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.
This jurisdiction, by definition, is a court’s power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court (Kubasek, Browne, Dhooge, Herron, & Barkacs, 2017). This jurisdiction applies to this case because the lawsuit brought by Mr. Donald Margolin was filed after conducting business over the internet where funds were exchanged for a product. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction over Mr. Margolin and is required to provide a service of process to the defendants, Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Now Inc.
I. INTRODUCTION In International Law, jurisdiction is related to the concept of sovereignty and territory. In order to become a state, it must have territory and when a state has territory it is sovereign; and sovereign means it has supreme authority within its territory and is politically and legally independent with power to affect people, property and circumstances within its territory. Jurisdiction on people and property is an important and crucial part of state sovereignty. According to Shaw, jurisdiction is concerning about the power of state under international law to regulate or otherwise impact upon people, property and circumstances and reflects the basic principles of state sovereignty, equality of states and non-interference in
The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.” The principle of self determination has been acknowledged as one of the essential principles of contemporary international law. In the Case Concerning East Timor , the International Court of Justice [hereinafter ICJ] affirmed that self determination is a principle in International Law of erga omnes character: In the Court’s view... the assertion that the right of peoples to self determination as it evolved from the Charter and from the United Nations practice, has an erga omnes character, is irreproachable. The principle of self determination of peoples has been recognized by the United Nations Charter and in the jurisprudence of the Court <...>; it is one of the essential principles of contemporary international law. The position was reiterated by the ICJ in the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory
Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction can in many circumstances be a useful and legitimate response to transnational crime. Criminal activity is not always confined to territorial boarders, and so the law may seek to follow the crime to prevent an offender from enjoying impunity. A number of states have included in their criminal legislature provisions allowing for the investigation and prosecution of international crimes, even when such crime is committed outside their national territory and whether or not the perpetrators or the victims are nationals of the state concerned”. The importance of extraterritorial jurisdiction was also seen in the Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949 – Reparations for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations. Personnel of the UN were targeted in Palestine which culminated in the assassination of
Introduction According to Bledsoe and Bozcek in their book, the International Law Dictionary, state jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. In other words Jurisdiction is the authority state has over individuals, property and actions which happen within its sovereign territorial area (whether it is its land, its national airspace, its internal and territorial water, or even its national vessels) therefore giving state the right to stipulate laws, impose them and to adjudge the proceeding of it. Jurisdiction (or state Jurisdiction) is a quite versatile term in International Law, as there are actually three types of jurisdiction held by state. Therefore, to comprehensively understand the term, it is better to explain what these types of jurisdictions are.
This concept is now widely known as the principle of primacy. Under this system both tribunals reserve the right to request from domestic courts cases deemed of having sufficient gravity to be tried by the tribunals. Drawing from this mode of interaction it suffices to conclude that the jurisdiction of the concerned domestic courts was in principle conditional on an absence of adjudication by the international
First, an omission of any of abovementioned criteria could mean impunity for certain human rights violations. Secondly, it contains some kind of a challenge to the concept of the state sovereignty. In general, the sovereignty is understood as supremacy of the state power within its territory and independence out of it. However, the accuracy of such formulation is quite relative (Lukashuk,
He reaffirmed free communication in particularly straightforward terms as a fundamental principle inherent to international law: ‘every nation is free to travel to every other nation’ as an ‘unimpeachable rule of the law of nations […] which is self-evident and immutable’. While referring to Vitoria, he recalled that this basic rule of international law was truly universal and relied on ‘the sacrosanct law of hospitality’. Grotius further underlined that such a rule was not limited to common properties (such as the sea) but also applied to the territories possessed by statess: ‘even in the case of the land that has been assigned as private property, whether to nations or to single individuals, it is nevertheless unjust to deny the right of passage (that is to say, of course, unarmed and innocent passage) to men of any
Sixty years ago the Universal Declaration of Human Rights confirmed the right of everyone to a nationality. Two supplementary transnational instruments have since been promulgated to enhance protection and reduce statelessness: the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Their still too limited ratification is a source of concern, stemming in part as it does from a lack of understanding as to the extent of the problem and the severity of the consequences. Moreover, even where these issues may be appreciated, there are still the sovereignty concerns to overcome. Specifically, it is intended to assist States, UNHCR and partners to better understand the causes of statelessness, the consequences and the protection