State jurisdiction

[Sana Aly]

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. It is the authority of a State over persons, property and events which are primarily within its territories (its land, its national airspace, and its internal and territorial water). This authority involves the powers to prescribe the rules of law, to enforce the prescribed rules of law and to adjudicate. The powers related to State jurisdiction raise the question regarding the types and forms of State Jurisdiction.
State jurisdiction may extend beyond its territory over persons and things which have a national link. This extension raises the question regarding the grounds or the principles upon which the State can assert its jurisdiction within and beyond its boundaries.
Nevertheless, there are certain persons, property and events within a State territory which are immune from its jurisdiction. This limitation to a State jurisdiction raises a question regarding the immunity from jurisdiction.
The answers to the above raised questions are dealt with in the following sections.

Types of State Jurisdiction

State jurisdiction implies the competence to prescribe rules of law, the jurisdiction to enforce the prescribed rules of law and the jurisdiction to adjudicate. Accordingly, it is of three types: legislative jurisdiction, executive jurisdiction and judicial jurisdiction.

(1) Legislative Jurisdiction

Legislative jurisdiction is the capacity of a State to prescribe rules of law (the power to legislate). A State has the supremacy to make binding laws within its territory. It has a legislative exclusivity in many areas. This supremacy is entrusted to constitutionally recognized organs.
Although legislation is primarily enforceable within a State territory, it may extend beyond its territory in certain circumstances. International Law, for example, accepts that a State may levy taxes against persons not within its territory as long as there is a real link between the State and the proposed taxpayer, whether it is nationality or domicile.
The question of how far a court will enforce foreign legislation is a matter within the field of Private International Law (conflict of laws). It is common practice of States that a State enforces civil laws of another State, but it is rare to enforce the penal or taxes laws of another State.
The legislative supremacy of a State within its territory is well established in International Law. However, this supremacy may be challenged in cases where a State adopts laws that are contrary to the rules of International Law. In such cases, a State will be liable for a breach of International Law. A State may also be liable for a breach of International Law if it abuses its rights to legislate for its nationals abroad.

(2) Executive Jurisdiction

Executive jurisdiction is the capacity of a State to act and to enforce its laws within its territory. Generally, since States are independent of each other and possess territorial sovereignty, they have no authority to carry out their functions on foreign territory. No State has the authority to infringe the territorial sovereignty of another State. In this sense, a State cannot enforce its laws upon foreign territory without the consent of the host State; otherwise, it will be liable for a breach of International Law.


(3) Judicial Jurisdiction

Judicial jurisdiction is the capacity of the courts of a State to try legal cases. A State has an exclusive authority to create courts and assign their jurisdiction, and to lay down the procedures to be followed. However, in doing so, it cannot by any means alter the way in which foreign courts operate.

[Sana Aly]

There are a number of principles upon which the courts of a State can claim jurisdiction. In civil matters, the principles range from the mere presence of the defendant in the territory of a State to the nationality and domicile principles. In the criminal matters, they range from the territorial principle to the universality principle.


Principles of Jurisdiction

Generally, the exercise of civil jurisdiction by courts of a State has been claimed upon far wider grounds than has been the case in criminal matters. The consequent reaction by other State with this regard has been much mild. This is partly because public opinion is far more vigorous where a person is tried in foreign territory for criminal offences than if a person is involved in a civil case. In addition, International Law does not impose any restrictions on the jurisdiction of courts in civil matters.
In Common Law countries such as the United States and United Kingdom, the usual ground for jurisdiction in civil cases is the service of a writ upon the defendant within the country, even if the presence of the defendant is temporary and incidental. In Civil Law countries, the usual ground for jurisdiction is the habitual residence of the defendant in the country. In some countries such as Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, generally courts assert their jurisdiction if the defendant possesses assets in the country; however, in matrimonial cases the commonly accepted ground for jurisdiction is the domicile or residence of the plaintiff.
As far as criminal jurisdiction is concerned, the grounds or principles of jurisdiction mostly invoked by States are as follows.

(1) The Territorial Principle

The territorial principle is derived from the concept of State sovereignty. It means that a State has the primary jurisdiction over all events taking place in its territory regardless of the nationality of the person responsible. It is the dominant ground of jurisdiction in International Law. All other State must respect the supremacy of the State over its territory, and consequently must not interfere neither in its internal affairs nor in its territorial jurisdiction.
The territorial jurisdiction of State extents over its land, its national airspace, its internal water, its territorial sea, its national aircrafts, and its national vessels. It encompasses not only crimes committed on its territory but also crimes have effects within its territory. In such a case a concurrent jurisdiction occurs, a subjective territorial jurisdiction may be exercised by the State in whose territory the crime was committed, and an objective territorial jurisdiction may be exercised by the State in whose territory the crime had its effect.
Although jurisdiction is primarily and predominantly territorial, it is not exclusive. A State is free to confer upon other States the right to exercise certain jurisdiction within its national territory. States are free to arrange the right of each one to exercise certain jurisdiction within each national territory. The most significant recent examples of such arrangements are: the 1991 France-United Kingdom Protocol Concerning Frontier Control and Policing, under which the frontier control laws and regulations of each State are applicable and may be enforced by its officers in the control zones of the other; the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, under which the Israeli criminal laws are applicable to the Israeli nationals and the activities involving only them in the specified areas under Jordan’s sovereignty, and measures can be taken in the areas by Israel to enforce such laws.

(2) The Nationality Principle

The nationality principle implies that a State jurisdiction extends to its nationals and actions they take beyond its territory. It is based upon the notion that the link between the State and its nationals is personal one independent of location.
Criminal jurisdiction based on the nationality principle is universally accepted. While Civil Law countries make extensive use of it, the Common Law countries use it with respect to major crimes such as murder and treason. The Common law countries, however, do not challenge the extensive use of this principle by other countries.
A State may prosecute its nationals for crimes committed anywhere in the world; the ground of this jurisdiction is known as active nationality principle. Also, it may claim jurisdiction for crimes committed by aliens against their nationals abroad; the ground of this jurisdiction is known as passive nationality principle. This last principle has been viewed as much weaker than the territorial or active nationality principle as a basis for jurisdiction. It has been considered as a secondary basis for jurisdiction, and a matter of considerable controversy among States. However, in recent years this principle has come to be much acceptable by the international community in the sphere of terrorist and other internationally condemned crimes.

(3) The Protective principle

The protective principle implies that a State may exercise jurisdiction over an alien who commits an act outside its territory, which is deemed prejudicial to its security and interests. It is universally accepted, although there are uncertainties as to its practical extent, particularly as regard to the acts which may come within its domain. It is justified on the basis of protection of State’s vital interests, particularly when the alien commits an offence prejudicial to the State, which is not punishable under the law of the country where he resides and extradition is refused.
Although the protective principle is used as a secondary basis for jurisdiction and in a narrower sense than the territorial or the nationality principle, it can easily be abused, particularly in order to undermine the jurisdiction of other States. In practice however, this principle is applied in those cases where the acts of the person which take place abroad constitute crimes against the sovereignty of the State, such as plots to through a government, treason, espionage, forging a currency, economic crimes and breaking immigration laws and regulations. This principle is often used in treaties providing for multiple jurisdictional grounds with regard to specific crimes, such as the 1979 Hostage Convention and the 1970 Hague Aircraft Hijacking Convention.

(4) The Universality Principle

The universality principle, in its broad sense, implies that a State can claim jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by any person anywhere in the world, without any required connection to territory, nationality or special State interest. Before the Second World War, such universal jurisdiction has been considered as contrary to International Law by the Common Law countries, except for acts regarded as crimes in all countries, and crimes against the international community as a whole such as piracy and slave trade.
After the Second World War, universal jurisdiction has been universally recognized over certain acts considered as international crimes. International crimes are those crimes committed against the international community as a whole or in violation of International Law and punishable under it, such as war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. In recent years, crimes such as Hijacking of aircraft, violation of human rights and terrorism, have been added to the list of international crimes.
Today under the universality principle, each State and every State has jurisdiction over any of the international crimes committed by anyone anywhere.

[Sana Aly]

Immunity from Jurisdiction

The concept of jurisdiction is derived from the concept of sovereignty, and is connected with the principles of equality and non-interference in domestic affairs of other States. The grounds for jurisdiction are related to the duty of a State under International Law to respect the territorial integrity and political independence of other States. Immunity from jurisdiction is grounded on this duty, and constitutes derogation from the host State jurisdiction.
Under International Law, immunity from jurisdiction is granted to certain persons, namely States (sovereigns) and their diplomatic and consular representatives, and international organizations.

(1) Sovereign Immunity

In International Law, sovereign immunity refers to the legal rules and principles determining the conditions under which a State may claim exemption from the jurisdiction of another State. Sovereign immunity is a creation of customary International Law and derives from the principles of independence and equality of sovereign States; since States are independent and legally equal, no State may exercise jurisdiction over another State without its consent. It is a limitation imposed by International Law upon the sovereignty of a State.
Although rules of sovereign immunity form part of customary International Law, today they are incorporated either in international treaties, such as the 1972 European Convention on State Immunity, or in national statutes of certain States, such as the 1976 U.S Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the 1978 U.K State Immunities Act.
Historically, the head of a State (a sovereign) was associated with the State. Originally, both of them enjoyed under customary International Law absolute immunity, in all areas of their activities, from the jurisdiction of another State. While the head of a State continues today to enjoy such absolute immunity, even for his private activities, a State nowadays enjoys only qualified (restrictive) immunity. Under the qualified immunity, a State enjoys immunity only in respect of its governmental acts (acts jure imperii), not in respect of its commercial acts (acts jure gestionis).
In practice, sovereign immunity arises on two levels. The first level concerns the immunity of a State from the jurisdiction of courts of another State; courts of a State cannot adjudicate a claim against a foreign State. The second level concerns the immunity of a State from the execution of enforcement measures undertaken by courts of another State.
Sovereign immunity covers the head of a State as well as the State itself, its government, its departments, and its agencies. It embraces the acts of these entities, their property and assets. This immunity may, however, be voluntarily waived by a State. A State may waive its immunity from jurisdiction and consequently submits itself to the jurisdiction of a foreign court. However, such submission (waiver of jurisdictional immunity), although gives the court of a State the competence to adjudicate and enter a judgment against a foreign State, it does not authorize the execution of the court’s decision against such State. In case of execution, another waiver is needed, namely a waiver of immunity from execution. Waiver must be express; however, implied waiver is accepted if indicated by the circumstances.

(2) Diplomatic Immunity

The rules of diplomatic immunity are the most accepted and uncontroversial rules of International Law. They are essential for the maintenance and efficient conduct of relations between States. Prior to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic law, especially privileges and immunities were based upon custom as well as contained in bilateral treaties and national statutes. Nowadays, most of the modern law of diplomatic immunity is contained in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which both codified existing customary law and established others.
Under this convention, “a diplomatic agent” (the head of the mission and any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission) enjoys complete immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State; also, he enjoys immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of real action relates to private immovable property situated within the receiving State, action related to succession matters in which he is involved as a private person, and action related to professional or commercial activity, in the receiving State, outside his official functions. No measures of execution may be forced upon him, except in the above mentioned cases. He cannot be obliged to give evidence as a witness. His person is inviolable. He cannot be arrested or detained. All appropriate steps should be taken by the receiving State to protect him and prevent any attack on his person, freedom and dignity. He is exempt from all dues and taxes, except in certain cases. The premises of the mission and the private residence of a diplomatic agent as well as their archives, documents, papers, official correspondence and other property are inviolable.
A diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. He also enjoys such immunity when passes through or is in the territory of a third State on proceeding to take up or to return to his post, or when returning to his own country.
The immunity granted to a diplomatic agent is immunity from the jurisdiction of the receiving State and not from liability. He is not immune from the jurisdiction of the sending State. Moreover, he can be sued in the receiving state after a reasonable time elapses from the ending of his mission.
The immunity of a diplomatic agent from jurisdiction of the receiving State may be waived by the sending State. The waiver must be express. However, such waiver of immunity from jurisdiction does not imply waiver of immunity in respect of the execution of a judgment; in such case, a separate waiver is required. Immunity may also be waived by the diplomatic agent himself, by submitting voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the court of the receiving State.
Members of the family of a diplomatic agent, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, likewise enjoy the same immunity from jurisdiction. The same immunity, with certain exceptions, is enjoyed by members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together with members of their families forming part of their respective households, if they are not nationals or permanent residents of the receiving State. Members of the service staff who are not nationals or permanent residents of the receiving State enjoy immunity only in respect of acts performed in the course of their official duties.

(3) Consular Immunity

A consular officer, like a diplomatic agent, represents his State in the receiving State. However, unlike a diplomatic agent, he is not concerned with political relations between the two States, but with a variety of administrative functions, such as issuing visas and passports, looking after the commercial interests of his State, and assisting the nationals of his State in distress. Thus, he is not granted the same degree of immunity from jurisdiction as a diplomatic agent.
Notably nowadays, many States combine its diplomatic and consular services. Thus, a person who acts simultaneously as a diplomat and consul enjoys diplomatic immunity.
Under the 1963 Vienna Convention on the Consular Relations, a consular officer (the head of the consular post and any person entrusted to exercise consular functions) is immune from an arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority. He is immune from imprisonment or any other restriction on his personal freedom save in execution of a final judicial decision. If criminal proceedings are instituted against him, he must appear before the competent authorities. The proceedings must be conducted in a manner that respects his official position and does not hamper the exercise of consular functions, and with the minimum delay.
A consular officer is immune from the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State only in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions. He is exempt from all dues and taxes, except in certain cases. In addition, the consular premises, archives and documents are inviolable.
A consular officer enjoys the immunities from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when he enters on his duties. The same immunities are enjoyed by members of the family of the consular officer from the date which he enjoys his immunities.
The immunities of a consular officer may be waived by the sending State. The waiver must be express. However, the waiver of immunity from jurisdiction for the purposes of civil or administrative proceedings does not imply waiver of immunity from the execution of a judicial decisions; in such case, a separate waiver is required. Immunity may also be waived by the consular officer himself, by submitting voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the court of the receiving State.

(4) Immunities of International Organizations

It is uncertain which immunities and to what extent international organizations enjoy under customary International Law; the position of this law is far from clear. Actually, immunities are granted to international organizations by treaties, or by headquarters agreements concluded with the host State where the organization is seated.
The purpose of immunity granted to international organizations is purely functional. Immunity is regarded as functionally necessary for the fulfillment of their objectives. It is not a reflection of sovereignty, as it is in case of a State, except only indirectly when aiming to protect the interests of the member States of the organization.
Probably the most important example of treaties providing immunities to international organizations is the 1946 General Conventions on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which sets out the immunities of the United Nations and its personnel. The United Nations enjoys complete immunity from all legal process. Its premises, assets, archives and documents are inviolable. It is exempt from direct taxes and customs duties. Its staff is exempt from income tax on their salaries.
The U.N Secretary General and the Assistant Secretaries General enjoy diplomatic immunity. Other staff members enjoy limited immunities, such as immunity from legal process in respect of their official acts.
Representatives of member States attending the United Nations meetings are granted almost the same immunities as diplomats, except their immunity from legal process applies only to their official acts.
An example of treaties providing immunities to representatives of States in international organizations is the 1975 Vienna Convention on the Representatives of States in their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal Character. This treaty applies to representatives of States in any international organizations of a universal character, irrespective of whether or not there are diplomatic relations between the sending State and the host States.
Under this treaty, the representatives of States in universal international organizations enjoy similar immunities to those provided in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. They enjoy immunity from criminal jurisdiction, and immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction in all cases, save for certain exceptions. The mission premises, archives, documents and correspondence are inviolable.

Source: Waleedabdulrahim