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-state-jurisdiction.htm

2. Books
 HO Aggarwal, Public International Law
 Prasad Mahesh Tandon Public International Law and human Rights
;reprint 2004;Allahabad Law agency.

20