The universal jurisdiction is the principle where any state, regarding any where when the case is a crime by the international community, while the personal passive jurisdiction implies where a state may take the court over a case when the victim is the nationalist of the state. This paper is going to describe the 5 types of jurisdiction by International Law and the cases that arises as a criminal jurisdiction. 1. Territorial Jurisdiction Territorial Jurisdiction is a right for every national court where it will always have the jurisdiction over offenses that took place in its territory. The jurisdiction include over
Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons. In the law, jurisdiction sometimes refers to a particular geographic area containing a legal authority. For example, the federal government is a jurisdiction unto itslef. Its power spans the entire United States. Each state is also a jurisdiction unto itself, with the power to pass its own laws.
The subjective territoriality principle permits the State to exercise jurisdiction over acts performed abroad, but which are originated within its territory. While this is a less-disputed jurisdictional principle, it is ill equipped to address non-criminal matters. With regard to business conduct involving multiple States, reliance on the subjective territoriality lead to relocation of the businesses to lax jurisdictions, the so-called “forum shopping”. The objective territorial jurisdiction enables the application of State’s law to a conduct that occurs within its territory but initiated outside the country. In criminal jurisprudence this comprises the notion that responsibility arises in the location where the harm is done.
Importantly the likelihood that states citizens will commit ICC crimes varies considerably between states, and so they will view the ICC through different glasses. The concept of sovereignty is based on a presumption that each and every sovereign state has certain unchallengeable rights inherent to statehood. Sovereignty is however subject to recognized limitations imposed by the International law. It implies “international independence and the right and power of regulating internal affairs without foreign friction”. Therefore according to that,” absolute sovereignty has never existed” and no state has entire independence of others.
This typology of institution interaction is bifurcated in that two alternate principles delineate the shared competence. Within the context of the first principle the exercise of jurisdiction by a domestic court is made contingent on the absent of adjudication by an international legal entity. Such, was the case, as regards the relationship between the ICTY and ICTR and the domestic criminal jurisdictions of both Rwanda and Yugoslavia. The statutes of both tribunal stipulate that the tribunals shall share, with national courts, concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute alleged perpetrators of core crimes, but the tribunals shall have primacy over the respective national courts. This concept is now widely known as the principle of primacy.
Permanent Injunctions A permanent or perpetual injunction is one that is granted by the judgment that ultimately disposes of the injunction suit, ordered at the time of final judgment. This type of injunction must be final relief. Permanent injunctions are perpetual, provided that the conditions that produced them remain permanent. They have been granted to prevent blasting upon neighboring premises, to enjoin the dumping of earth or other material upon land, and to prevent Pollution of a water supply. An individual who has been licensed by the state to practice a profession may properly demand that others in the same profession sub-scribe to the ethical standards and laws that govern it.
The same section also provides the mentioned court the jurisdiction to award for any such offence any punishment authorized by this Act for that offence. S.88(1) also includes the jurisdiction of Martial Court to civil offences committed whether in
In its Decision on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction (2009), the AU asserted that the principle of universal jurisdiction has been hijacked by judges from European States. Moreover, Tanzania, on behalf of the African States, requested to add the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction to the agenda of the sixty-third session of the U.N. General Assembly. Also China, in its speech to the U.N. General Assembly, stated that universal jurisdiction was only an academic concept with no universally accepted
In civil matters it has a very broad jurisdiction which includes- • Appeals from all decisions of the High Court and Court of Criminal Appeal if the point of law is of exceptional public importance • Judgements on questions of law presented by the circuit • It has the authority to decide if an issue arises regarding the permanent incapacity of the President. In criminal matters it can hear appeals from the court of criminal appeal if the court or the attorney general authorises it. The DPP can appeal a point of law from a trial to the Supreme Court. Court of
The court retains power during and after trials and proceedings and holds the power to suspend, change or revoke the orders it passed earlier. It retains jurisdiction even after passing a decree in the main proceeding and can pass orders with respect to maintenance, education of children and custody. However, the court can exercise jurisdiction over children only if it has jurisdiction in the main petition. If matrimonial proceedings are dismissed by the court, the proceedings of child custody are also dismissed. Custody battles ensue for various time periods and prove to be difficult in prolonged durations.