Jurisdiction is essentially about authority or control exercised by a state over certain

matters
Jurisdiction can be exercised in different ways by the various branches of government:
legislative, executive, and judicial.
 Legislative Jurisdiction: This involves the power to create laws and regulations.
 Executive Jurisdiction: This involves the power to enforce laws and regulations.
 Judicial Jurisdiction: This involves the power to interpret and apply laws to
resolve disputes
Public International Law vs. Private International Law:
 Public International Law: This area of law deals with the relationships
between states, including questions of criminal law. It often concerns
issues like war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. However, it
generally allows individual states to handle civil matters, like contract
disputes or property rights, through their own legal systems.
 Private International Law: Also known as conflict of laws, this area of law
deals with situations where legal issues cross borders, such as contracts
between parties from different countries or disputes over property located
in multiple jurisdictions.
Exercise of Jurisdiction is Voluntarty: the idea that the exercise of jurisdiction is
voluntary means that even though a state has the power to apply its laws to a particular
situation, it's not obligated to do so, especially if doing so could create conflicts or
tensions with other states.
Immunities: There are situations where jurisdiction may cease to apply due to
immunities. Immunities can be granted to certain individuals or entities, such as
diplomats or international organizations, which exempt them from the jurisdiction of the
host state's legal system
Conflicts in Jurisdiction:
a. Imagine you have a problem that involves people or events in different
countries. Each country might say, "This problem falls under our laws and
our courts should deal with it!" But if multiple countries claim this, it can
create a conflict because they're all trying to control the situation.
Interstate Cooperation and Extradition:
b. To solve these conflicts, countries agree to help each other out. For
example, if someone commits a crime in Country A and then escapes to
Country B, Country B might agree to send that person back to Country A
to face justice. This is called extradition.
Complementary Jurisdiction:
c. Sometimes, there are special courts that handle cases involving more than
one country. These are like international courts. But there can be confusion
 if both a national court and an international court want to deal with the
same case. In these situations, there are rules to decide which court gets to
handle it.
Types of Juridiction:-

1. Prescriptive Jurisdiction: This refers to a state's authority to create and apply its
laws to people or activities within its borders. Imagine you have a club, and as the
owner, you make rules for everyone inside. Similarly, a government sets rules
(laws) for its citizens and anyone or anything within its territory. For example, a
country might have laws about driving safely on its roads or paying taxes.
2. Enforcement Jurisdiction: This is about making sure people follow the rules
(laws) that the government has set. It's like having security guards in the club to
make sure everyone follows the rules you've made. In a country, enforcement
might involve police officers, courts, and other government agencies ensuring
that laws are obeyed. For instance, if someone breaks a driving rule, the police
might give them a ticket or take them to court.

Theories of International Jurisdiction :-

1,Territorial Jurisdiction:

Subjective Territorial Jurisdiction: This theory holds that a state has

jurisdiction over a crime that commenced within its territory, regardless of
where it was completed. In simpler terms, if a crime starts within the
borders of a particular state, that state has the right to prosecute the
offender, even if the crime was completed outside its borders.
Objective Territorial Jurisdiction: Conversely, objective territorial
jurisdiction asserts that a state has jurisdiction over a crime that was
completed within its territory, regardless of where it originated. This means
that if the crime is concluded within the borders of a state, that state has
the right to prosecute the offender, regardless of where the crime began.

2.Extraterritorial Jurisdiction:

Nationality Principle: This principle allows a state to assert jurisdiction

over its citizens, regardless of where the crime was committed. In essence,
a state can prosecute its citizens for crimes they commit abroad.
Passive Personality Principle: Under this principle, a state can assert
jurisdiction over a crime committed against its citizens, even if the crime
 occurred outside its territory. For example, if a crime is committed against
a citizen of State A while they are in State B, State A can prosecute the
offender.
Protective Principle: This principle allows a state to assert jurisdiction
over certain crimes committed outside its territory if those crimes threaten
its national security or other significant interests. For instance, a state
might prosecute acts of terrorism targeting its citizens or interests abroad.
Universality Principle: Universality jurisdiction allows any state to
prosecute certain crimes, such as genocide or crimes against humanity,
regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of the
perpetrator. This principle is based on the idea that some crimes are so
egregious that they concern all of humanity and therefore any state can
prosecute them.

Territorial Principle:-

Criminal issues arising within their territories: This means that each country has the
right to enforce its own laws within its borders. So, if a crime is committed within a
country's territory, that country's legal system has the authority to investigate,
prosecute, and punish the offender.

Persons, or interest in things present within its territory: This refers to the concept
that a state has jurisdiction over individuals and property within its borders. So, if you're
within a country's territory, that country's laws apply to you and your property.

The territorial jurisdiction of a state extends over its land, airspace, internal
waters, territorial sea, national aircraft, and national vessels: This outlines the
specific areas over which a state has authority. It includes not just the physical land but
also the airspace above it, the waters within it (like lakes and rivers), the sea immediately
adjacent to its coast, and any vehicles registered within the country.

Conduct outside its territory that has or intended to have a substantial effect
within its territory (Objective): This is a more complex aspect known as the objective
territorial principle. It means that a state can assert jurisdiction over actions that occur
outside its borders if those actions have a significant impact within its territory. For
example, if a foreign company operates in a way that harms the environment or public
health within a country, that country might claim jurisdiction over the company's actions
even if they occurred outside its borders.
Objective Territorial Jurisdiction

1. Person standing on the border of State A shooting down a person within

the territory of State B: This scenario involves an action that occurs partially
within State A's territory (the shooter) and partially within State B's territory (the
victim). State B would likely have jurisdiction over prosecuting the crime because
the victim was within its territory when the offense occurred. However, State A
might also have some jurisdiction since the perpetrator was standing on its
border when the act was committed.
2. US Antitrust Laws against trade effect within the territory of the United
States (Controversial): Antitrust laws are designed to promote fair competition
and prevent monopolies within a country's economy. In some cases, the United
States has applied its antitrust laws to actions that occur outside its borders but
have a significant impact on competition within the US. For example, if a foreign
company engages in anticompetitive practices that affect the US market, such as
fixing prices or monopolizing a particular industry, US authorities might assert
jurisdiction over those actions. However, the application of US antitrust laws to
extraterritorial conduct can be controversial and may raise issues of sovereignty
and international comity.

3. A state has jurisdiction to adjudicate under the territorial principle if the

exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable: This means that a state can apply its laws
and legal system to matters that occur within its own territory, as long as it's
considered fair and sensible to do so. For example, if a crime happens within a
country's borders, it's reasonable for that country to handle the investigation and
prosecution of the offender.

4. A state is free to confer upon other states the right to exercise certain
jurisdiction within its national territory: This means that a country can choose
to allow another country to enforce its laws or regulations within its borders
under certain conditions. For instance, two countries might agree that each
other's law enforcement officers can operate in specific areas near their shared
border to control immigration or prevent smuggling.

5. Examples of such arrangements: The text mentions two specific examples to

illustrate this concept:

1. The 1991 France-United Kingdom Protocol Concerning Frontier Control

and Policing: This agreement allows French and British officers to enforce
each other's frontier control laws and regulations in designated areas near
 their shared border. So, French officers might enforce British laws in
certain zones on French territory, and vice versa.
2. The 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty: This treaty specifies that Israeli
criminal laws apply to Israeli nationals and their activities within certain
areas under Jordan's sovereignty. It also allows Israel to take measures
within these areas to enforce its laws. This agreement demonstrates how
two countries can cooperate to apply one country's laws within the
territory of another, under certain conditions agreed upon in a treaty or
agreement

Jurisdiction in Occupied Territories (Exceptional Territorial

Jurisdiction):-

Jurisdiction in occupied territories, also known as exceptional territorial jurisdiction,

refers to the legal authority exercised by an occupying power over the territory it has
occupied during a conflict or war.

1. Similar Human Rights Obligations: The ECtHR asserts that an occupying power
has obligations to the civilian population in the occupied territory that are similar
to those it owes to its own citizens. This means that the fundamental human
rights protected by international treaties and conventions apply equally to the
occupied population, and the occupying power must respect these rights.
2. Application of Local and International Human Rights Obligations: The ECtHR
holds that both the local laws of the occupied territory and the international
human rights obligations of the occupying power apply fully within the occupied
territory. This means that the occupying power is bound by its own human rights
commitments, as well as by relevant international human rights instruments, such
as the European Convention on Human Rights.
3. Requirement of Effective Control: The ECtHR clarifies that these human rights
obligations only apply if the occupying power is in "effective control" of the
territory in question. In other words, the occupying power must have the practical
ability to govern the territory and exercise authority over its inhabitants for these
obligations to be enforceable.
4. Endorsement of ECtHR's Stance: The statement mentions specific cases, such as
AlSaadoon and Mufdhi v UK and AlSkeini and Al Jeddah v UK, where the ECtHR
upheld its position on the extraterritorial application of human rights obligations.
Despite initial disagreement within national courts, particularly highlighted in the
case R v Secretary of State for Defence, ex parte AlSkeini and others, the ECtHR's
stance has become well-established in European jurisprudence.
 "Extraterritorial jurisdiction" refers to a nation's ability to apply its laws to
conduct that occurs outside its borders. This concept is significant in international
law, particularly in cases where a country seeks to prosecute individuals or entities
for actions committed abroad.

1. NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE

 Nationality Principle: This principle states that a country can make laws that
apply to its citizens even when they are outside of its borders. So, for example, if
Pakistan has a law against its citizens paying bribes to foreign officials, a Pakistani
citizen could be prosecuted for doing so even if they are in a country where
bribery is legal.
 Effect of the Nationality Principle: This means that a country's citizens can be
held accountable for actions that are considered crimes in their home country,
even if those actions are legal where they occur. For instance, if Pakistan has a law
against gambling and a Pakistani citizen gambles in a place where it's legal, they
could still be prosecuted under Pakistani law.
 Jurisdiction Over Nationals Abroad: The nationality principle allows a country
to exercise jurisdiction over its citizens who commit crimes in other countries. So,
if a Pakistani citizen commits a crime like gambling in Dubai, Pakistan could
potentially prosecute them for that offense, even though gambling might be
legal in Dubai.
 Challenges with Prosecution: Now, if A, the Pakistani national, is still residing in
Dubai after committing the offense, Pakistan would face challenges in
prosecuting him. This is because A is physically present in Dubai, and Pakistan's
legal system might not have direct authority there.
 Concurrent Jurisdiction: In cases like this, where a person's actions could be
considered illegal in multiple countries, there could be what's called concurrent

jurisdiction. The exercise of nationality principle could results in concurrent

jurisdiction over a defendant by separate state.

2.Passive Personality Principle: This principle recognizes that a country can

create laws that apply to actions committed by foreign nationals against its own citizens
when those citizens are outside of its territory. In other words, if a person from Country
A commits a crime against a citizen of Country B while the citizen of Country B is in a
third country, Country B may still have the legal authority to prosecute the perpetrator.
  Multilateral Treaties: Passive personality jurisdiction is often affirmed in
international agreements or treaties. For example, Article 5(1)(c) of the 1984 UN
Torture Convention explicitly recognizes this principle, allowing signatory
countries to assert jurisdiction over individuals who commit torture against their
nationals abroad.
 Legal Precedents: Legal cases, such as the extradition request for former
President Pinochet of Chile or United States v Yunis, have further established the
validity of passive personality jurisdiction. In the case of Yunis, the court upheld
the jurisdiction of U.S. courts to prosecute terrorist crimes committed abroad
against U.S. nationals.
 Limitations: While passive personality jurisdiction is recognized in certain
contexts, it is not universally accepted for all types of crimes or situations. For
example, jurisdiction based solely on the nationality of the victim may not be
accepted for non-terrorist acts. In the example you provided, Pakistan cannot use
this principle to prosecute a Swiss national for robbing a Pakistani tourist in
Geneva, as the crime did not directly involve harm to a Pakistani citizen.

3.Protective Principle:-
The protective principle in international law allows a country to punish actions that
threaten its security, even if those actions happen outside its borders and are carried out
by foreigners. This means that if someone from another country plans to overthrow the
government, spies on the country, counterfeits its money, or tries to violate its
immigration laws, the country has the right to take legal action against them

 Jurisdiction over certain conduct: The principle enables a state to assert

jurisdiction over specific behaviors conducted by individuals who are not its
nationals but which target the security of the state or other important state
interests.
 Justification: This principle is justified by the need to protect the vital interests of
the state, especially when the individual commits an offense that harms the
state's interests but is not punishable under the laws of the country where they
reside, and extradition is not possible.
 Application: In practice, this principle is typically applied in cases where the
actions of the individual abroad constitute crimes against the sovereignty of the
state. This could include offenses like plotting to overthrow the government,
treason, espionage, counterfeiting currency, economic crimes, or violating
immigration laws.

 Conditions for Applying the Principle:

 1. Defendant's Conduct Violates State X Law: This means that what the
person did goes against the laws of the state using the protective principle
(let's call it State X).
2. Conduct May Start and End Outside State X: Even if the person's actions
begin and end in another country, State X can still take action if those
actions threaten its interests

Universality Principle:-
The universality principle is a concept in international law that allows certain states to claim
jurisdiction over certain crimes, even if they were committed by foreigners in other countries.
However, there are different opinions on whether this principle is allowed under international
law.

1. Defendant’s conduct sufficiently heinous to violate the laws of all states:

This means that the action or behavior of the accused is so severe and egregious
that it goes against the laws and values upheld by all nations. These are crimes
that are universally condemned due to their severity and impact on humanity as a
whole. Examples include piracy, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

2. Conduct started and completed anywhere: This principle suggests that it

doesn't matter where the crime was initiated or carried out; what matters is the
nature of the crime itself. So, even if the crime started in one country and was
completed in another, it can still be prosecuted under the universality principle as
long as it falls under the category of universally condemned crimes.

3. All states may prosecute (not just X): Unlike other forms of jurisdiction where
only the country where the crime was committed or where the perpetrator is
located has the authority to prosecute, the universality principle allows any nation
to prosecute the individual responsible for the crime. This means that any country
where the perpetrator is found can take legal action against them, regardless of
where the crime occurred or the nationality of the perpetrator.

Limitations on Jurisdiction :

1. Bases for Jurisdiction: Each state has certain criteria or reasons that allow it to
claim jurisdiction over a person or activity. These could include things like where
the activity takes place, the nationality or residence of the person involved, or the
impact of the activity on the state's territory.
2. Unreasonable Exercise of Jurisdiction: Even if one of these criteria is met, a
state may still choose not to enforce its laws if doing so would be considered
unreasonable. This could happen when there are strong connections to another
state, and enforcing laws would conflict with that state's interests.

3. Factors for Determining Reasonableness: When deciding if it's reasonable to

enforce laws, states consider various factors:

a. Territorial Link: How closely tied is the activity to the state's territory? Is
the impact substantial and foreseeable?
b. Connections: Are there significant ties like nationality, residence, or
economic activity between the state and the person involved?
c. Nature of Activity: How important is it to regulate this activity for the
state? How much do other states regulate it?
d. Expectations: Are there expectations from either party that could be
affected by regulation?
e. International Importance: How does the regulation affect the broader
international system politically, legally, or economically?
f. Consistency: Is the regulation in line with international traditions and
standards?
g. Interest of Other States: Does another state have a significant interest in
regulating the activity?
h. Likelihood of Conflict: Is there a risk of conflicting regulations between
states?

4. Conflict Resolution: If two states both have valid reasons to enforce their laws
but those laws conflict, they should consider each other's interests. If one state's
interest is clearly greater, the other state should defer to it.