Jurisdiction

Question 1

Jurisdiction

Answer 1

The extent of each State’s right to regulate conduct or the consequences of events

Question 2

Where can jurisdiction be inferred from?

Answer 2

The principle of territorial sovereignty

Question 3

Extraterritorial jurisdiction

Answer 3

The extension of the jurisdiction to acts that happen outside their territory

Question 4

Aut dedere, aut judiciare

Answer 4

You don’t want to prosecute, you extradite

Question 5

The principle re enforcement jurisdiction

Answer 5

A State may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State (unless there was consent)

Question 6

Eichmann v A-G of Israel 1961

Answer 6

F: Eichmann suspected Nazi Germany war criminal who fled to Argentina, Israeli Secret Services went to Argentina and brought him back to Israel where he was executed
I: Was there a violation of Argentina’s sovereignty?
H: Yes, but Argentina didn’t complain

Question 7

Prescriptive jurisdiction

Answer 7

State can prescribe their laws on whatever terms they like unless they have consented not to

Question 8

Condition governing prescribing laws

Answer 8

States under IL have a duty to show that there is a valid connection under IL between the country prescribing laws and the individual they want to prescribe these laws over

Question 9

5 Harvard Draft circumstances in which a State can prescribe their laws (1935)

Answer 9

• Territorial
• Nationality
• Protective
• Universal
• Passive personality

Question 10

Territorial connection

Answer 10

You can prescribe your laws over conduct on your territory

Question 11

Nationality connection

Answer 11

You can prescribe your laws over your nationals

Question 12

Protective connection

Answer 12

This applies where the vital interest of a state is threatened

Question 13

Universal connection

Answer 13

There are certain circumstances in which all states have an interest in making certain activities illegal

Question 14

Passive personality connection

Answer 14

That’s where the connection between the state and the person they want to prosecute is that the victim of that person was of that state’s nationality

Question 15

France v Turkey (S.S. Lotus) 1927

Answer 15

F: A collision of a Turkish and French ship on high seas, Turkey arrested the French officer that was on the Lotus
I: Could they do that?
H: Yes, the distinction between the prescriptive jurisdiction and the enforcement jurisdiction

Question 16

Cutting 1886

Answer 16

F: A US national arrested and imprisoned when he entered Mexico for an incident against a Mexican national that happened in the US
I: Could Mexico do that?
H: The state wanting to prescribe their laws needs a justification

Question 17

R v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court ex p Bennett 1993

Answer 17

F: Bennett a New Zealand citizen who fraudulently bought a helicopter in the UK and took it to Africa, Africa didn’t want to extradite him, then he was deported, when the plane stopped in London to refuel, UK police arrested him
I: Was there grounds for JR?
H: Yes, it was abuse of process and violation of HR law

Question 18

R v Staines Magistrates Court ex p Westfallen 1998

Answer 18

F: Two individuals detained in Norway after being arrested in possession of some illegal passwords etc., British citizens, Norway decided to deport them and told the UK authorities to detain them when they get off the plane
I: Did Bennett apply here?
H: No, since Norwegians were entitled to deport them on their own terms and the UK police did not procure them in any way to do so

Question 19

R v Mullen 1999

Answer 19

F: Mullen wanted by the Britis police as member of the IRA, escaped the UK but brought back to the UK by Zimbabwe, then denied a lawyer and convicted for 30 years in prison
I: Was there abuse of process
H: Yes, conviction quashed

Question 20

Bankovic 1991

Answer 20

F: Case brought by the families of a number of Syrian citizens who were killed by a British aircraft during a bombing, alleged violation of Art 2
I: Whether the violations fell within a meaning of jurisdiction?
H: Two models:
- The spatial model - the effective overall control of an area, so Art 1 applies if there is overall control of the territory
- The personal model - Art 1 follows the acts of state agents, so the bombers would be liable
ECHR went for the spatial model

Question 21

Issa 2004

Answer 21

F: A number of Iraqi shepherds near the Turkish border, the Turkish killed them and their families, although the Turkish operated in Iraq, had no spatial control over Turkey
I: Were they liable?
H: Yes, although no spatial control, the personal model used here

Question 22

R (on the application of Al-Skeini and Ors) v SoS for Defence 2007

Answer 22

F: Deaths of Iraqi citizens killed by British soldiers during the occupation of Iraq, some of them caught in fighting and checkpoints
I: Were the soldiers liable?
H: Spatial model used, no effective overall control, apart from one who died in prison in British base

Question 23

Al-Skieni 2011

Answer 23

Spatial model used explicitly, although in fact, it was Issa

Question 24

Jaloud 2014

Answer 24

F: Jaloud killed at a checkpoint ran by Dutch armed forces in Iraq, the Dutch failed to investigate the killing, the general control in the area was British
I: Who was liable?
H: The Netherlands responsible as they had control over that checkpoint, also personal model implicitly supported

Question 25

US v Alcoa 1945

Answer 25

The US asserted jurisdiction over the conduct of a non-US company that was a member of a cartel whose activities were intended to affect imports and exports to and from the US

Question 26

Uranium Antitrust 1979

Answer 26

Uranium producers in a number of States formed a cartel primarily in order to maintain the world market price, making it unavailable for one US company to trade it as it was too expensive; US asserted jurisdiction

Question 27

Subjective territorial jurisdiction

Answer 27

Exercise of prescriptive jurisdiction by a State in circumstances where it applies its law to an incident which is initiated within its territory, but completed outside its territory

Question 28

Objective territorial jurisdiction

Answer 28

Exercise of prescriptive jurisdiction by a State where it applies its law to an incident that is completed within its territory, even though it was initiated outside its territory
- The effects doctrine

Question 29

Arrest Warrant on passive personality jurisdiction

Answer 29

“Passive personality jurisdiction, for so long regarded as controversial… today meets with relatively little opposition, at least so far as a particular category of offences is concerned.”

E.g. Terrorism