The Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey)

Facts: 

Turkey’s (D) assertion of jurisdiction over a French citizen who had been the first officer of a ship that collided with a Turkish ship on the high seas was challenged by France (P) as a violation of international law.

A collision occurred shortly before midnight on the 2nd of August 1926 between the French (P) mail steamer Lotus and the Turkish (D) collier Boz-Kourt. The French mail steamer was captained by a French citizen by the name Demons while the Turkish collier Boz-Kourt was captained by Hassan Bey. The Turks lost eight men after their ship cut into two and sank as a result of the collision. Although the Lotus did all it could do within its power to help the ship wrecked persons, it continued on its course to Constantinople, where it arrived on August 3. On the 5th of August, Lieutenant Demons was asked by the Turkish (D) authority to go ashore to give evidence. After Demons was examined, he was placed under arrest without informing the French (P) Consul-General and Hassan Bey. Demons were convicted by the Turkish (D) courts for negligence conduct in allowing the accident to occur. This basis was contended by Demons on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over him. With this, both countries agreed to submit to the Permanent Court of International Justice, the question of whether the exercise of Turkish (D) criminal jurisdiction over Demons for an incident that occurred on the high seas contravened international law.

Issue:

Does a rule of international law which prohibits a state from exercising criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of the state’s national jurisdiction exist?

Ruling: 

No. A rule of international law, which prohibits a state from exercising criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of the state’s national jurisdiction, does not exist. Failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary is the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law on a state and it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another state. This does not imply that international law prohibits a state from exercising jurisdiction in its own territory, in respect of any case that relates to acts that have taken place abroad which it cannot rely on some permissive rule of international law. In this situation, it is impossible to hold that there is a rule of international law that prohibits Turkey (D) from prosecuting Demons because he was aboard a French ship. This stems from the fact that the effects of the alleged offense occurred on a Turkish vessel. Hence, both states here may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over this matter because there is no rule of international law in regards to collision cases to the effect that criminal proceedings are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state whose flag is flown.

A rule of international law, which prohibits a state from exercising criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of the state’s national jurisdiction, does not exist.

Minquiers & Echeros Case

Facts:

The UK and France requested that the ICJ determine which country held sovereignty over the islets and rocks in the Minquiers and Écréhous groups. France claimed sovereignty because it fished in the waters and because of its historic sovereignty over the area going back to the Duchy of Normandy in the eleventh century, whilst the UK claimed that Jersey had historically exercised legal and administrative jurisdiction over them.

Issue:

Does the UK or FR have sovereignty?

Ruling:

In a unanimous decision, the Court found that sovereignty over the islets and rocks of the Ecrehos and the Minquiers groups, in so far as these islets and rocks are capable of appropriation, belongs to the United Kingdom. The Court found that none of those treaties (Treaty of Paris of 1259, Treaty of Calais of 1360, Treaty of Troyes of 1420) specified which islands were held by the King of England or by the King of France. There are, however, other ancient documents which provide some indications as to the possession of the islets in dispute. The United Kingdom relied on them to show that the Channel Islands were considered as an entity and, since the more important islands were held by England, this country also possessed the groups in dispute. For the Court, there appears to be a strong presumption in favour of this view, without it being possible however, to draw any definitive conclusion as to the sovereignty over the groups, since this question must ultimately depend on the evidence which relates directly to possession. With regard to the Ecrehos in particular, and on the basis of various medieval documents, it held the view that the King of England exercised his justice and levied his rights in these islets. Those documents also show that there was at that time a close relationship between the Ecrehos and Jersey. Appraising the relative strength of the opposing claims in the light of these facts, the Court found that sovereignty over the Ecrehos belonged to the United Kingdom. With regard to the Minquiers, the Court noted that in 1615, 1616, 1617 and 1692, the Manorial court of the fief of Noirmont in Jersey exercised its jurisdiction in the case of wrecks found at the Minquiers, because of the territorial character of that jurisdiction. Other evidence concerning the end of the eighteenth century, the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries concerned inquests on corpses found at the Minquiers, the erection on the islets of habitable houses or huts by persons from Jersey who paid property taxes on that account, the registration in Jersey of contracts of sale relating to real property in the

Minquiers. These various facts show that Jersey authorities have, in several ways, exercised ordinary local administration in respect of the Minquiers during a long period of time and that, for a considerable part of the nineteenth century and the twentieth century, British authorities have exercised State functions in respect of this group. In such circumstances, and having regard to the view expressed above with regard to the evidence produced by the United Kingdom Government, the Court was of opinion that the sovereignty over the Minquiers belongs to the United Kingdom.

Frontier Dispute Case (Burkina Faso/Mali)

Facts:

Burkina Faso (previously the Republic of Upper Volta) and the Republic of Mali each obtained independence in 1960 following decolonization. Later, the Organization of African Unity, comprised of African Heads of State, was formed. In 1964, the Organization of African Unity met in Cairo, Egypt and issued a resolution declaring that all member States of the Organization of African Unity “solemnly…pledge themselves to respect the frontiers existing on their achievement of national independence.” This resolution codified into law the age-old international principle of uti possidetis. In 1975, the Head of State of Mali made a statement indicating a lack of respect for the existing boundaries between Mali and Burkina Faso. Mali and Burkina Faso later submitted to a Chamber of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) the question of the proper demarcation of boundary lines between the two States. In considering the case, the ICJ discussed the principle of uti possidetis.

Issue:

Does there exist an obligation to respect preexisting international frontiers in the event of a state succession?

Ruling:

There exists an obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers in the event of a succession. The principle of uti possidetis developed with respect to the Spanish American colonies. In a similar dispute between El Salvador and Honduras, the Court described the principle as follows: “The general principle offered the advantage of establishing an absolute rule that there was not in law in the old Spanish America any terra nullius; while there might exist many regions that had never been occupied  by the Spaniards … the regions were reputed to belonging in law to whichever of the republics succeeded to the Spanish province to which these territories attached by virtue of the old Royal ordinances of the Spanish mother country.” There exists an obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers in the event of a state succession, whether or not the rule is  expressed in the form of uti possidetis.  Thus, the numerous declarations of the intangibility of the frontiers at the time of the declaration of independence of the African states are declaratory. The fact that the principle did not exist when the states declared such independence in 1960 does not foreclose its present application.

Lockerbie Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v USA)

Facts:

On 3 March 1992, Libya filed in the Registry of the ICJ two separate Applications instituting proceedings against the US and the UK Governments, in respect of a dispute over the interpretation of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation signed in Montreal on 23 September 1971.

This filing followed the explosion of a bomb in the Pan Am Flight 103 over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland, on 21 December 1988, which killed all 259 passengers and crew, as well as eleven residents of the town of Lockerbie. The Lord Advocate of Scotland and a Grand Jury of the US respectively accused two Libyan citizens of this bombing.

Consequently, the UK and US Governments requested Libya to extradite the accused so that they could be prosecuted in Scotland or in the US. The United Nations Security Council adopted three resolutions ordering Libya to “give a full and efficient answer” to the demands made by UK and the US “in order to contribute to the clearance of international terrorism”.

Before the ICJ, Libya claimed that it had not signed any extradition treaty with the UK and the US, and that, subsequently and in conformity with the 1971 Montreal Convention (Articles 5 and 7), which requires a State to establish its own jurisdiction over alleged offenders present in its territory an the event of their non-extradition, only Libyan authorities had jurisdiction to try their own citizens.

Issue:

Does the International Court of Justice have jurisdiction?

Ruling:

On 27 February 1998, the ICJ, the main judicial body of the United Nations, dismissed the Respondents’ objections. It declared that it had jurisdiction on the basis of Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Montreal Convention, to hear the disputes between Libya and the respondent States concerning the interpretation of the Convention in relation to the incident that occurred in Lockerbie. It further declared the claims admissible.

When bringing its claim in front of the ICJ, Libya pointed out that the alleged acts constituted an offence with the meaning of Article 1 of the Montreal Convention. Thus, it asserted that the ICJ had jurisdiction to hear disputes between Libya and the respondent States concerning the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Convention.Following Libya’s Applications, the US and the UK filed certain preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the claims.