The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in International Law Stephen Allen Editor Full Chapter PDF

The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in
International Law Stephen Allen (Editor)

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-jurisdiction-in-international-la
w-stephen-allen-editor/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Law Express: International Law 2nd Revised edition

Edition Stephen Allen
https://ebookmass.com/product/law-express-international-law-2nd-
revised-edition-edition-stephen-allen/
The Oxford Handbook of the Sources of International Law

Aspremont
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-sources-
of-international-law-aspremont/
The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Asia and

the Pacific Simon Chesterman (Editor)
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-
international-law-in-asia-and-the-pacific-simon-chesterman-
editor/
The Oxford Handbook of the International Law of Global

Security Robin Geiß (Editor)
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-
international-law-of-global-security-robin-geis-editor/
The Oxford Handbook of Banking, Third Edition Allen N.
Berger
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-banking-
third-edition-allen-n-berger/
The Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford International

Law Library) Salacuse
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-law-of-investment-treaties-
oxford-international-law-library-salacuse/
The Oxford Handbook of the Psychology of Competition

(Oxford Library of Psychology) Stephen M. Garcia
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-
psychology-of-competition-oxford-library-of-psychology-stephen-m-
garcia/
The Oxford Handbook of Law and Anthropology Marie-

Claire Foblets (Editor)
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-law-and-
anthropology-marie-claire-foblets-editor/
Oxford Handbook of Medical Ethics and Law Anna Smajdor
https://ebookmass.com/product/oxford-handbook-of-medical-ethics-
and-law-anna-smajdor/
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/19/2019, SPi
T h e Ox f o r d H a n d b o o k o f
J U R ISDIC T ION I N
I N T E R NAT IONA L
L AW
The Oxford Handbook of
JURISDICTION IN
INTERNATIONAL
LAW
Edited by
STEPHEN ALLEN,
DANIEL COSTELLOE,
MALGOSIA FITZMAURICE,
PAUL GRAGL,
and
EDWARD GUNTRIP
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© The Several Contributors 2019
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2019
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2019941381
ISBN 978–0–19–878614–6
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Acknowledgements
In 2015/16, Stephen Allen and Paul Gragl convened a joint seminar series dedicated to
the theme of jurisdiction involving two Queen Mary Research Centres—the Centre for
European & International Legal Affairs (CEILA) and the Centre for Law & Society in a
Global Context (CLSGC). We designed this series in a way that would assist in the devel-
opment of this project. Accordingly, many of the speakers and participants in this Series
are also contributors to this Handbook. We are grateful to all those who delivered pres-
entations and supported these events as they were instrumental in pushing this substan-
tial publishing project forward. Subsequently, on 29 November 2017, under the auspices
of CEILA, we organized a work-in-progress workshop to facilitate the development of
this Handbook. In particular, we would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor
Valsamis Mitsilegas, Head of the Law Department at Queen Mary, for generously sup-
porting these events. The editors wish to express their deep gratitude to the contributors
to this Handbook for their firm commitment to this project and for their cooperation
and collegiality in finalizing the book. Finally, we are indebted to Merel Alstein at
Oxford University Press. Her constant encouragement and support throughout the
entire process of developing this book have been vital to the success of this project.
Contents
Table of Casesxi
Table of Legislationxxi
List of Contributorsxxvii
PA RT I I N T RODU C T ION
1. Introduction: Defining State Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction
in International Law 3
Stephen Allen, Daniel Costelloe, Malgosia Fitzmaurice,
Paul Gragl, and Edward Guntrip
PA RT I I H I S TORY
2. The Beginnings of State Jurisdiction in International
Law until 1648 25
Kaius Tuori
3. The Lotus Case in Context: Sovereignty, Westphalia, Vattel,

and Positivism40
Stéphane Beaulac
4. The European Concept of Jurisdiction in the Colonies 59

Nurfadzilah Yahaya
5. Immanuel Kant and Jurisdiction in International Law 81

Stephan Wittich
PA RT I I I T H E ORY
6. Navigating Diffuse Jurisdictions: An Intra-State Perspective 99
Helen Quane
7. Jurisdictional Pluralism 121

Paul Schiff Berman
viii contents
8. Deepening the Conversation between Socio-Legal Theory

and Legal Scholarship about Jurisdiction 161
Mariana Valverde
9. Critical Approaches to Jurisdiction and International Law 182

Shaun McVeigh
PA RT I V G E N E R A L I N T E R NAT IONA L L AW
10. Cosmopolitan Jurisdiction and the National Interest 209
Cedric Ryngaert
11. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State in International Law 228

Paul Gragl
12. The Establishment, Change, and Expansion of Jurisdiction

through Treaties251
Dino Kritsiotis
13. Territoriality and Globalization 300

Uta Kohl
14. Private Interests and Private Law Regulation in

Public International Law Jurisdiction 330
Alex Mills
15. Jurisdiction and State Responsibility 355

Kimberley N. Trapp
16. Enforcing Criminal Jurisdiction in the Clouds and International

Law’s Enduring Commitment to Territoriality 381
Stephen Allen
PA RT V C ON T E X T UA L I Z I N G J U R I SDIC T ION :
SU B STA N T I V E A N D I N S T I T U T IONA L I S SU E S
17. The ‘J’ Word: Driver or Spoiler of Change in Human Rights Law? 413
Wouter Vandenhole
18. International Investment Law, Hybrid Authority, and Jurisdiction 431

Edward Guntrip
contents ix
19. Conceptions of State Jurisdiction in the Jurisprudence of

the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court
of International Justice 455
Daniel Costelloe
20. The Evolving Nature of the Jurisdiction of the Security Council:

A Look at Twenty-First-Century Practice 481
Blanca Montejo and Georg Kerschischnig
21. International Criminal Jurisdiction 504

Kirsten Schmalenbach
22. Jurisdiction and International Territorial Administration 529

James Summers
Index 553
Table of Cases
International Cases
Ad Hoc Arbitration
Republic of Italy v Republic of Cuba, Interim Award, 15 March 2005; Final Award,
15 January 2008 ��449
Court of Justice of the European Union

Ahlström v Commission (Woodpulp Case), Case C-89/85, [1993] ECR I-0130 �� 346
Air Transport Association of America et al. v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate
Change, Case C-366/10, [2011] ECR I-13755, ECLI:EU:C:2011:864��18, 210–11
Commission and Others v Kadi, Case C-584/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:518 (Kadi II)��501
ICI Ltd v Commission, Case 48/69, EU:C:1972:70 �� 399
Kadi and Al Barakaat v Council and Commission, Joined Cases C-402/05 and C-415/05,
[2008] ECR I-6351�� 247
Owusu v Jackson, Case C-281/02, [2005] ECR I-1383�� 315, 317
Owusu v Jackson, Case C-281/02, [2005] ECR I-1386 (Opinion of Advocate
General Léger)��317, 322
Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd, Case C-619/10, EU:C:2012:531 346
ECOWAS Court of Justice

Hissène Habré v Republic of Senegal, Case No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/10, 18 November 2010�� 292
European Commission of Human Rights

Stocké v Germany, no. 11755/85��362, 368, 370, 371, 372, 376, 378
European Court of Human Rights

Al-Adsani v The United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, 21 November 2001 ��232, 238, 243, 244, 365
Al-Skeini and Others v The United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, 7 July 2011,
(2011) 53 EHRR 18 �� 392, 418, 419, 420, 423, 424, 547
Andreou v Turkey, no. 45653/99, 27 October 2009��421
Appleby and Others v The United Kingdom, no. 44306/98 (2003), 37 EHRR 38 �� 100
Associazione Nazionale Reduci and 275 Others v Germany, no. 45563/04,
4 September 2007 ��233
Banković and Others v Belgium and Others, [GC], no. 52207/99,
12 December 2001 �� 414, 417, 418, 424, 546
Behrami v France; and Saramati v France, Germany and Norway, no. 78166/01,
2 May 2007�� 546, 547
Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Ireland, [GC], no. 45036/98,
30 June 2005�� 546
xii table of cases
Catan and Others v The Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and
18454/06, 19 October 2012 ��418, 545
Chiragov and Others v Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, 16 June 2015��418, 421
Colozza v Italy, 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89 �� 344
Cudak v Lithuania, no. 15869/02, 23 March 2010��232
Cyprus v Turkey, no. 25781/94, 10 May 2001��545
Dušan Berić and Others v Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 36357/04, 36360/04, 38346/04,
41705/04, 45190/04, 45578/04, 45579/04, 45580/04, 91/05, 97/05, 100/05, 101/05,
1121/05, 1123/05, 1125/05, 1129/05, 1132/05, 1133/05, 1169/05, 1172/05, 1175/05, 1177/05,
1180/05, 1185/05, 20793/05 and 25496/05, 16 October 2007�� 546
Fogarty v The United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, 21 November 2001��232
Golder v The United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18,
[1975] 1 EHRR 524��336
Grosz v France, no. 14717/06, 16 June 2009 ��232
Handyside v The United Kingdom, no. 5493/72, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24�� 468
Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, 2012-II 97��417
Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, 8 July 2004 ��425, 545
Ilaz Kasumaj v Greece, no. 6974/05, 5 July 2007 �� 546
Jaloud v The Netherlands [GC], no. 47708/08, 20 November 2014�� 419, 420, 421, 426, 547
Jorgic v Germany, no. 74613/01, 12 July 2007 �� 211
Kalogeropoulou and Others v Greece and Germany, no. 59021/00,
12 December 2002�� 234
Loizidou v Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310 ��421
Loizidou v Turkey (merits), 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1996-V��545
Matthews v The United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, 18 February 1999�� 546
McElhinney v Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, 21 November 2001��232
Medvedyev and Others v France, no. 3394/03, 10 July 2008��418
Mozer v The Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, 23 February 2016��418
Naït-Liman v Switzerland [GC], no. 51357/07, 15 March 2018 ��95, 343
Öcalan v Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, 12 May 2005 �� 362, 367, 368, 371, 372, 374, 379, 417
Ould Dah v France no. 13113/03, 17 March 2009 ��362
Pisari v The Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 42139/12, 21 April 2015��420
Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v Turkey [GC], nos. 41340/98 and 3 others ��107
Ringeisen v Austria (Interpretation), no. 2614/65, 23 June 1972, Series A no. 16��510
Sabeh El Leil v France [GC], no. 34869/05, 29 June 2011 ��232
Sargsyan v Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, 16 June 2015 �� 425, 426
Slavisa Gajic v Germany, no. 31446/02, 28 August 2007�� 546
Waite and Kennedy v Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, 18 February 1999�� 548
Wallishauser v Austria, no. 156/04, 17 July 2012��232
General Court of the European Union

Kadi v Commission, Case T-315/01, [2005] ECR II-3649�� 245, 247, 248, 501, 502
Human Rights Advisory Panel

Agim Behrami v UNMIK (Decision on Admissibility), Case No. 24/08, 17 October 2008�� 549
Kadri Balaj and Others v UNMIK (Decision on Admissibility), Case No. 04/07,
6 June 2008�� 549
table of cases xiii
31 March 2010��550
11 May 2012��550
Kadri Balaj and Others v UNMIK (Opinion), Case No. 04/07, 27 February 2015��550
Olga Lajović v UNMIK (Decision on Admissibility), Case No. 09/08, 16 July 2008�� 549
Human Rights Committee

Basem Ahmed Issa Yassin and Others v Canada, App. No. 2285/2013, 26 October 2017
(adm), UN Doc. CCPR/C/120/D/2285/2013 �� 422
Brief of the Government of Canada as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent
(Alvarez-Machain) (1992) 31 ILM 921 �� 367, 375
Domukovsky and Others v Georgia (29 May 1998), UN Doc. CCPR/C/62/D/623/1995��367
López Burgos v Uruguay, App. No. 52/1979, 29 July 1981, UN Doc. CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979 �� 422
Mohammad Munaf v Romania, App. No. 1539/2006, 13 July 2009, UN Doc. CCPR/C/96/
DR/1539/2006�� 422
Sergio Euben Lopez Burgos v Uruguay (29 July 1981), UN Doc. A/36/40 (1981) �� 367, 378
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights

Franklin Guillermo Aisalla Molina and Ecuador v Colombia, Report no. 112/10 ��415, 417, 423, 424
Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Coard and Others v United States, Report No. 109/99, 29 September 1999��415
Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua, Series C No. 79, 31 August 2001 �� 106
Norín Catrimán and Others v Chile, Series C No. 279, 29 May 2014��363
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22,
Award, 24 July 2008��444
Luchetti v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4, Award on Jurisdiction,
7 February 2005��449
SAUR International SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4, Decision on
Jurisdiction and Liability, 6 June 2012 ��444
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA and Interagua Servicios Integrales
de Agua SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/17, Decision on Liability,
30 July 2010��444
Urbaser SA and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Biskaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v
Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award, 8 December 2016�� 444, 445, 446
International Court of Justice

Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in
respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 22 July 2010, [2010] ICJ Rep. 403 ��56, 57
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey), [1978] ICJ Rep. 3�� 463
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v Iran) Judgment, 22 July 1952, [1952] ICJ Rep. 93�� 468
Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations
Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 (Advisory Opinion) [1988] ICJ Rep. 12 �� 247
xiv table of cases
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide

(Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007,
[2007] ICJ Rep. 43�� 111, 265, 266
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic
Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 3 February 2006,
[2006] ICJ Rep. 6�� 245
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium),
Judgment, 14 February 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 3�� 57, 223, 229, 232, 273, 274, 279,
283, 291, 297, 358, 474, 477
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. Ltd (Belgium v Spain), Judgment,
5 February 1970, [1970] ICJ Rep. 3�� 93, 349, 467
Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17 paragraph 2, of the Charter),
Advisory Opinion, 20 July 1962, [1962] ICJ Rep. 151�� 520
Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v France),
Judgment, 4 June 2008, [2008] ICJ Rep. 177 �� 232, 479
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v Albania), Judgment (Merits), 9 April 1949,
[1949] ICJ Rep. 4 �� 56, 458
Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of
the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, 29 April 1999, [1999]
ICJ Rep 62�� 544
Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the UN Administrative Tribunal, Advisory
Opinion, 13 July 1954, [1954] ICJ Rep. 47 ��507, 520
Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), Judgment, 25 September 1997,
[1997] ICJ Rep. 7��363
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, First Phase,
Advisory Opinion, 30 March 1950, [1950] ICJ Rep. 65��464–5
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy; Greece Intervening), Judgment,
3 February 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 99�� 15, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238,
239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 248, 479
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, [2004] ICJ Rep. 136 �� 246, 416
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996,
[1996] ICJ Rep. 226 ��55, 56, 474, 475
Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion,
8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ�� 509
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain
(Qatar v Bahrain), Judgment, 16 March 2001, [2001] ICJ Rep. 40 ��17
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States
of America), Judgment, 27 June 1986, [1986] ICJ Rep. 14��55, 187, 309, 363, 456
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark;
Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, 20 February 1969,
[1969] ICJ Rep. 3 �� 55, 265, 359
Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v UK), Judgment (Preliminary Objections),
2 December 1963, [1963] ICJ Rep. 15��510
Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), Judgment (Preliminary Objections),
18 November 1953, [1953] ICJ Rep. 111�� 506
Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) Second Phase, Judgment,
6 April 1955, [1955] ICJ Rep. 4 �� 6
Nuclear Tests (Australia v France), Judgment, 20 December 1974, [1974] ICJ Rep. 253��510
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal),
Judgment 20 July 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 422��233, 292, 416
table of cases xv
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion,
11 April 1949, [1949] ICJ Rep. 174�� 459
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1951, [1951] ICJ Rep. 15 �� 265
Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v India), Judgment (Preliminary
Objections), 26 November 1957, [1957] ICJ Rep. 125��466
International Criminal Court

Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the
Statute (Myanmar case), ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18, ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I,
6 September 2018��514, 526
Prosecutor v Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammad Jerbo Jamus,
ICC-02/05-03/09, ICC Trial Chamber IV, 26 October 2012 ��510, 511
Prosecutor v Jean Pierre Bemba Combo and Others, ICC-01/05-01/13 A6 A7 A8 A9,
Appeals Chamber, 8 March 2018��511
Prosecutor v Kony, Decision on the admissibility of the case under Article 19(1) of the
Statute, ICC–02/04–01/05–377, ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II, 10 March 2009�� 512
Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06, Appeals Chamber,
1 December 2014 �� 524
Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-02/17, Pre-Trial Chamber,
12 April 2019�� 526
International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia

Prosecutor v Dragan Nikoli, Case No. IT-94-2, 18 Dec 2003�� 369, 379
Prosecutor v Fatmir Limaj, Haradin Bala, Isak Musliu, Case No. IT-03-66-T,
30 November 2005�� 538, 539
Prosecutor v Milan Milutinović and Others, Case No. IT-05-87-T, 26 February 2009 �� 538, 539
Prosecutor v Milosevic, Decision on Preliminary Motions, IT-02–54, Appeals Chamber,
8 November 2001�� 518
Prosecutor v Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj, Lahi Brahimaj, Case No. IT-04-84-T,
3 April 2008 ��538
Prosecutor v Slobodan Milosević, Milan Milutinović, Nikola Sainović, Dragoljub
Ojdanić and Vlajko Stojiljković, Indictment, Case No. IT-99–37, 22 May 1999�� 538, 539
Prosecutor v Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal
on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, ICTY Appeals Chamber,
2 October 1995�� 511, 514, 518, 519, 520
Prosecutor v Vlastimir Dordević, Case No. IT-05.87/1-T, 23 February 2011 ��538
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

Prosecutor v Kanyabashi, Decision on Jurisdiction, Case No. ICTR-96-15-T,
8 June 1997 ��519
League of Nations
Åland Islands dispute (1921)��461
North American Free Trade Agreement

Thunderbird Gaming Corp. v United Mexican States, Award of 26 January 2006�� 468
xvi table of cases
Permanent Court of Arbitration

Island of Palmas (Netherlands v United States of America), (1928)
2 RIAA 829�� 42, 384, 457
Republic of Ecuador v United States of America, PCA Case No. 2012–05��449
Permanent Court of International Justice

Diversion of Water from the River Meuse (Netherlands v Belgium), [1937] PCIJ
Series A/B No. 70��223
Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Belgium v Bulgaria), Preliminary Objection,
[1939] PCIJ Series A/B, No. 77��466
Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations (Lausanne Convention VI, January 30th, 1923,
Article 2), Advisory Opinion, [1925] PCIJ Series B, No. 10��464
Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube between Galatz and Braila,
Advisory Opinion, [1927] PCIJ Series B, No. 14 ��460
Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v Norway), [1933] PCIJ Series A/B, No. 53�� 42
Losinger & Co. (Switzerland v Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objection, Order, [1936]
PCIJ Series A/B No. 67�� 465
Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (Advisory Opinion), [1924]
PCIJ Series B, No. 4�� 356, 461, 462, 463, 464, 467, 468
SS ‘Lotus’ (France v Turkey), [1927] PCIJ Series A, No. 10�� 6, 7, 10, 16, 20, 40–2,
47–55, 56, 57, 84, 174, 178, 257, 258, 259, 260, 308, 356,
357, 365, 382, 385, 468–74, 475, 476, 477, 516, 530
SS ‘Wimbledon’ (United Kingdom and Others v Germany), [1923] PCIJ
Series A, No. 1�� 459
Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder,
[1929] PCIJ Series A, No. 23��460
Special Court for Sierra Leone

Prosecutor v Charles Ghankay Taylor, Case No. SCSL-2003-01-I, Appeals Chamber
31 May 2004 �� 522, 523
Prosecutor v Gbao, Case No. SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E), Decision on Preliminary Motion
on the Invalidity of the Agreement Between the United Nations and the Government
of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of the Special Court, Appeals Chamber,
25 May 2004��522
Prosecutor v Kallon and Kamara, Case Nos. SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E) and SCSL-2004-16-
AR72(E), Decision on Challenge to Jurisdiction: Lomé Accord Amnesty, Appeals
Chamber, 13 March 2004 ��522
Prosecutor v Kallon, Constitutionality and Lack of Jurisdiction, Case No. SCSL-2004-15-
AR72(E) et al, Special Court for Sierra Leone, Appeals Chamber, 13 March 2004��514
Prosecutor v Moinina Fofana, Case No. SCSL-2004-14-AR72(E), Appeals Chamber,
25 May 2004��522
Prosecutor v Norman and Others, Decision on Prosecution Appeal Against the
Trial Chamber’s Decision of 2 August 2004 Refusing Leave to File an Interlocutory
Appeal, Case No. SCSL-04-14-T, Special Court for Sierra Leone, Appeals Chamber,
17 January 2005 ��511
Special Panels for Serious Crimes, East Timor

Prosecutor v Joao Fernandez, Case No. 01/00/C.G.2000, 25 January 2000��541
table of cases xvii
Special Tribunal for Lebanon

Ayyash and Others, Decision on the Defence Challenges to the Jurisdiction and Legality
of the Tribunal, STL-11–01/PT/TC, Trial Chamber, 27 July 2012 ��519
Ayyash and Others, Decision on the Defence Appeals against the Trial Chamber’s
Decision on the Defence Challenges to the Jurisdiction and Legality of the Tribunal,
STL-11-O1/PT/AC/AR90.1, Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Appeals Chamber,
24 October 2012�� 514, 519, 520
Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide,
Perpetration, Cumulative Charging, STL-11-01/I, Special Tribunal for Lebanon,
Appeals Chamber, 16 February 2011�� 521
Prosecutor v El-Sayed, Decision on Appeal of Pre-Trial Judge’s Order regarding
Jurisdiction and Standing, Case No. CH/AC/2010/02, Appeals Chamber,
10 November 2010�� 510, 511, 514
World Trade Organisation

United States—Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting
Services, WTO Appellate Body, 7 April 2005 WT/DS285/AB/R �� 302
National Cases
Argentina
Corte Suprema de Justicia, 14/6/2005, ‘Simón, Julio Héctor y otros s/ privación
ilegítima de la libertad,’ causa No. 17.768, S.1767.XXXVIII ��156
Austria
Hoffmann v Dralle, Austrian Supreme Court, 1 Ob 171/50, 10 May 1950�� 230
Belgium
Yahoo!, Court of Cassation, Case No. P13.2082.N/1, Judgment,
1 December 2015�� 17, 383, 388, 395, 401
Canada
Reference re Secesssion of Quebec [1998] 2 Supreme Court Report 217 �� 56
East Timor
Prosecutor v Armando dos Santos, Case No. 16/2001, 15 July 2003
(Court of Appeal) ��536
France
Procureur Général v X.; General Prosecutor v X. (Wenceslas Munyeshyaka), Cour de
Cassation, Chambre Criminelle, Case No. 96-82491, 6 January 1998�� 222
Re Argoud, Cour de Cassation, Chambre Criminelle, 4 June 1964,
(1965) 45 ILR 90��368, 377
xviii table of cases
Germany
Distomo Massacre, III ZR 245/98, BGHZ 155, 279, 26 June 2003 �� 234
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft von Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide
und Futtermittel, BVerfGE 37, 271, 2 BvL 52/71, 29 May 1974, [1974]
CMLR 540 (Solange I) ��248–9, 508
Iranische Botschaft, BVerfGE 16, 27; 30 April 1963 �� 230
Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft, Re, BVerfGE 73, 339, 22 October 1986 (Solange II) �� 249
Greece
Margellos and Others v Federal Republic of Germany, Case No. 6/2002,
17 September 2002��239
Prefecture of Voiotia v Federal Republic of Germany, Case No. 11/2000, 4 May 2000 ��234, 238
Israel
Government of Israel v Adolph Eichmann, 36 IRL 5, (Dist. Court Jerusalem), affirmed 36 ILR 277
(Supreme Court)��192, 194, 199, 268, 269, 270,
295, 296, 368, 512
Honigman v Attorney General (1951) ILR 542�� 268
Italy
Ferrini v Federal Republic of Germany, Decision No. 5044/2004, 11 March 2004�� 233, 238
Mantelli and Others v Federal Republic of Germany, Order No. 14201/2004, 29 May 2008��233
Netherlands
Netherlands v Nuhanovic, Decision No. 12/03324, 6 September 2013 (Supreme Court)�� 230
New Zealand
R v Hartley [1978] 2 NZLR 199�� 368
South Africa
National Commissioner of The South African Police Service v Southern African Human
Rights Litigation Centre and Another (CCT 02/14) [2014] ZACC 30; 2015 (1) SA 315
(CC); 2015 (1) SACR 255 (CC) (30 October 2014)�� 219, 221
(Supreme Court) State v Beahan, 1992 (1) SACR 307 (A)�� 370
State v Ebrahim, 1991 (2) SA 553�� 370
United Kingdom
AAA and Others v Unilever plc and Another [2017] EWHC 371�� 313
AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd and Others (Known as Altimo) [2011]
4 All ER 1027 �� 324
Atlantic Star, The [1974] AC 436�� 315
Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior SNC v Empresa de Telecomunicationes de Cuba SA
[2007] EWCA Civ. 622�� 346
Belhaj v Straw [2017] UKSC 3��343
Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2017]
UKSC 62�� 340
table of cases xix
Bodo Community and Others v Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd
[2014] EWHC 1973 (TCC)�� 320
Brabo, The [1949] AC 326�� 324
Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping Corp. [1981]
1 All ER 289��510
Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 ��314
Carvill America Inc. v Camperdown UK Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ. 645�� 324
Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ. 525�� 314, 317, 322, 325
Cherney v Deripaska [2008] EWHC 1530�� 324
Citigroup Global Markets Ltd v Amatra Leveraged Feeder Holdings Ltd [2012]
EWHC 1331 (Comm)�� 353
Colt Industries Inc. v Sarlie [1966] 1 WLR 440 (QB) �� 370
Connelly v Director of Public Prosecution [1964] 2 AC 1254��510
Connelly v RTZ Corp. [1998] AC 854; (1999) CLC 533��314, 315, 340
Harding v Wealands [2006] UKHL 32 ��352
Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd, Re [1992] Ch. 72�� 317
Holliday v Musa [2010] EWCA Civ. 335 �� 349
Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, ex parte Bennett (No. 1) [1993] UKHL 10�� 370
Huntington v Attrill [1893] AC 150 �� 344
Jones v Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26�� 236, 242, 245, 343, 366
Lloyds Register of Shipping v Campenon [1995] ECR I 961��350
Lubbe v Cape plc [2000] UKHL 41�� 314, 316, 317
Lungowe and Others v Vedanta Resources plc and Another [2016]
EWHC 975��313, 318, 323, 324, 328
Lungowe and Others v Vedanta Resources plc and Another [2017] EWCA Civ. 1528�� 313, 318
MacLeod v Attorney General for New South Wales (1891) AC 455�� 308
MacShannon v Rockware Glass Ltd [1978] AC 795�� 315
Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein [1972] 2 QB 283�� 344
Mark v Mark [2006] 1 AC 98 �� 349
Messier-Dowty Ltd v Sabena SA [2000] EWCA Civ. 48�� 353
Ministry of Defence for Iran v Faz Aviation [2007] EWHC 1042 (Comm)�� 347
Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd v Petroleos De Venezuela SA [2008] EWHC 532 (Comm)�� 346
Motorola Credit Corp v Uzan (No. 6) [2003] EWCA Civ. 752�� 346
Ngcobo v Thor Chemicals Holdings Ltd and Others (January 1996, Unreported)��314
Nicholas Fuller's Case, 77 Eng Rep 1322 (KB 1607)�� 140
Okpabi and Others v Royal Dutch Shell plc and Another [2017] EWHC 89�� 313, 315, 319, 323
Okpabi and Others v Royal Dutch Shell plc and Another (Rev 1) [2018] EWCA Civ. 191 ��313, 322
Prohibitions del Roy, 77 Eng Rep 1342 (KB 1607) �� 140
R (Al-Jedda) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 58 ��361
R v Bernard (1858), 1 F&F 240 ��219
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte
(Amnesty International Intervening) (No. 3) [2000] 1 AC 147; (1999)
2 All ER 97 �� 156, 217, 236, 293, 295, 296
R v Keyn (The Franconia) (1876) LR 2 Ex D 63��219, 473
R v Officer Commanding Depot Battalion, RASC, Colchester, ex parte Elliott [1949]
1 All ER 373�� 368
R v Serva (1845), 1 Den 104, 169 ER 169��219
Serdar Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2017] UKSC 2 �� 371
Shindler v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster [2016] EWCA Civ. 469��336
Sinclair v HM Advocate (1890) 17 R(J) 38�� 368
Spiliada, The [1987] AC 460�� 340
Spiliada Maritime Corp. v Cansulex Ltd [1986] UKHL 10�� 315
xx table of cases
Susannah Scott, Ex parte (1829) 9 B&C 446 : 109 ER 106�� 368

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v Manterfield [2009] EWCA Civ. 27�� 344
Vedanta Resources plc and Another v Lungowe and Others
[2019] UKSC 20��313, 318, 325, 328, 340
Vishva Ajay, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 558 �� 340
VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp. [2013] 2 AC 337 ��319
YL v Birmingham City Council [2008] 1 AC 95 ��111
United States
Alabama Great Southern Railroad v Carroll, 11 So 803 (1892)�� 135
Alexander Murray, Esq. v the Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 US 64 (1804); (1804) 6 US
(2 Cranch), 64 ��333, 402
Appollon, The, 22 US 362 (1824)�� 333
Babcock v Jackson, 191 NE 2d 279 (NY 1963)�� 135
Coleman’s Appeal, 75 Pa 441 (1874)�� 132
Demjanjuk v Petrovsky (1985) 603 F Supp. 1468; affirmed 776 F 2d 571�� 296
F. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd v Empagran SA, 542 US 155�� 215, 216, 310, 311
Filártiga v Peña-Irala, 630 F 2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980)�� 220
Ga High Sch Ass’n v Waddell, 285 SE 2d 7 (Ga 1981)��148
International Shoe Co. v Washington 326 US 310 (1945) ��134
Jesner v Arab Bank, 584 US (2018)�� 312
Kadic v Karadzic, 70 F 3d 232 (2d Cir.1995) �� 220
Ker v Illinois, 119 US 436 (1888)�� 368
Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct 1659 (2013) �� 215, 216, 217, 220,
221, 312, 338, 342
Medellín v Texas, 552 US 491, 128 S. Ct 1346 (2008) �� 247
Microsoft v United States, No. 14-1985 (2d Cir. 2016) Judgment, 16–19�� 388
Morrison v National Australian Bank Ltd, 561 US 247 (2010)��211, 213, 215, 308, 310, 311, 333, 403, 404
Pasquantino v United States, 544 US 349�� 213
Pennoyer v Neff, 95 US 714 (1877)�� 131, 132, 134
People v Moua, No. 315972 (Cal. Super. Ct 1985)��126
PGA Tour, Inc. v Martin, 532 US 661 (2001)��148
Piper Aircraft Co. v Reyno, 454 US 235 (1981) �� 315
Princz v Federal Republic of Germany, 26 F 3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1994)��241
Riley v California (2014) 134 S. Ct 2473�� 386
RJR Nabisco, Inc. v European Community, 136 S. Ct 2090 (2016) ��404
The Schooner Exchange v McFaddon, 11 US 116 (1812)�� 230
Ultramares Corp. v Touche (1931) 174 NE 441 ��326
Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster, In re, 809 F 2d 195 (2d Cir. 1987) ��316
United Phosphorus, Ltd v Angus Chemical Co., 322 F 3d 942 (7th Cir. 2003) �� 4
United States v Ali, 885 F Supp. 2d 17 (2012)��359
United States v Alvarez-Machain, 504 US 655 (1992) ��368, 369, 377
United States v Microsoft Corp., 584 US (2018)�� 335
United States v Microsoft Corp., Case No. 17–2 (2018)�� 17, 383, 389, 402, 404
United States v Toscanino, 500 F 2d 267 (15 May, 1974) �� 370
Wiwa v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 226 F 3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000)�� 312
Yugoslavia
Miroslav Vuckovic and Bozur Bisevac, January 2001 (District Court of Mitrovica)�� 539
Momcilo Trajkovic, 6 March 2001 (District Court of Gjila)��539
Table of Legislation
International Instruments Art 28(2)��483, 487

Art 29�� 482
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Art 30�� 482
Rights 1981 ��362 Art 34�� 484, 486, 494
American Convention on Human Rights 1969 Art 39�� 484, 493, 495, 519
Art 9��362 Art 41��495, 496, 519
Budapest Convention 2001 Art 42�� 519
Art 1(c)��388 Art 48�� 496
Art 1(d) ��388 Art 92�� 468
Art 2��394 Art 94(1) �� 247
Art 4��394 Art 99�� 488
Art 14��387 Art 103�� 361
Art 15�� 390, 392, 394 Art 105�� 542
Art 15(1)�� 390 Chicago Convention on International
Art 18��397, 398, 399, 401, 408 Civil Aviation 1944
Art 18(1)��397, 398, 402 Art 17�� 287
Art 18(1)(a) ��397, 398, 408 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Art 18(1)(b)��397, 398, 408 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988
Art 18(3)��397, 408 Art 4�� 289
Art 19�� 390, 398, 399 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Art 19(1)(a) �� 390 Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Art 19(1)(b)�� 390 Punishment 1984��15, 156, 236, 289,
Art 19(2)��390, 392, 393 293, 295, 298, 343, 362, 416, 535, 549
Art 19(3)�� 390 Preamble �� 290
Art 22�� 391 Art 1�� 294
Art 32�� 391, 392, 397, 398, 408 Art 5�� 290, 291, 292, 294
Charter of the Organization of American Art 6��292
States 1948 (OAS Charter) ��370 Art 7��292
Charter of the United Nations 1945�� 20, Art 8��291
367, 368, 369, 370, 384 Art 12��291
Chapter VI ��484, 486 Art 14(1)��342
Chapter VII�� 468, 484, 485, 486, 501, Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory
518, 522, 523, 524, 533 Labour 1930 (ILO Convention No. 29)
Art 2(1)�� 5, 468 Art 25�� 255
Art 2(4)�� 375 Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek
Art 2(7) ��309, 467, 468, 484, 485, 486, 493 and Turkish Populations (Lausanne
Art 7(1)�� 468 Convention of 30 January 1923)
Art 22�� 519 Art 2�� 464
Art 24��482, 484, 486, 493 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Art 25�� 496, 520 Discrimination Against Women 1979
Art 27(2) ��485 (CEDAW)�� 106, 109, 535, 549
xxii table of legislation
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Art VIII��262, 265

Racial Discrimination 1965 �� 535 Art IX��265
Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of Art XII��263, 265
States and their Property 2004��250 Art XIII��267
Art 12�� 235 Art XIV��265
Art 19��237 Art XV��265
Art 30(1) �� 230 Convention on the Rights of Persons
Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 with Disabilities 2006��416
Preamble��272 Convention on the Rights of the
Art 27��473 Child 1989�� 416, 535, 549
Art 28��473 Convention on the Settlement of Investment
Art 33��457 Disputes between States and Nationals of
Art 56��457 Other States 1965�� 458
Art 58(2) ��274 Convention on the Suppression of
Art 91�� 288 Unlawful Acts Against the Safety
Art 99��272 of Maritime Navigation 1988
Art 100��272 Art 6��282
Art 101��272 Art 10��282
Art 102��272 Convention respecting Conditions of Residence
Art 105�� 273, 274, 365 and Business and Jurisdiction 1923
Art 107��274 (Convention of Lausanne) �� 475
Art 108(1)��272 Art 15�� 50, 470, 471, 472
Art 109��274 Art 16��471
Art 109(1)��272 Covenant of the League of Nations 1919
Art 110��274 Article 15�� 462
Art 110(1)(a) ��274 Article 15(8)�� 461, 462, 463, 464
Art 110(1)(b)–(e)��274 European Convention for the Peaceful
Art 110(2)��274 Settlement of Disputes 1957
Art 111��274 Art 1��234
Art 117 ��272 European Convention for the Prevention of
Art 139��272 Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Art 143(3)��272 Treatment or Punishment 2004��547
Art 144(2) ��272 European Convention on Human Rights
Art 151(1)(a)��272 1950 ��341, 372, 378, 390, 395, 414,
Art 153(4)��272 416, 420, 422, 424, 425,
Art 218��211 468, 544, 549
Convention on Privileges and Immunities 1946 Art 1��357, 417, 419, 421, 547
s 2��542 Art 5�� 371
s 18 ��542 Art 5(1)�� 371, 377
s 19��542 Art 5(1)(c)��376
s 20�� 544 Art 6(1) ��232
s 22��542 Art 7��362
s 23�� 544 European Convention on State
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment Immunity 1972�� 230
of the Crime of Genocide 1948 (Genocide Art 31�� 235
Convention)�� 15, 211, 261, 280, 298, 505 Geneva Conventions 1949�� 157, 211, 263, 277,
Art I�� 262, 263, 265, 266 278, 279, 283, 284, 285,
Art III��261, 262 286, 297, 298
Art IV��262 Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration
Art V �� 262, 264, 265 of the Condition of the Wounded
Art VI��261–7, 269, 272, 512 and Sick in Armed Forces in the
Art VII��262, 265 Field 1949�� 274
table of legislation xxiii
Chapter IX��275 International Convention for the Suppression

Art 47��277 of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism 2005
Art 49��274, 275, 276, 279, 285, 286 Art 9(2)(a)��358
Art 50�� 276 International Convention for the Suppression
Art 63�� 284 of Counterfeiting Currency 1929
Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration Art 3�� 255
of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Art 8�� 255
Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces International Convention for the Suppression
at Sea 1949��274 of the Circulation of and Traffic in
Chapter VIII��275 Obscene Publications 1923
Art 48��277 Art 1�� 264
Art 50��274, 276, 279, 285, 286 Art 2�� 264
Art 51��275, 277 Art 2(1)�� 264
Art 62�� 284 International Convention on the Suppression
Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the and Punishment of the Crimes of
Treatment of Prisoners of War 1949��274 Apartheid 1973
Part VI��275 Art II ��278
Art 127��277 Art IV(a)��278
Art 129��274, 276, 279, 285, 286 Art V ��278
Art 130��275, 276 International Convention on the Suppression of
Art 142�� 284 Terrorist Bombings 1997��363
Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Art 6(2)(a)��358
Protection of Civilian Persons in International Covenant on Civil and
Time of War 1949��274 Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR)�� 390, 395,
Part IV��275 415–6, 535, 549
Art 144��277 Art 2.1�� 422
Art 146��274, 276, 279, 285, 286 Art 9(1) ��367
Art 147��275, 276 Art 14�� 336, 519
Art 158�� 284 Art 15��362
Geneva Convention on the Amelioration International Covenant on Economic,
of the Condition of the Wounded Social and Cultural Rights 1966
and Sick 1929 (ICESCR) �� 414, 416, 444,
Art 29(1)��275 452, 453, 535
Geneva Convention on the High Seas 1958 League of Nations Convention for the
Art 19��274 Prevention and Punishment of
Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Terrorism 1937�� 298
Contiguous Zone Art 1�� 264
Art 19(1)�� 288 Art 2�� 264
Hague Convention for the Suppression League of Nations Convention to Suppress the
of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft Slave Trade and Slavery 1926�� 298
1970��291, 298 Art 3�� 255
Art 1��281 Art 6�� 255
Art 2��280, 281 Montevideo Convention on the Rights
Art 4��280, 281, 282 and Duties of States 1933
Art 4(1) ��282, 287 Art 8�� 309
Art 4(2)��282 Art 9��259
Art 7��280, 281, 283 Montreal Convention for the Suppression
Art 8��282 of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of
International Convention against the Taking Civil Aviation 1971
of Hostages 1979 Art 1�� 289
Art 5(1)(d)��358 Art 5�� 289
Art 8(1)��278 Art 5(2) ��282
xxiv table of legislation
Art 7��280, 289 Art 38�� 49

Art 8��282 Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain
Optional Protocol to the Convention on Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft
the Rights of the Child on the Sale of 1963 �� 254, 280, 289
Children, Child Prostitution and Art 3�� 288
Child Pornography 2000 Art 3(1)��287
Art 4��416 Art 3(2) ��287
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions Art 4�� 288
of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Art 16(1)��287
Protection of Victims of International Treaty Between the USA and Ireland
Armed Conflicts 1977 (Protocol I) ��283 on Mutual Legal Assistance in
Art 85(1)��275 Criminal Matters 2001 ��385
Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs Treaty of Lausanne 1923
of War on Land 1899 and 1907 (Hague Art 28�� 469
Regulations) Treaty of Tordesillas 1494 ��190
Art 42��419 Treaty of Versailles 1919��460
Art 43��534 Treaty on International Penal
Rome Statute of the International Law 1889�� 253
Criminal Court 1998��250, 523, 541 Art 1��257
Preamble��297 Art 3��257
Recital 4��524 Art 6��257
Art 4(1) ��511 Treaty to Establish Uniform Rules for Private
Art 12��530 International Law 1878�� 253
Art 12(1)��524 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
Art 12(2)��526 Art 27�� 467
Art 12(2)(a)�� 525, 526 Art 34�� 509
Art 12(2)(b)�� 525 Art 53��240, 244, 245
Art 13(a)��524
Art 13(b)��524, 530
Art 17�� 158, 526 European Union
Art 17(1)��530
Art 19(1)�� 514 Treaties
Art 19(1)(a) �� 506 Charter of Fundamental Rights 2000��341
Art 26�� 240 Art 8��388
Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague
Convention for the Protection of
Regulations
Cultural Property 1999
Art 16(2)(a)��283 Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European
Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945 Parliament and of the Council on the law
Chapter II��458 applicable to non-contractual obligations
Art 36��458 [2007] OJ L 199/40 (Rome II)
Art 36(2) ��465, 466 Art. 4(2)��347
Art 38(1)�� 49 Art 15�� 352
Art 38(1)(d)�� 242 Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 of the European
Art 59��55 Parliament and of the Council of 17 June
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for 2008 on the law applicable to contractual
the Former Yugoslavia 1993 obligations [2008] OJ L 177/6 (Rome I)
Arts 2 to 5 �� 537 Art 19��350
Art 8�� 537 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European
Art 9��538 Parliament and of the Council of 12
Statute of the Permanent Court of International December 2012 on jurisdiction and the
Justice 1920 recognition and enforcement of judgments
table of legislation xxv
in civil and commercial matters [2012] OJ Germany

351/1 (Brussels I Recast)�� 317
Federal Compensation Law 1953 �� 233
Recital 23�� 353
Federal Law establishing a ‘Remembrance,
Recital 24�� 353
Responsibility and Future Foundation’
Art 7(5) ��350
2000�� 233
Art 24�� 353
Art 26��350
Art 33�� 353 Greece
Art 34�� 353 Civil Procedure Code
Art 45(1)(b)�� 340 s 923��234
Art 63�� 349
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European
Indonesia
Parliament and of the Council of 27 April
2016 on the protection of natural persons Law on Anti-Subversion��536
with regard to the processing of personal Law on Defence and Security��536
data and on the free movement of such data, Law on Mobilization and Demobilization��536
and repealing Directive 95/46/EC [2016] OJ Law on National Protection and Defence��536
L 119/1(General Data Protection Regulation) Law on National Security ��536
Art 48��406 Law on Social Organizations ��536
Penal Code ��535, 541
Directives Art 2��536
Art 3��536
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament
Art 4��536
and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on
Art 5(1)��536
the protection of individuals with regard to
the processing of personal data and on the
free movement of such data [1995] OJ L Israel
281/31 (Data Protection Directive)�� 388 Law for the Prevention and Prevention
Directive 2008/101/EC of the European and Punishment of Genocide,
Parliament and of the Council of 19 Law 5710-1950�� 267–9
November 2008 amending Directive Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment)
2003/87/EC so as to include aviation Law 1950�� 267–9
activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas s 5�� 269
emission allowance trading within the
Community [2009] OJ L 8/3 ��210
Italy
Constitution
Art 10�� 247
National Legislation Art 80�� 247
Art 87�� 247
Belgium
Law on Accession by the Italian Republic to
Act of Concerning the Punishment of the United Nations Convention on
Grave Breaches of International Jurisdictional Immunities of States and
Humanitarian Law 1993/1999 their Property, signed in New York on
Art 7�� 478 2 December 2004, as well as provisions
Code of Criminal Procedure for the amendment of the domestic legal
Art 46(a)(2)��401 order (Law 5/2013)�� 247
Art 88��392 Law on ratification of the UN Charter
(Law 848/1957)�� 247
France
Kosovo
Code of Criminal Procedure 1975
Art 689��291 Criminal Code �� 534, 552
xxvi table of legislation
Netherlands s 9�� 333

State Immunity Act 1978�� 232, 341
Civil Code�� 78
Terrorism Act 2000
Code of Civil Procedure
s 63A�� 349
Art 9��342
s 63B�� 349
s 63C�� 349
South Africa
Marriage Act 1961��115 United States
Recognition of Customary Marriages
Act 1998��115 Alien Tort Claims Act 1789��312, 338
Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data
Act 2018 (CLOUD)��17, 335, 407, 409
Spain
§ 103(a)(1) ��406
Historical Memory Law (Ley de Memoria Constitution 1783�� 134
Histórica or Ley por la que se reconocen y 4th Amendment�� 403
amplían derechos y se establecen medidas en Electronic Communications Privacy
favor de quienes padecieron persecución o Act 1986�� 403
violencia durante la Guerra Civil), Law Title II �� 402
52/2007 of 16 December��225 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976��232
Requirement of 1513 (Requerimiento) �� 60 Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements
Act 1982��310
Timor-Leste Genocide Convention Implementation
Act 1987�� 294
Decree Law No. 19/2009 to Approve the Penal Justice against Sponsors of Terrorism Act 2016
Code, 30 March 2009 �� 535 § 2040 �� 246
Penal Code �� 535 Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism
Act 1986
Turkey Chapter 113A��291
Securities Exchange Act 1934��310
Criminal Code
Sherman Antitrust Act 1890��310
Art 4��258
Stored Communications
Art 6�� 257, 258, 470, 474
Act 1986��335, 388–9, 403,
408, 409
United Kingdom § 2701��405, 406
Arbitration Act 1996��101, 105 § 2702�� 405
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132) (L. 17) § 2703�� 402, 404, 406
r 3.1(3) �� 321, 324 Torture Convention Implementation
r 3.1(6) ��345 Act 1994�� 294
Practice Direction 6B �� 321, 324, 344 Torture Prevention Act 1991
Criminal Justice Act 1988 § 1350��343
s 134 �� 293, 296
Human Rights Act 1998��341
Yugoslavia
s 6(3)(b)�� 111
Investigatory Powers Act 2016��388 Criminal Code 1977�� 535
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Arts 141–151��539
List of Contributors
Stephen Allen is a Senior Lecturer in Law at Queen Mary, University of London and a
barrister with a door tenancy at 5 Essex Court Chambers, London. His publications
include The Chagos Islanders and International Law (Hart, 2014) and Title to Territory
in International Law: A Temporal Analysis (Ashgate, 2003, with Joshua Castellino). He
has jointly edited several books including Fifty Years of the British Indian Ocean
Territory: Legal Perspectives (Springer, 2018); Reflections on the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Hart, 2011); and The Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Marine
Areas (Hart, forthcoming).
Stéphane Beaulac is a full professor (professeur titulaire) at the University of Montreal,
Canada; in 2017–2018, he was a Flaherty visiting professor at the University College
Cork, Ireland. He teaches public international law, human rights law, and comparative
constitutional law. His current research includes the law of independence (self-
determination, secession) and the national use of international law. He has published
some twenty law books and over a hundred scientific papers and articles. His work has
won prizes and has been cited by the International Court of Justice.
Paul Schiff Berman is Walter S. Cox Professor of Law at The George Washington
University Law School. His research focuses on the effect of globalization on the
interactions among legal systems. He is the author of over sixty scholarly works,
including Global Legal Pluralism: A Jurisprudence of Law Beyond Borders (Cambridge
University Press, 2012). He is also co-author of a leading casebook on internet law and
policy.
Daniel Costelloe is a counsel in the International Arbitration group at Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in London, where his practice focuses on international
disputes and public international law. His academic research explores, among other
areas, the law of treaties, state succession, international responsibility, and the history
of international law. He is the author of Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms in
International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2017).
Malgosia Fitzmaurice is Professor of Public International Law at Queen Mary,
University of London and specializes in international environmental law, the law of
treaties, indigenous peoples, and Arctic law, and has published widely on these subjects.
She is particularly interested in jurisdictional issues with respect to international
environmental law. Her latest publications include the IMLI Manual on International
Maritime Law, I: The Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press, 2014; co-edited with
xxviii list of contributors
David Attard and Norman Martinez); ‘Uniformity versus Specialisation (1): The Quest
for a Uniform Law of Inter-State Treaties’, in Christian Tams, Antonios Tzanakopoulos,
and Andreas Zimmermann (eds.), Research Handbook on the Law of Treaties (Edward
Elgar, 2014; co-authored with Panos Merkouris); and the Research Handbook on
International Environmental Law (Edward Elgar, 2012; co-edited with David Ong and
Panos Merkouris).
Paul Gragl is Reader in Public International Law and Theory at Queen Mary, University
of London. Besides jurisdiction and state immunity in international law, his research
interests include general international law, EU law, and legal theory and philosophy. He
is the author of two monographs, The Accession of the European Union to the European
Convention on Human Rights (Hart, 2013) and Legal Monism: Law, Philosophy, and
Politics (Oxford University Press, 2018).
Edward Guntrip is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Sussex. His research considers
how public international law governs economic activities undertaken in foreign
jurisdictions and in areas beyond state jurisdiction. Edward has written blogs for EJIL
Talk! and has published on these topics in various journals, including the International
and Comparative Law Quarterly.
Georg Kerschischnig currently serves at the Department of Political and Peacebuilding
Affairs of the United Nations as Political Affairs Officer in the Security Council Affairs
Division. He has mainly published on cyber-threats in the context of public international
law but has also researched and published on trade and telecommunications law as well
as on human security and the rule of law.
Uta Kohl is Professor of Commercial Law at Southampton Law School, University of
Southampton. Her research interests are internet governance, including jurisdiction in
public and private international law, and corporate governance with particular focus on
the regulation of multinational companies. She is the author of Jurisdiction and the
Internet (Cambridge University Press, 2007); Information Technology Law, 5th edn
(Routledge, 2016; co-authored with Diane Rowland and Andrew Charlesworth); and
editor of The Net and the Nation State (Cambridge University Press, 2017).
Dino Kritsiotis is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Nottingham,
where he chairs the Programme in International Humanitarian Law (Nottingham
International Law & Security Centre). His interests lie in the law of armed conflict and
the use of force, as well as the history and theory of public international law. Most
recently, with his Nottingham colleague Michael J. Bowman, he co-edited Conceptual
and Contextual Perspectives on the Modern Law of Treaties (Cambridge University
Press, 2018).
Shaun McVeigh is an Associate Professor at Melbourne Law School University of
Melbourne. He researches in the field of jurisprudence and jurisography. Along with
Shaunnagh Dorsett he is the author of Jurisdiction (Routledge, 2012). His current
research addresses the conduct of the office of jurisprudent.
list of contributors xxix
Alex Mills is Professor of Public and Private International Law in the Faculty of Laws,
University College London. His research encompasses a range of issues across public
and private international law, including international investment law and commercial
arbitration. His publications include The Confluence of Public and Private International
Law (Cambridge University Press, 2009), Party Autonomy in Private International Law
(Cambridge University Press, 2018), and (co-authored) Cheshire North and Fawcett’s
Private International Law (Oxford University Press, 2017).
Blanca Montejo is currently Senior Political Affairs Officer at the Security Council
Affairs Division of the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. In this
role, she provides advice on all aspects of the Security Council practice and procedure
and coordinates the preparation of the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council.
Whilst her current interest focuses on the Security Council, she has published on
questions relating to international dispute resolution and the international responsibility
of international organizations.
Helen Quane is a Professor of Law at the Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law,
Swansea University. Her research interests relate to issues of a normative and structural
nature in international human rights law. Recent publications address the relationship
between legal pluralism and international human rights law as well as the protection of
human rights within ASEAN states.
Cedric Ryngaert is Chair of Public International Law at Utrecht University. Among
other publications, he authored Jurisdiction in International Law, 2nd edn (Oxford
University Press, 2015) and Unilateral Jurisdiction and Global Values (Eleven, 2015), and
co-edited with Math Noortmann and August Reinisch, Non-State Actors in International
Law (Hart, 2015), Non-State Actor Responsibilities (Brill, 2015), and The International
Prosecutor (Oxford University Press, 2012). For his work on jurisdiction, he received
the Prix Henri Rolin (2012).
Kirsten Schmalenbach is Professor of International and European Law at the Paris
Lodron University of Salzburg in Austria. Previously, she was Professor at the University
of Graz (Austria) and Bayreuth (Germany). Her research covers, inter alia, the law of
international organizations, international criminal law, and international liability law;
she is editor of the Commentary Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn
(Springer, 2018, with Oliver Dörr).
James Summers lectures in international law at Lancaster University. He is the author
of Peoples and International Law, 2nd edn (Nijhoff, 2014) and edited Kosovo: A Precedent
(Nijhoff, 2011), Contemporary Challenges to the Laws of War (Cambridge University
Press, 2014, with Nigel White and Caroline Harvey/Kittelmann), and Non-State Actors
and International Obligations (Nijhoff, 2018, with Alex Gough).
Kimberley N. Trapp is an Associate Professor of Public International Law at University
College London, Faculty of Laws. Kimberley has published in leading academic
journals and edited collections on issues relating to the jus ad bellum, state responsibility,
xxx list of contributors
the interaction between international humanitarian law and terrorism suppression,

and the settlement of international disputes.
Kaius Tuori is Professor of European Intellectual History at the University of Helsinki,
Finland. A scholar of legal history involved in research projects on the understanding
of tradition, culture, identity, memory, and the uses of the past, he is the author of The
Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication (Oxford University
Press, 2016) and Lawyers and Savages: Ancient History and Legal Realism in the Making
of Legal Anthropology (Routledge, 2014).
Mariana Valverde is a Professor at the Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies at
the University of Toronto. Her fields of study are the legal regulation of sexuality, socio-
legal theory, historical sociology, and urban governance and law. Her books include:
Sex, Power, and Pleasure (Women’s Press, 1985); The Age of Light, Soap, and Water: Moral
Reform in English Canada 1880s–1920s (University of Toronto Press, 1991); Diseases of
the Will: Alcohol and the Dilemmas of Freedom (Cambridge University Press, 1998);
Law’s Dream of a Common Knowledge (Princeton University Press, 2003); Law and Order:
Signs, Meanings, Myths (Routledge, 2006); Everyday Law on the Street: City Governance in
an Age of Diversity (University of Chicago Press, 2012); Chronotopes of Law: Jurisdiction,
Scale, and Governance (Routledge, 2015); and Michel Foucault (Routledge, 2017).
Wouter Vandenhole holds the Chair in Human Rights at the Faculty of Law of the
University of Antwerp. He is the Director of an intensive training programme on
sustainable development and global justice offered by the Law and Development
Research Group. His research interests include children’s rights; economic, social, and
cultural rights; and the relationship between human rights law and development. His
current work focuses on the human rights obligations of foreign states and companies,
and the conceptual implications of sustainable development for human rights law.
Stephan Wittich is a Professor of Public International Law at the Department of
European, Comparative and International Law at the University of Vienna and an
Adjunct Professor at the Vienna School of International Studies. His research interests
include international procedural law, treaty law, immunities and privileges, and
international responsibility. He is a co-editor of the annual Austrian Review of
International and European Law (Brill), International Law between Universalism and
Fragmentation (Nijhoff, 2008, with Isabelle Buffard, James Crawford and Alain Pellet)
as well as International Investment Law for the 21st Century (Oxford University Press,
2009, with Christina Binder, Ursula Kriebaum, and August Reinisch); he is the author
of The Reparation of Non-Material Damage in International Law (Nijhoff, forthcoming).
Nurfadzilah Yahaya is an Assistant Professor of History at the National University of
Singapore. She specializes in legal history, colonialism, Islamic law, and the Indian
Ocean. Her forthcoming book, Fluid Jurisdictions in the Indian Ocean: Arab Diaspora
under Colonial Rule (Cornell University Press) explores how Muslims navigated
colonial legal courts in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Pa rt I
I N T RODUC T ION
Chapter 1
I n troduction
Defining State Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction
in International Law
Stephen Allen, Daniel Costelloe,

Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Paul Gragl,
and Edward Guntrip
I. Jurisdiction: First Overtures to an Elusive Concept 4

II. Jurisdiction: Why Does It Matter in International Law? 5
III. Jurisdiction in International Law: An Overview of this Book 9
III.1. History of Jurisdiction 9
III.2. Theory of Jurisdiction 11
III.3. Jurisdiction in General International Law 14
III.4. Contextualizing Jurisdiction: Selected Substantial
and Institutional Issues 17
IV. The Objective of this Handbook 21
4 Allen, Costelloe, Fitzmaurice, Gragl, and Guntrip
I. Jurisdiction: First Overtures

to an Elusive Concept
For every lawyer, regardless of whether he or she is working in domestic or international

law, ‘jurisdiction’ is a constant companion. In most cases, one seems to know intuitively
what it means—for example, where a film shows a crime scene and the arriving officer
(often from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation) tells the local sheriff:
‘You can stop your investigations now. This case is within my jurisdiction.’ Without
going into the details of US law and assessing whether such scenes are legally accurate,
jurisdiction therefore appears to be closely connected to legal power or competence.1
This means that jurisdiction as a legal concept is normative, not empirical, and it pri-
marily concerns the competence to control and alter the legal relations of those subject
to that competence through the creation and application of legal norms.2 The concept of
jurisdiction is so far unproblematic, and in the absence of further questions lawyers
seem to know what it means. Yet if pressed, one struggles to provide a comprehensive
definition,3 because ‘[j]urisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings’.4
The reason for this general lack of agreement lies in the extreme compartmentalization
of the law of jurisdiction which, in turn, stems from the nature of jurisdiction, as Cedric
Ryngaert notes on the first page of his monograph Jurisdiction in International Law.5 It
remains an abstract concept that is in constant need of application and e laboration in
particular areas of substantive and procedural law. Therefore, seeing that a full grasp of
the underlying substantive regulations is invariably required (for instance, antitrust law,
data protection law, emissions trading schemes), the substantive law specialists rather
than generalist (international) lawyers have ventured into jurisdiction.6 In the area
of antitrust jurisdiction, for instance, the sheer amount of litigation has favoured
‘the development of principles and techniques the application of which seems to be the
object of a somewhat autonomous scientific debate’.7 However, given this obvious
casuistic approach to jurisdiction, it is the general principle or a general theory of
1 Patrick Capps, Malcolm Evans, and Stratos Konstadinidis, ‘Introduction’, in Patrick Capps, Malcolm
Evans, and Stratos Konstadinidis (eds.), Asserting Jurisdiction: International and European Legal
Perspectives (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2003), xix.
2 Ibid., xix fn 1, and xix–xx; Wesley Hohfeld, ‘Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applies in
Judicial Reasoning’, Yale Law Journal 23 (1913–14): 16, 49. See also Robert Alexy, A Theory of Constitutional
Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 132–8 and 149–59.
3 Which presents an interesting analogy to St Augustine’s dictum on the nature of time in St Augustine,
Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 230 (book XI, chapter XIV):
‘What then is time? Provided that no one asks me, I know. If I want to explain it to an inquirer, I do not
know.’
4 United Phosphorus, Ltd v Angus Chemical Co., 322 F 3d 942, 948 (7th Cir. 2003).
5 Cedric Ryngaert, Jurisdiction in International Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 1.
6 Ibid., 1–2.
7 Andrea Bianchi, ‘Extraterritoriality and Export Controls: Some Remarks on the Alleged Antinomy
between European and U.S. Approaches’, German Yearbook of International Law 35 (1992): 366, 374 fn. 32.
Introduction 5
jurisdiction that is required in order to gain a meaningful insight into what ‘jurisdic-
tion’ really is.8
The first general and probably intuitive definition given here (i.e. that jurisdiction is
legal power) is plausible because this is the original etymological meaning of the word,
derived from the Latin ‘to speak the law’ (ius dicere) and the magistrate’s power ‘to
determine the law and, in accordance with it, to settle disputes concerning persons and
property within his forum (sphere of authority)’.9 The central perspective will, of course,
be ‘jurisdiction in international law’, as the title of this book suggests.10 The minimum
consensus is that jurisdiction is an element of state sovereignty (or territoriality)11—
although sceptics might then point out that this definition simply shifts the problem to
another level, namely to the similarly enigmatic concept of ‘sovereignty’ or to the notion
of ‘territoriality’. Yet, if we can accept state sovereignty as an axiomatic postulate, then
domestic laws extend only so far as the sovereignty of the state. These laws, ordinarily, do
not apply to persons, events, or conduct outside the limits of a given state’s sovereignty.12
This principle results from the sovereign equality of states,13 from which it follows that
in a world of such equally sovereign states every state has the right to shape its sovereignty
by adopting laws within its sovereign boundaries.14 Readers might have noticed that this
definition remains hopelessly circular, but it becomes more meaningful once one adds
that this principle also bars states from encroaching upon the sovereignty of other
states.15 Prima facie, international jurisdiction is, consequently, more or less congruent
with a state’s territory and its nationals. This static view of the territoriality principle is
generally unproblematic, as determining a state’s jurisdiction is merely an exercise in
demarcating its geographical borders and producing the relevant documents to prove
an individual’s nationality.
II. Jurisdiction: Why Does It Matter

in International Law?
This congruence of sovereignty and territory, however, ends once the relationship
between the two becomes dynamic and nationals of a given state move across borders.
Thus, jurisdiction becomes an issue in international law once a state adopts laws that
8 F. A. Mann, ‘The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years’, Recueil des
cours 186 (1984–III): 13, 19.
9 Joseph Plescia, ‘Conflict of Laws in the Roman Empire’, Labeo 38 (1992): 30, 32.
10 See B. J. George, ‘Extraterritorial Application of Penal Legislation’, Michigan Law Review 64 (1966):
609, 621.
11 Mann (n. 8), 20. 12 Ibid. 13 See e.g. Art. 2(1) of the UN Charter.
14 See Hessel E. Yntema, ‘The Comity Doctrine’, Michigan Law Review 65 (1966): 9, 19; Joseph H. Beale,
‘The Jurisdiction of a Sovereign State’, Harvard Law Review 36 (1923): 241.
15 Mann (n. 8), 20.
govern matters which are not purely of domestic concern.16 In this case, the extension of
jurisdiction to regulate the activities of a state’s nationals abroad under the so-called
active personality principle draws on the conception of a state as more than just territory,
namely as a group of persons, wherever located, who are subject to a common authority
that accompanies nationality.17 This kind of jurisdiction is often exercised in the field of
international family law18 and, more prominently, in criminal law, in particular to prevent
nationals from engaging in criminal activity upon return to their state of nationality and
from enjoying impunity. This type of jurisdiction is also exercised to protect a state’s
reputation from being tarnished by the conduct of its nationals abroad.19 Especially in
the latter case, the active personality principle can be regarded as compensation for the
diplomatic protection offered by the state of nationality.20 Lastly, as states often refuse to
extradite their nationals for crimes committed abroad, the active personality principle
becomes a corollary of the need to avoid impunity on the part of offenders, while the
locus delicti state might even welcome this exercise of jurisdiction by the perpetrator’s
state of nationality, as it relieves the former of the task of prosecuting the offender.21
The question of nationality is determined by domestic law, although international law
may ascertain whether such a claim of nationality by one state must be accepted by another
on the basis of the ‘genuine link’ test.22 However, Article 4 of the 2006 ILC Draft Articles
on Diplomatic Protection,23 rejecting this ‘genuine link’ test, seems to be more appropri-
ate and practically applicable in this respect, as—in our age of mass migration—this
test would exclude millions of persons. States usually limit their active personality juris-
diction to the most serious crimes, but this limitation does not seem to be required by
international law.24 In contrast, it is controversial whether the nationality of the victim
of a crime also constitutes a sufficient jurisdictional link under international law.25
Therefore, the passive personality principle is typically not accepted, because it would
amount to an encroachment upon the sovereignty of other states and thus be viewed ‘as
an excess of jurisdiction’.26
The orthodox starting point for international lawyers in assessing questions of
jurisdictional limits remains the Lotus case,27 which clarified—in paraphrased
16 Ryngaert (n. 5), 5; F. A. Mann, ‘The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law’, Recueil des cours
111 (1964–I): 1, 9.
17 Henri Donnedieu de Vabres, Les Principes modernes du droit pénal international (Paris: Sirey, 1928), 77.
18 Ibid., 80.
19 Ryngaert (n. 5), 106.
20 See Donnedieu de Vabres (n. 17), 63; Frédéric Desportes and Francis Le Gunehec, Le Nouveau Droit
Pénal, 7th edn (Paris: Economica, 2000), 328; Geoffey R. Watson, ‘Offenders Abroad: The Case for
Nationality-Based Criminal Jurisdiction’, Yale Journal of International Law 17 (1992): 41, 68.
21 Watson (n. 20), 69–70; Ryngaert (n. 5), 106–7.
22 See Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) Second Phase [1955] ICJ Rep. 4.
23 ILC Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries, Yearbook of the International
Law Commission 2006, vol. II, part two, para. 5.
24 Harvard Research on International Law, ‘Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime’,
American Journal of International Law 29 (1935): 439, 531.
25 Mann (n. 16), 39; Harvard Research on International Law (n. 24), 579.
26 Mann (n. 16), 92. See also Ryngaert (n. 5), 110–13.
27 SS Lotus (France v Turkey) [1927] PCIJ Series A, No. 10, 19.
Introduction 7
words—that ‘whatever is not explicitly prohibited by international law is permitted’.28

The judgment remains decisive,29 notwithstanding the criticism it has attracted over the
years.30 It summarizes the underlying rules of international law concerning state juris-
diction: first, jurisdiction is permissive, since, within its territory, a state may freely exercise
its jurisdiction subject only to certain rules of international law;31 and, second, jurisdiction
is prohibitive, because outside of its territory a state may exercise its jurisdiction unless
international law prohibits it from doing so.32 This finding simply reflects what has
already been said earlier in the context of the sovereign equality of states. However, the
situation becomes more complex when talking about extraterritorial jurisdiction
beyond the context of the two personality principles discussed above (e.g. where a state
purports to apply its jurisdiction in situations that do not have a genuine connection to
that state).33 Therefore, jurisdiction remains an area of international law that continues
to be underdeveloped. Alex Mills has pointed out that the problem of scrutinizing juris-
diction in international law has not received extensive scholarly attention, and the attention
it has attracted can be coalesced into a fairly ritualized account of the standard ‘heads’
of jurisdiction, based on territoriality and nationality.34
This Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in International Law is intended to be an
authoritative guide to the rapidly developing domain of state jurisdiction and jurisdic-
tion in general in international law. The book seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis
of historical, contemporary and emerging issues in the area of state jurisdiction and jur-
isdiction in general as a manifestation of state sovereignty and other forms of authority,
which is tantamount to a state’s inherent powers to affect the rights of persons, whether
by legislation, by executive decree, or through the judgment of a court in its own territory.35
Thus, the book examines what jurisdiction in international law means, and it analyses how
this concept is used by international courts as well as tribunals and international organ-
izations. The principal aim of this Handbook is, therefore, to shed light on this legal con-
cept, which is particularly prone to conflicts and overlaps, and on the increasing exercise
of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Further, the legal position became considerably more
nuanced after the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) rendered judgment
in the Lotus case.36 Consequently, the book will take up the task not only of explaining
the historical sources of international jurisdiction, but also of scrutinizing recent
developments and the legal status quo in a wide-ranging but concise inquiry. These
recent developments in particular make it necessary to reconsider both the orthodox
understanding of state jurisdiction as an element of territorial sovereignty and the role
28 An Hertogen, ‘Letting Lotus Bloom’, European Journal of International Law 26 (2016): 901, 902.
29 See e.g. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect
of Kosovo (Advisory Opinion) [2010] ICJ Rep. 403, Declaration of Judge Simma, paras. 3 and 8–9.
30 See e.g. Hersch Lauterpacht, The Function of the Law in the International Community (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2011), 102–4; and Alex Mills, ‘Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law’,
British Yearbook of International Law 84 (2014): 187, 192–4.
31 Lotus case (n. 27), paras. 46–7. 32 Ibid., para. 45.
33 See e.g. Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1994), 74.
34 Mills (n. 30), 188. 35 Beale (n. 14), 241. 36 Lotus case (n. 27), 19.
of international law in resolving problems of authority in international relations. The

need to respond to global phenomena (e.g. transnational environmental threats,37
cyber-activity,38 investment and trade practices,39 health epidemics,40 the extraterritorial
application of human rights regimes41) means that territorial and exclusive conceptions
of jurisdiction are being supplanted by extraterritorial exercises of authority.
These phenomena are now occurring to such an extent that extraterritoriality is
increasingly viewed as a starting point for the exercise of state jurisdiction, rather than
as an exception. This shift has major implications for international law, which has largely
functioned on the assumption that states possess exclusive authority within certain
spheres and that it merely performs the modest task of maintaining this exclusive, pre-
dominantly territorial, framework by resolving coordination problems.42 It is becoming
apparent from an array of international instruments and institutional initiatives being
adopted across a number of areas—from the decisions of international and national
judicial bodies and from the work of scholars in a range of fields and disciplines—that
not only are traditional approaches to state jurisdiction increasingly unable to cope
with contemporary global conditions, but also that manifestations of extraterritorial
jurisdiction escape strict categorization because of their great variations in degree.43 It is
well-known that these developments also threaten the primacy of the state as the princi-
pal actor in the international legal order. The claims of normative authority, which
accompany the exercise of jurisdiction, have also exercised legal theorists working in the
area of transnational legal pluralism44—and those interested in the sociology of law
more generally45—in their work on non-state forms of law.
Against that background, this book focuses on the ways in which international law
responds to the jurisdictional challenges which currently confront it. While there have
been important publications on specific aspects of jurisdiction in international law,
attention must also be drawn to the general absence of scholarly works that have sought
to offer a comprehensive analysis of this concept at a general level. Accordingly, the aim
of this book is to examine the topic of jurisdiction in a holistic manner and to examine
37 See e.g. An Hertogen, ‘Sovereignty as Decisional Independence over Domestic Affairs: The Dispute
over Aviation in the EU Emissions Trading System’, Transnational Environmental Law 1 (2012): 281–301.
38 See e.g. Derek J. Illar, ‘Unraveling International Jurisdictional Issues on the World Wide Web’,
University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 88 (2010): 1–16.
39 See e.g. Stephan W. Schill, The Multilateralization of International Investment Law (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2014), 173 et seq.
40 See e.g. Allyn L. Taylor, ‘Global Governance, International Health Law and WHO: Looking towards
the Future’, Bulletin of the World Health Organization 12 (2002): 975, 977–8.
41 See e.g. Hugh King, ‘The Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations of States’, Human Rights Law
Review 9 (2009): 521–56; Marko Milanovic, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011).
42 Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law (New York: Rinehart & Company, 1959), 202.
43 Harold G. Maier, ‘Jurisdictional Rules in Customary International Law’, in Karl M. Meessen (ed.),
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Theory and Practice (The Hague: Kluwer Law, 1996), 78.
44 Paul Schiff Berman, Global Legal Pluralism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012),
195–243.
45 Justin B. Richland, ‘Jurisdiction: Grounding Law in Language’, Annual Review of Anthropology 42
(2013): 209–26.
Introduction 9
the intersection and interaction between various aspects of jurisdiction (e.g. public
international law/private international law, general/special regimes, theory/practice)
with a view to providing fresh insight into the practical and theoretical function and
content of the doctrine of jurisdiction in contemporary international law.
At the same time, this book follows a decidedly critical approach: instead of blindly
applauding state sovereignty and jurisdiction as ends in themselves, the steady erosion
of which through the growing obsolescence of territorially bound political authority
(e.g. through international human rights; supranational organizations, such as the EU;
or economic globalization)46 is to be deplored,47 it sheds light not only on the current
legal status of jurisdiction in international law, but also considers its history, its potential
future, and its underlying theoretical framework in order to render this difficult concept
more accessible. It introduces into the purview of scholarship on international jurisdiction
new perspectives and angles of analysis which explore how this specific field of law has
developed and how it is applied in both international and domestic courts. In this con-
text, this book certainly takes into account the past and present law of jurisdiction, but it
does not merely rehearse this field: rather, it is directed towards investigating the steady
transformation of one of the most basic principles of international law from exclusivity
to flexibility. In the end, this Handbook shows that the rules and principles of jurisdiction
in international law must be reimagined, simply because the traditional framework
of public international law which is only concerned with state rights has changed. Today,
jurisdiction on the international plane must rather be thought of as a combination of
state rights and obligations in relation to individual rights, which reflects the more
complex reality of contemporary international law.48
III. Jurisdiction in International Law:

An Overview of this Book
III.1. History of Jurisdiction

As illustrated in this book, jurisdiction in modern international law is closely connected
with the territoriality principle, which represents the basis of jurisdiction most often
invoked in international law. This, however, has not always been the case. In order to
46 Alfred van Staden and Hans Vollaard, ‘The Erosion of State Sovereignty: Towards a Post-Territorial
World?’, in Gerard Kreijen et al. (eds.), State, Sovereignty, and International Governance (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002), 67.
47 See especially for the case of the United Kingdom and the European Convention on Human Rights:
Samantha Besson, ‘The Reception Process in Ireland and the United Kingdom’, in Helen Keller and Alec
Stone Sweet (eds.), A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2008), 49–52.
48 Mills (n. 30), 235.
understand how the principle of jurisdiction developed, Part II of this Handbook

thoroughly investigates the historical roots of jurisdiction in international law. This
account will demonstrate that territoriality constitutes a rather novel basis for exercising
jurisdiction, which did not become prominent until the ascendance of sovereign nation
states after 1648,49 and even then, could not be universally applied.
In his chapter ‘The Beginnings of State Jurisdiction in International Law until 1648’,
Kaius Tuori examines the evolution of sovereignty, universal jurisdiction and state
authority prior to the existence of the Westphalian international legal order. Tuori
challenges the notion that jurisdiction prior to the introduction of modern-day states
was solely based on the personality principle. Rather, he argues that the foundations of
modern jurisdiction are present in Roman and medieval jurisdictional practices. By
developing three case studies to support his argument, Tuori provides a more nuanced
understanding of how Roman law was reinterpreted to form the foundations of modern
international law. Therefore, this chapter presents an alternative historical perspective
based on a fresh reading of historical practices.
A historical account of jurisdiction in international law also necessarily covers the
inception of the modern notion of jurisdiction, which is best exemplified by the above-
mentioned judgment of the PCIJ in the Lotus case and its main proposition that the
principle of jurisdiction entitles states to do whatever is not prohibited by international
law.50 Stéphane Beaulac addresses the significance of the Lotus case from a jurisdic-
tional perspective in ‘The Lotus Case in Context: Sovereignty, Westphalia, Vattel, and
Positivism’. Beaulac situates the Lotus case in its historical context by considering the
influence of the Westphalian legal order and Vattel’s understanding of state sovereignty
on the Court’s judgment. He argues that the influence of both of these frameworks sup-
ports the positivistic stance taken by the PCIJ in this decision, which remains present in
the more recent jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). By examining
the legacy of the Lotus case, Beaulac’s chapter draws our attention to the theoretical
assumptions that underpin state sovereignty and jurisdiction in international law.
In ‘The European Concept of Jurisdiction in the Colonies’, Nurfadzilah Yahaya
critiques the operation of jurisdiction when applied outside of its European origins.
Yahaya examines the application of a territorially focused approach to jurisdiction in
the colonial context, where territorial control was incomplete and subject to competing
assertions of authority by colonial subjects. Thus, this chapter examines the pluralism
that resulted from colonial powers imposing new administrative structures on colonial
subjects. Based on an examination of different colonial settings, Yahaya argues that
jurisdiction remained plural, contested, and reliant on factors such as relations amongst
people, property regimes and similar cultural practices, rather than control over terri-
tory. This chapter highlights the significance of territorial jurisdiction as a tool to further
the expansion of colonial rule and how the use of jurisdiction in this manner resulted in
the subjugation of pre-existing legal frameworks.
49 As a result of the Westphalian Peace of 1648. 50 Lotus case (n. 27), 19.
Introduction 11
In the last chapter of Part II, Stephan Wittich discusses ‘Immanuel Kant and
Jurisdiction in International Law’, which is a difficult undertaking, as Kant nowhere
in his works specifically dealt with questions of jurisdiction. But Kant’s work does
nonetheless contain several thoughts and ideas on the scope of regulatory state activ-
ities that may well be read as pertaining to the exercise of imperium in the sense of
jurisdiction as it is commonly used today. In his philosophical sketch Toward
Perpetual Peace, Kant proceeded from a traditional understanding of jurisdiction as
coexistence between states as a cornerstone of international law. In this traditional
view, jurisdiction is nothing more than a reasonable mutual delimitation of jurisdic-
tional spheres based on territoriality or personality. Yet, at the same time, he also
developed a visionary idea of cosmopolitan law which would significantly affect the
traditional rules of jurisdiction, especially the personality principle through the
emergence of individual rights. Kant’s approach thus foreshadowed a development
towards an anthropocentric international legal order epitomized by the concepts of
human rights and universal jurisdiction.
III.2. Theory of Jurisdiction

The concept of jurisdiction does not exist in a theoretical vacuum, but is, in fact, grounded
in a plethora of underlying notions, be they—to name a just few—constitutional,
pluralistic, sociological, or critical in nature. From a political and international relations
perspective, the rules of jurisdiction in international law are designed to enable the state
to maintain its sovereign powers. States would, from one point of view, never agree to
the rules of international law if these rules encroached on their powers and interests.
Conversely, however, it is also in any given state’s interests to accept limitations on
national power in order to avoid descending into global anarchy.51 It is, therefore, of
utmost importance to examine, theoretically, how the modern constitutional state
accepts, and denies, foreign jurisdictional claims, and how it engages with jurisdictional
questions in an international setting. A prominent example involving theoretical
questions of jurisdiction and the constitutional state, for instance, can be found in the
dispute between the German Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice of the
European Union (CJEU) on the question who has the last say (i.e. jurisdiction) on com-
petence and sovereignty within the EU and its relation with the Member States.52
Theories of jurisdictional conflicts between the CJEU and the Member States are
closely related to pluralist theories, which hold that a multitude of legal orders coexist at
51 Alexander Orakhelashvili, ‘International Law, International Politics and Ideology’, in Alexander

Orakhelashvili (ed.), Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law (Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar, 2011), 361.
52 Miriam Aziz, ‘Sovereignty Über Alles: (Re)Configuring the German Legal Order’, in Neil Walker
(ed.), Sovereignty in Transition (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006), 290–3.
the national and international levels in the same time–space context,53 and that the
global legal system constitutes an interlocking web of jurisdictional assertions by state,
international, and non-state normative communities. And as each type of overlapping
jurisdictional assertion (state versus state; state versus international body; state versus
non-state entity) potentially creates a hybrid legal space that is not easily eliminated,54 a
clear-cut and hierarchically informed theory of jurisdiction becomes impossible to
conceive. Against this background, it is expected that the account of a pluralist theory of
jurisdiction in international law discussed in this volume will help to fill this gap and
offer a different view of the conflicts that currently pervade the exercise of jurisdiction
in international law.
In Part III, jurisdiction will also be examined from a socio-legal perspective (i.e. on
the basis of a ‘systematic, theoretically grounded, empirical study of law as a set of social
practices or as an aspect or field of social experience’55). Essentially, international
jurisdiction is about the exercise of power, and—as Max Huber rightly observed—power
without law leads to tyranny, whilst law without power tends to descend into anarchy.
We must, therefore, take into account that the predominant players on the international
stage still have an important role as the power-substrate of international law.56 A
sociological theory of international jurisdiction can not only enrich our understanding
of the social factors involved in the creation and implementation of international rules
on jurisdiction, but can also yield valuable insights regarding better legal mechanisms for
coping with modern jurisdictional challenges and disputes. Of equal significance,
sociological methods may further our understanding of the social limits inherent in the
concept of international jurisdiction in the contemporary international system.57 In a
similar way, this Handbook will also explore the explanatory strength of Critical Legal
Studies in analysing jurisdiction in international law. In the deconstructive light of
this theory, jurisdiction merely plays a regulatory role, particularly in structuring
international relations by defining the boundaries of various authorities already in exist-
ence. This specific contribution will, therefore, question whether the attempt to make
jurisdiction in international law depend upon the ‘real’ configurations of power in fact
perpetuates the assertion of sovereign will in its present form58 and protects it from
being challenged on normative grounds.59
53 William Twining, ‘Normative and Legal Pluralism: A Global Perspective’, Duke Journal of
Comparative and International Law 20 (2010): 473, 476 fn. 4.
54 Paul Schiff Berman, ‘Global Legal Pluralism’, Southern California Law Review 80 (2007): 1155, 1159.
55 Roger Cotterrell, ‘Sociology of Law’, in David S. Clark (ed.), Encyclopedia of Law and Society:
American and Global Perspectives, 3 vols. (Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2007), III, 1413.
56 Jost Delbrück, ‘Max Huber’s Sociological Approach to International Law Revisited’, European
Journal of International Law 18 (2007): 97, 111.
57 Moshe Hirsch, ‘The Sociology of International Law: Invitation to Study International Rules in their
Social Context’, University of Toronto Law Journal 55 (2005): 891, 891–2.
58 David Kennedy, International Legal Structures (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1987), 117 and 125–6.
59 Anthony Carty, ‘Critical International Law: Recent Trends in the Theory of International Law’,
European Journal of International Law 2 (1991): 66, 76–7.
Introduction 13
In her chapter, ‘Navigating Diffuse Jurisdictions: An Intra-State Perspective’, Helen

Quane analyses the jurisdictional boundaries between state and non-state law with
specific reference to religious, or customary, law. In particular, she contends that the
determination of these regulatory forms as state law depends on the extent to which
they perform prescriptive, adjudicative or enforcement functions, an assessment
which is, in turn, driven by contextual considerations. Quane, therefore, argues that the
boundaries between state and non-state law are not as stable as they may appear, as they
are liable to shift according to circumstances and over time. As Quane rightly points out,
the issue of classification acquires resonance in cases where legal pluralism occurs as the
character and the scope of a state’s exercise of jurisdiction becomes far more ambiguous
in such situations.
In ‘Jurisdictional Pluralism’, Paul Schiff Berman berates the formalist notion of
jurisdiction for its failure to recognize the extent to which the exercise of jurisdiction
must be accommodated by numerous multiple and overlapping norm-generating
communities and to recognize the vagaries of political and sociological reality, as they
manifest themselves in specific situations. Accordingly, he argues that we need to adopt an
approach that is far more sensitive to the contribution that such communities make
to our understanding of jurisdiction (and to the phenomenon’s contested nature).
To this end, in his chapter, Berman offers an elaborate theoretical framework for the
reconceptualization of jurisdiction, one which recognizes the extent to which contem-
porary social conditions, which are increasingly experienced across different jurisdic-
tions, and changes in regulatory authority (i.e. governance), are visibly supplanting the
exclusive notion of jurisdiction favoured by classical international law, with its preoccu-
pation with sovereignty and territory.
In ‘Deepening the Conversation between Sociolegal Theory and Legal Scholarship
about Jurisdiction’, Mariana Valverde considers the relationship between social theory
and law but, as a social theorist, she does not attempt to sketch out a non-legal theoretical
model for the purpose of applying it in the legal domain. Instead, she shows the insights
that can be gained from a much more interactive approach. In particular, Valverde pays
close attention to the theoretical implications of specific legal technicalities by borrow-
ing methodologies originating from non-legal disciplines for this purpose. In this
context, she reveals how substantial benefits may be derived from this genuine exercise
in interdisciplinarity by harnessing considerations of scale, temporality, materiality, and
narrative affect, as far as jurisdiction is concerned.
In his essay, ‘Critical Approaches to Jurisdiction and International Law’, Shaun
McVeigh draws upon jurisdiction’s etymological origins which, as noted earlier, refer to
the power, or authority, to ‘speak the law’. Relying on this aspect of jurisdiction, he
observes that international law is often treated, by scholars, as a critical discipline or
project in its own right. McVeigh harnesses this specific aspect of jurisdiction in order to
analyse the ways in which critical jurists have grappled with the character and transmission
of forms of authority in a variety of settings. For this broad and multifaceted purpose,
McVeigh interprets jurisdiction as a concept which determines the conduct of lawful
relations, and, in this respect, he adopts a standpoint which differs significantly from the
one embraced by doctrinal scholars. For McVeigh, this conception of jurisdiction comes
to the fore in situations where different peoples, nations, and legal regimes come into
contact with one another. In this regard, McVeigh is particularly interested in the impact
that such encounters have on invested scholars and the critical projects at stake. In
adopting this analytical approach, he demonstrates the diversity which pervades the
scholarship concerning jurisdiction while illuminating our understanding of the differ-
ent and competing conceptions of authority that underpin the work of leading scholars
in the field of international law and legal theory.
III.3. Jurisdiction in General International Law

Besides the historical and theoretical basics of jurisdiction, this Handbook also looks
into the more doctrinal notions of jurisdiction in general international law. Part IV
therefore primarily deals with the current legal challenges and issues of jurisdiction in
the interplay between states, international organizations, and the instruments of public
international law. Not only does general international law increasingly face conflicts
and changing patterns in defining the limits of the personality versus the territoriality
principle (e.g. when a state is attempting to regulate matters extraterritorially),60 but it is
also confronted with the so-called ‘effects principle’, which seeks to expand the jurisdic-
tional rights of states in order to cover the effects of an act committed in one state taking
place in another state. Yet it fails to provide an effective framework for protecting the
interests of states that might be affected by this expansion of jurisdiction.61 Similar prob-
lems are caused by the notion of universal jurisdiction, which does not operate on the
basis of a connecting factor linking up with a state’s interests, but which is solely based
on the ‘international’ nature of the criminal act committed.62
To this end, Cedric Ryngaert assesses in his contribution the current ‘Cosmopolitan
Jurisdiction and the National Interest’ and first engages with the very raison d’ȇtre of the
law of jurisdiction, which has, historically, been legally to delimit spheres of state power
on the basis of the principle of territoriality, so as to prevent international conflict from
arising. In a world characterized by increasing interdependence and multiple identities,
territoriality is losing its power as a principle of jurisdictional order. Harmful activities
(e.g. cybercrime, international corruption, emitting greenhouse gases) often have terri-
torial connections—strong or weak—with multiple states. This raises the question of
which territorial sovereign has prescriptive jurisdiction in a given situation. Moreover, a
territory-based law of jurisdiction that limits itself to keeping states at arm’s length from
each other may fail to address the major problems of our time. It may fail to recognize
60 D. W. Bowett, ‘Jurisdiction: Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources’, British
Yearbook of International Law 53 (1983): 1, 8.
61 David J. Gerber, ‘Beyond Balancing: International Law Restraints on the Reach of National Laws’,
Yale Journal of International Law 10 (1985): 185, 185.
62 Ryngaert (n. 5), 101.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Better
babies and their care
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
Title: Better babies and their care
Author: Anna Steese Richardson
Author of introduction, etc.: Gertrude Battles Lane
Release date: January 6, 2024 [eBook #72648]
Language: English
Original publication: United States: Frederick A. Stokes Company,

1914
Credits: Bob Taylor, Tim Lindell, Turgut Dincer and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BETTER

BABIES AND THEIR CARE ***
BETTER BABIES
AND THEIR CARE
BETTER BABIES
AND THEIR CARE
BY
ANNA STEESE RICHARDSON

NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HYGIENE, CONGRESS OF
MOTHERS AND PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS
NEW YORK
FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY
PUBLISHERS
Copyright, 1914, by
Frederick A. Stokes Company
All rights reserved, including that of translation into

foreign languages
SECOND PRINTING
TO
THE ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND BABIES
THE ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND MOTHERS
THE ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND HELPERS
WHO HAVE TAKEN PART IN BETTER BABIES CONTESTS
THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED
BY A MOTHER WHO KNOWS WHAT
BETTER BABIES, BETTER MOTHERS, BETTER HELPERS
MEAN TO THIS AND FUTURE GENERATIONS
PREFACE
It was in January, 1913, that the Woman’s Home Companion sent

Anna Steese Richardson to Denver, Colorado, to report a Baby
Health Contest held in connection with the National Western Live
Stock Exposition. There she found babies being examined for
physical and mental development, and scored for points by
standards of weights and measurements very much as live stock is
scored at agricultural fairs.
Mrs. Richardson’s journalistic instinct told her that here was a big
constructive work, at its very beginning, and that its spectacular
possibilities would make attractive “copy” for a magazine. But before
she left Denver for New York she had begun to think of something
much bigger and more important than what the babies could do for
the magazine, and that was what the magazine could do for the
cause of better babies.
As a result of this trip, the Woman’s Home Companion adopted as
its own special charge the work now known all over the world as the
Better Babies campaign. This has quickly become a widespread
movement for education in parenthood. Pride of parenthood brings
fathers and mothers to the Better Babies Contests. Parental love
holds them there to watch their babies examined by physicians and
to learn how the condition of their children can be improved by
intelligent care and feeding and sanitary environment.
The results are so far-reaching that one hesitates to put them into
words, for fear they may seem overstated. After a little more than
one year of hard work, the Better Babies Bureau of the Woman’s
Home Companion, under the directorship of Anna Steese
Richardson, has become a tremendous machine for aiding in the
reduction of infant mortality, and for raising physical, mental, and
moral standards among children.
Naturally, the starting-point for much of this work has been the fair
—state, county, and local. These widely advertised contests have
been a sort of blare of trumpets to attract attention. But above and
beyond this element has been the quiet and persistent growth of the
work among board-of-health officers, medical societies, club women,
church organizations, physicians, nurses—in fact, among all bodies
of men and women especially interested in child welfare. The
fostering and furthering of this work, which has progressed beyond
all expectations, has been Mrs. Richardson’s chief joy and pride
during a year of almost unbelievable endeavor.
The author of this book is a keenly interested and intelligent
observer. While she has gathered into the book much that is of real
scientific value, contributed by physicians, nurses, psychologists,
and social workers, still the chief usefulness of the volume, it seems
to me, lies in the fact that it is a message from one mother to other
mothers, and is written in the language that all mothers can
understand.
The woman who writes it has had not only the actual experience of
bearing and rearing her own children, but she has had the rare
privilege of corresponding with mothers from every point in the
United States, of witnessing many of the Better Babies Contests,
and of studying not only what is the matter with the sick baby, but
why the well baby is well.
Gertrude B. Lane
Editor, Woman’s Home Companion.
March 26th, 1914.
CONTENTS
PAGE
DEDICATION v
PREFACE vii
CHAPTER I
PREPARATION FOR MOTHERHOOD 1
Motherhood a Profession which Requires Training—
Prenatal Influence and Hygiene—Maternity Clothes
CHAPTER II
BABY’S BIRTHDAY 20
Choosing the Nurse and Doctor—Sanitary Bedroom
and Its Equipment—The Baby’s Layette—Prevention
of Blindness in New-Born Babies—The Baby’s First
Bath
CHAPTER III
THE NURSING BABY 36
The Nursing Baby—Why Three Hundred Thousand
Babies Are Sacrificed Every Year to Ignorance—
Influence of the Mother’s Diet on the Baby’s Health
—When the New-Born Baby Must Be Bottle-Fed—A
Well-Balanced Diet for the Nursing Mother—Care
of the Breasts and Nipples—Importance of
Regularity in Nursing
CHAPTER IV
ARTIFICIAL FEEDING 50
When Artificial Feeding Is Necessary—Weight the
Test of Proper Nourishment—Cow’s Milk, Carefully
Modified, Is the Best Substitute for Mother’s Milk—
Source of Supply and Care—Care of the Bottles
and Nipples
CHAPTER V
FORMULAS FOR ARTIFICIAL FOODS 65
Formulas for Modifying Milk—Milk Sugar, Cane
Sugar, or Malt Sugar—How To Tell When the Baby
Is Properly Nourished—Lime Water in the Milk—
Condensed Milk—Patent Foods
CHAPTER VI
GUARDING THE BABY’S DIGESTION 79
Strong Digestion Means a Strong Baby—Bowel
Conditions Tell the Story—The Underfed and the
Overfed Baby—Symptoms of Disorder in the
Digestive System—Vomiting—Colic and Constipation
—Diarrhea and Its Treatment
CHAPTER VII
TEETHING AND WEANING 97
Teething a Natural Process—Putting the Baby in
Shape to Teethe Easily—Dentition Table—Care of
the First Teeth—Gradual Weaning is Simple Process
—Alternate Breast and Bottle Feeding—Evils of
Delayed Weaning—Diet Tables for Children from
Nine Months to Thirty-six Months
CHAPTER VIII
CLEANLINESS AND HEALTH 112
How To Give the Baby’s Bath—Care of the Various
Organs—Thrush and Its Treatment—Special Baths
for Delicate Children—Habits of Cleanliness
CHAPTER IX
FRESH AIR AND SLEEP AS HEALTH PRODUCERS 126
Heating and Ventilating the Nursery—Outdoor Naps
—Sleeping Hours for the Normal Baby—Why Some
Babies Do Not Sleep
CHAPTER X
HOW THE NORMAL BABY GROWS 137
What Should Your Baby Weigh and Measure?—
Testing the Baby’s Mental Development—How Soon
Should the Baby Walk and Talk?—Crying, Cause And
Cure
CHAPTER XI
BABY-COMFORT THROUGH CLOTHES 151
Tight Belly-Bands May Torture Babies—Underwear
that Does Not Irritate—Extension Skirts To Protect
the Feet—Dressing the Baby in Hot Weather—How
To Handle the Baby
CHAPTER XII
DEFECTS AND HABITS 168
Taking Defects in Time—Habits that Make Children
Ugly—Finger-Sucking and Nail-Biting—Bed-Wetting
—Vicious Habits and Their Cure—Nervousness and
Its Treatment—The Habit of Happiness
CHAPTER XIII
BABY’S AILMENTS AND HOW TO TREAT THEM 182
Mothers Now Studying Preventive Medicine—
Remedies Which Should Be Found in Every Nursery—
Treatment of Diarrhea and Constipation—Colds and
Their Cure—Adenoids and Their Removal—Ailments
of the Skin
CHAPTER XIV
NURSERY EMERGENCIES 202
Contagious Diseases: Symptoms, Treatment and
Quarantine—Croup and Its Treatment—Convulsions
—When Falls Are Dangerous—Burns and Cuts—
Poisons and Their Antidotes
CHAPTER XV
DIET FOR OLDER CHILDREN 224
Milk for Growing Children—Eggs, Meat and Fish—
Breadstuffs and Cereals—Recipes for Nourishing
Dishes
BETTER BABIES
AND THEIR CARE
BETTER BABIES AND
THEIR CARE
CHAPTER I
PREPARATION FOR MOTHERHOOD
MOTHERHOOD A PROFESSION WHICH REQUIRES TRAINING—PRENATAL
INFLUENCE AND HYGIENE—MATERNITY CLOTHES
M ATERNITY is woman’s exclusive profession, the only one of

which progress and science cannot rob her. It is also her
highest profession, for, compared to motherhood, art and science
dwindle into insignificance.
Successful motherhood, like genius in any art or profession, is
founded on efficiency and joy in the chosen work, and the greater of
these is joy. She who is merely efficient can reduce the mountains
which rise in the pathway of the mother; joy in motherhood can
remove them. For joy casts out doubt, fear, and all sense of burden.
The woman who finds joy in maternity is absolute mistress of the
domestic and social situation. Through it she commands the love
and reverence of the husband to whose eyes she has opened the
wonders and the mysteries of parenthood. For her the doors of the
divorce court never yawn. For her motherhood entails no sacrifice.
She has no regrets for a career cut short by marriage, because she
finds in maternity the same supreme satisfaction of accomplishment
which comes to the successful lawyer, financier, writer or artist.
Motherhood, like any other profession, requires preparation. For
many generations the world has held that the maternal instinct and
the ability to rear children were born in woman. It has been
discovered that the maternal instinct, like many others, needs
encouragement, while the ability to bring up children requires
development or practical training. The phrase, “a born mother,” has
rather fallen into disrepute. We are beginning to realize that one
“born mother” in a thousand is not enough to leaven the maternal
mass. And out of this discovery has risen a demand, which comes
largely from women themselves, for education in motherhood,
practical, sincere preparation for woman’s exclusive profession.
Perhaps the day will come when each college for women will have
its endowed chair of motherhood, when the care and feeding of
infants will be taught in our normal and high schools for girls. At
present, certain colleges offer a course in psychology which
prepares young women to guide, mentally and spiritually, the
children they will some day bear. In a few city schools, particularly in
the congested districts, girls are now taught how to bathe, dress and
feed infants, largely for the purpose of having the message of
sanitation and hygiene carried home to the tenement house mother.
Until these two forms of training for motherhood are combined, the
American girl must enter the profession of maternity without the sort
of practical preparation which will insure efficiency and joy in her
chosen work. What knowledge she now possesses is a smattering of
what her mother has learned by experience, what the family
physician imparts at odd moments, what she reads in books or
magazine articles, and what she hears at lectures where a few
valiant souls proclaim motherhood as a profession which requires
the most thorough of training.
Preparation for motherhood must rise above the practical
instruction in the care and feeding of infants which leads to
efficiency. It requires a certain mental and spiritual adjustment of the
woman to the environment and conditions of maternity. She who is
obsessed by the fear of physical suffering which motherhood may
entail, who regards the coming of a child as the end of her individual
career, her social life, her personal pleasures, will be neither efficient
nor joyous. Fear and doubt come between her and success. They
even threaten her health.
Therefore, the first step in preparation for motherhood is the firm
belief that it is a privilege, not a duty; a joy, not a sacrifice; an
investment that will pay big dividends. Thus armored, the
prospective mother enters upon the nine months of pregnancy
insured against anxiety and ill-health. The joy she finds in carrying
her child provides a splendid foundation for the child’s health. The
woman who frets brings forth a nervous child. The woman who
rebels generally bears a morbid child.
Science wrangles over the rival importance of heredity and
environment, but we women know what effects prenatal influence
works in children. And, knowing this, what a mystery that we do not
mold each thought and act in the interest of the children whose up-
bringing will be our real life-work! How strange that mothers do not
realize that the burden of maternal and domestic duties can be
lightened by prenatal care and character molding.
Science has done much for the modern mother. It has lessened
the danger and the pains of childbirth. The once dreaded child-bed
fever is now practically unknown. Disinfectants and sanitary care
have reduced this danger to a minimum. Anæsthetics have reduced
the strain and pain of labor. Physicians no longer withhold the
anæsthetic until the hour when instruments or an operation make its
use necessary; through the later stages of ordinary labor, the
modern physician offers the alleviation of chloroform, and the mother
comes through the ordeal with one-fourth the pain endured by her
mother and grandmother.
Modern ingenuity also designs many comforts for the prospective
mother, not the least of which is maternity raiment, including corsets
and adjustable gowns. Why do not women avail themselves of all
these aids? Largely because they are not educated for motherhood.
Medical science, through sanitation and hygiene, has lightened the
mother’s burden in rearing her baby. It has proved beyond doubt that
the child raised under sanitary and hygienic conditions, fed, bathed
and clothed properly and trained to regular habits, can escape most
of the ailments which were once counted as almost normal
manifestations of the child’s growth.
Many of us can recall the day when a colicky baby was considered
a dispensation of Providence, not a proof of maternal ignorance or
carelessness; when convulsions during teething were regarded as
“natural”; when “summer complaint” was accepted as a normal
feature of baby’s second summer; when children were actually
exposed to whooping-cough, measles and chicken-pox, so they
would have these juvenile ailments and be done with them!
To-day, unless a baby is born with some inherited weakness or
chronic disease, science teaches how to protect the child from
ordinary ailments—colic, convulsions, summer complaint, and
contagious diseases. This is the day of preventive medicine,
particularly in the care of infants. Prevention lightens the burden of
motherhood. When young women are trained to ward off illness in
children, not to nurse them through illness, motherhood will mean
what it should mean to women—Joy.
Start your maternal career right by preparing your body and your
mind for motherhood. Start your baby right in life by studying
sanitation, hygiene, the care and feeding of infants. Know your
business as a mother, and motherhood will have no terrors for you.
Remember that your own physical condition and the health of the
baby you will bring into the world depend largely upon your mental
attitude. Cast out all fear of childbirth and all dread of maternal duties
and sacrifices. Fretting, grieving, or rebellion will not purchase
immunity from maternal duties. Rather it will increase them. The
child will be born and laid in your arms to be fed, cared for, and
reared, whether you weep or smile through the months of pregnancy.
Self-control, cheerfulness and love for the little life breathing in
unison with your own will practically insure you a child of normal
physique and nerves.
Physicians and scientists may regard stories of prenatal influence
which float through open nursery doors as “old women’s tales”; but
we women who have borne children know the price babies pay for
maternal self-indulgence, mental abnormalities, bitterness, hysteria.
I recall one woman of my acquaintance whose self-consciousness
amounted to an affliction. She was super-sensitive, self-effacing,
apologetic, always afraid that she was not wanted. One day when
speaking of her futile efforts to correct the tendency, she explained
that she had been an unwelcome child. Her mother had rebelled
throughout the period of pregnancy. She had nursed her child in
bitterness of spirit. Later in life she learned to cling to her daughter

The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in International Law Stephen Allen Editor Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in International Law Stephen Allen Editor Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in

International Law Stephen Allen (Editor)

Law Express: International Law 2nd Revised edition

The Oxford Handbook of the Sources of International Law

The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Asia and

The Oxford Handbook of the International Law of Global

The Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford International

The Oxford Handbook of the Psychology of Competition

The Oxford Handbook of Law and Anthropology Marie-

Oxford Handbook of Medical Ethics and Law Anna Smajdor

The Oxford Handbook of

3. The Lotus Case in Context: Sovereignty, Westphalia, Vattel,

4. The European Concept of Jurisdiction in the Colonies 59

5. Immanuel Kant and Jurisdiction in International Law 81

7. Jurisdictional Pluralism 121

8. Deepening the Conversation between Socio-Legal Theory

9. Critical Approaches to Jurisdiction and International Law 182

11. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State in International Law 228

12. The Establishment, Change, and Expansion of Jurisdiction

13. Territoriality and Globalization 300

14. Private Interests and Private Law Regulation in

15. Jurisdiction and State Responsibility 355

16. Enforcing Criminal Jurisdiction in the Clouds and International

18. International Investment Law, Hybrid Authority, and Jurisdiction 431

19. Conceptions of State Jurisdiction in the Jurisprudence of

20. The Evolving Nature of the Jurisdiction of the Security Council:

21. International Criminal Jurisdiction 504

22. Jurisdiction and International Territorial Administration 529

Court of Justice of the European Union

ECOWAS Court of Justice

European Commission of Human Rights

European Court of Human Rights

General Court of the European Union

Human Rights Advisory Panel

Human Rights Committee

Inter-American Commission of Human Rights

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

International Court of Justice

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide

International Criminal Court

International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

North American Free Trade Agreement

Permanent Court of Arbitration

Permanent Court of International Justice

Special Court for Sierra Leone

Special Panels for Serious Crimes, East Timor

Special Tribunal for Lebanon

World Trade Organisation

Susannah Scott, Ex parte (1829) 9 B&C 446 : 109 ER 106����������������������������������������������������������������������� 368

International Instruments Art 28(2)��������������������������������������������������483, 487

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Art VIII���������������������������������������������������262, 265

Chapter IX�������������������������������������������������������275 International Convention for the Suppression

in civil and commercial matters [2012] OJ Germany

Netherlands s 9��������������������������������������������������������������������� 333

the interaction between international humanitarian law and terrorism suppression,

Stephen Allen, Daniel Costelloe,

I. Jurisdiction: First Overtures to an Elusive Concept 4

4 Allen, Costelloe, Fitzmaurice, Gragl, and Guntrip

I. Jurisdiction: First Overtures

For every lawyer, regardless of whether he or she is working in domestic or ­international

II. Jurisdiction: Why Does It Matter

4. The European Concept of Jurisdiction in the Colonies 59

5. Immanuel Kant and Jurisdiction in International Law 81

7. Jurisdictional Pluralism 121

9. Critical Approaches to Jurisdiction and International Law 182

11. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State in International Law 228

13. Territoriality and Globalization 300

15. Jurisdiction and State Responsibility 355

18. International Investment Law, Hybrid Authority, and Jurisdiction 431

21. International Criminal Jurisdiction 504

22. Jurisdiction and International Territorial Administration 529

Susannah Scott, Ex parte (1829) 9 B&C 446 : 109 ER 106�� 368

International Instruments Art 28(2)��483, 487

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Art VIII��262, 265

Chapter IX��275 International Convention for the Suppression

Netherlands s 9�� 333

I. Jurisdiction: First Overtures to an Elusive Concept 4

For every lawyer, regardless of whether he or she is working in domestic or international