1

CHAPTER 9 b. when the boundary between two states is a non-navigable river, its
JURISDICTION OF STATES location is the middle of the river or lake.

JURISDICTION “To have jurisdiction occupation is not enough; control must also be
The authority to affect legal interest. established.” Las Palmas Case

KINDS: Effects Doctrine (an aspect of Territoriality Principle)

1. LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION  A state also has jurisdiction over acts occurring outside its
-Jurisdiction to perform norms of conduct territory but having effects within.

2. EXECUTIVE JURISDICTION  Consist of two principles:

Jurisdiction to perform the norms prescribed a. Subjective Territorial Principle
A state has jurisdiction to prosecute and punish for crime
3. JUDICIAL JURISDICTION commenced within the state but completed or consummated
Jurisdiction o adjudicate abroad.

International Law limits itself to criminal rather than civil b. Objective Territorial Principle
jurisdiction. Civil jurisdiction is a subject for private international law A state has jurisdiction to prosecute and punish for crime
or conflicts of law. commenced without the state but consummated within its
territory.
FIVE PRINCIPLES
THE LOTUS CASE
1. TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE- (FRANCE V TURKEY)
2. NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE
3. PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE FACTS:
4. UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE
5. PASSIVE PERSONALITY PRINCIPLE A French mail steamer Lotus, on the way to Constantinople,
collided with Turkish cutter Boz-Kourt on the high seas. The
I. TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE Boz-Kourt sank with the loss of eight sailors all Turkish
The fundamental source of jurisdiction is sovereignity over territory. nationals. The Lotus subsequently arrived in Constantinople
A state has absolute but not necessarily exclusive power to prescribe, at which point Turkish authorities arrested Lieutenant
adjudicate, and enforce rules for conduct that occurs within its Demons, the French officer in charge of the Lotus at the time
territory. For this reason it is necessary that boundaries be of collision.
determined. Lieutenant Demons argued that the Turkish Courts had no
The Third Restatement summarizes the rules on boundaries where jurisdiction. The French and the Turks agreed to submit the
states are not islands but parts of a larger land mass. dispute to the ICJ.

1. The boundary separating the land areas of two states is ISSUE:

determined by acts of the states expressing their consent to its Whether or not Turkey by instituting criminal proceedings in
location, pursuance of Turkish law against M. Demons violated
international law?
2. Unless a consent to a different rule has been expressed
a. when the boundary between two states is a navigable river, its RULING:
location is the middle of the channel of navigation. (Thalweg doctrine)

Jurisdiction over foreign vessels in Philippine Territory
1. FRENCH RULE
Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel should
not be prosecuted in the courts of the country within those
territorial jurisdiction they were committed unless their
commission affects the peace and security of the territory.
2. ENGLISH RULE (The rule which the Philippines adhere to)
Crimes perpetrated under such circumstances are in general
triable in the courts of the country within whose territory they
were committed.
TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION
US V CANADA
FACTS:
The Government of United States has complained to the
Government of Canada that fumes discharged from the
smelter of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting company at
Trail British Columbia have been causing damage in the State
of Washington.
ISSUE: Whether or not the damage cause by the Trail
Smelter in the State of Washington has occurred since the
first day of January, 1932, and if so, what indemnity should
be paid therefor?
RULING:
Damaged caused by the Trail Smelter in the State of
Washington has occurred since the first day of January, 1932
and up to October 1, 1937, and the indemnity to be paid
therefor is USD 78,000 and is to be complete and final
indemnity and compensation for all damage which occurred
between such dates.
“A state owes its at all times a duty to protect other States
against injurious acts by individuals from within its
jurisdiction.” (Responsibility of States in International Law,
Prof. Eagleton)
The tribunal holds that the Dominion of Canada is
responsible in international law for th conduct of Train
Smelter. It is therefore the duty of the government of the
Dominion of Canada to see to it that this conduct should be in
2
conformity with the obligation of the Dominion of Canada to
see to it that this conduct should be in conformity with the
obligation of the Dominion under international as herein
determined.
II. NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE
Every state has jurisdiction over its nationals even when those
nationals are outside the state.
BLACKMER V UNITED STATES
FACTS:
The petitioner, Harry M. Blackmer, a citizen of the United States
resident in Paris, France, was adjudged guilty of contempt of the
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for failure to respond to
subpoenas served upon him in France and requiring him to appear
as a witness on behalf of the United Sates at a criminal trial in that
court.
The statute upon which the subpoenas and the proceedings are relied
on are assailed by Blackmer as being repugnant to the Constitution
of the United States. First. The principal objections to the statute are
that it violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. These
contentions are:
1. That the Congress has no power to authorize United States
consuls to serve process except as permitted by treaty;
2. That the act does not provide “a valid method of acquiring judicial
jurisdiction to render personal judgement against defendant and
judgement against his property;
3. That the act “does not require actual or any other notice to
defendant of the offense or of the Government’s claim against his
property;
4. That the provisions “for hearing and judgement in the entire
absence of the accused and without his consent” are invalid; and
5. That the act is “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable”
ISSUE: Whether or not the Government of the United States have
jurisdiction over Blackmer?
RULING:
YES. While it appears that the petitioner removed his residence to
France in the year 1924, it is undisputed that he was, and continued
to be, a citizen of the United States. By virtue of the obligations of
citizenship, the United States retained its authority over him, and he
 3

was bound by its laws made applicable to him in a foreign country.
Thus, although resident abroad the petitioner remained subject to
the taxing power of the United States. Cook v Tait For disobedience to
its laws through conduct abroad, he was subject to punishment in
the courts of the United States. United States v Bowman
With respect to such an exercise of authority, there is no question of
international law, but solely of the purport of the municipal law
which establishes the duties of the citizen in relation to his own
government. While the legislation of the Congress, unless the
contrary intent appears, is construed to apply only within the
territorial jurisdiction of the United States, the question of its
application, so far as citizens of the United States in foreign countries
are concerned, is one of construction, not of legislative power.
American Banana v United Fruit Co.,
THE NOTTEBOHM CASE
(LIECHTENSTEIN V GUATEMALA)
FACTS:
III. THE PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE
A State may exercise jurisdiction over conduct outside its territory
that threatens its security as long as that conduct is generally
recognized as criminal by states in the international community. This
conditional clause excludes acts committed in exercise of the liberty
guaranteed an alien by the law of the place where the act was
committed.

Nor can it be doubted that the United States possesses the power
inherent in sovereignty to require the return to this country of a
citizen, resident elsewhere, whenever the public interest requires it,
and to penalize him in case of refusal. Compare Bartue and the
Duchess of Suffolk’s Case, Knowles and Luce Moore

It is also beyond controversy that one of the duties which the citizen
owes to his government is to support the administrator of justice by
attending its courts and giving his testimony whenever he is properly
summoned.

Each state has the right to decide who are its nationals using either
the principle of jus sanguinis or jus soli or naturalization laws.
However, for a state to claim a person as a national, the state must
have reasonable connection or an “effective link” with that person.
The consent of the individual alone is not enough for him to be
recognized by other states as a national of the state to which he
claims to belong.

Effective Nationality Link

The doctrine on effective nationality link is used to determine which
of two states of which a person is a national will be recognized as
having the right to give diplomatic protection to the holder of dual
nationality.