1.

LOTUS CASE

Facts. 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. 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 states national jurisdiction exist?

Held. (Per curiam) No. A rule of international law, which prohibits a state
from exercising criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts
outside of the states 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.

2. Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada)

Facts. The Tail Smelter located in British Columbia since 1906, was owned
and operated by a Canadian corporation. The resultant effect of from the
sulfur dioxide from Trail Smelter resulted in the damage of the state of
Washington between 1925 and 1937. This led to the United States (P) suit
against the Canada (D) with an injunction against further air pollution by Trail
Smelter.

Issue. Is it the responsibility of the State to protect to protect other states

against harmful acts by individuals from within its jurisdiction at all times?

Held. Yes. It is the responsibility of the State to protect other states against
harmful act by individuals from within its jurisdiction at all times. No state
has the right to use or permit the use of the territory in a manner as to cause
injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons
therein as stipulated under the United States (P) laws and the principles of
international law.

By looking at the facts contained in this case, the arbitration held that
Canada (D) is responsible in international law for the conduct of the Trail
Smelter Company. Hence, the onus lies on the Canadian government (D) to
see to it that Trail Smelters conduct should be in line with the obligations of
Canada (D) as it has been confirmed by International law. The Trail Smelter
Company will therefore be required from causing any damage through fumes
as long as the present conditions of air pollution exist in Washington.

So, in pursuant of the Article III of the convention existing between the two
nations, the indemnity for damages should be determined by both
governments. Finally, a regime or measure of control shall be applied to the
operations of the smelter since it is probable in the opinion of the tribunal
that damage may occur in the future from the operations of the smelter
unless they are curtailed.
3. Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)

Facts. Nottebohn (P), a German by birth, lived in Guatemala (D) for 34 years,
retaining his German citizenship and family and business ties with it. He however
applied for Liechtenstein (P) citizenship a month after the outbreak of World War II.
Nottebohm (P) had no ties with Liechtenstein but intended to remain in Guatemala.
The naturalization application was approved by Liechtenstein and impliedly waived
its three-year. After this approval, Nottebohm (P) travelled to Liechtenstein and
upon his return to Guatemala (D), he was refused entry because he was deemed to
be a German citizen. His Liechtenstein citizenship was not honored. Liechtenstein
(P) thereby filed a suit before the International Court to compel Guatemala (D) to
recognize him as one of its national. Guatemala (D) challenged the validity of
Nottebohms (P) citizenship, the right of Liechtenstein (P) to bring the action and
alleged its belief that Nottebohm (P) remained a German national.

Issue. Must nationality be disregarded by other states where it is clear that it was a
mere device since the nationality conferred on a party is normally the concerns of
that nation?

Held. NO. Issues relating to citizenship are solely the concern of the granting
nation. This is the general rule. But it does not mean that other states will
automatically accept the conferring states designation unless it has acted in
conformity with the general aim of forging a genuine bond between it and its
national aim. In this case, there was no relationship between Liechtenstein (P) and
Nottebohm (P). the change of nationality was merely a subterfuge mandated by the
war. Under this circumstance, Guatemala (D) was not forced to recognize it.
Dismissed.

Discussion. A state putting forth a claim must establish a locus standi for that
purpose. Without interruption and continuously from the time of the injury to the
making of an award been a national of the state making the claim and must not
have been a national of the state against whom the claim has been filed.