Jurisdiction in International Law: Principles and Challenges скачать в хорошем качестве

Jurisdiction in International Law: Principles and Challenges

#urisdictionj in #International_Law This video explores the complex and evolving concept of *jurisdiction* in international law, defining it as a state's right to prescribe and enforce laws. This power is intrinsically linked to state **sovereignty**, which both enables its exercise and serves as a limit to prevent conflicts between nations. Core Principles and Forms of Jurisdiction Historically, international jurisdiction has been rooted in the *territoriality principle**, meaning a state's power is primarily limited to its geographic borders. However, in an increasingly interconnected world, particularly with the rise of technology and transnational crime, states also exercise **extraterritorial jurisdiction* based on other principles, such as: *Prescriptive Jurisdiction:* A state's power to make its laws applicable to people, activities, or things. While the 1927 *Lotus case* suggested a permissive approach, modern international law requires a state to rely on a specific, permissive principle for lawful exercise. *Enforcement Jurisdiction:* A state's power to compel compliance with its laws. This is much stricter than prescriptive jurisdiction, and states are generally not allowed to enforce their laws outside their own territory without a specific international rule. *Adjudicatory Jurisdiction:* A state's power to subject individuals or things to the authority of its courts. *Functional Jurisdiction:* A limited form of jurisdiction often used in the law of the sea, where coastal states have authority over activities in their maritime zones. Challenges and the Rule of Reason The existence of multiple principles for prescriptive jurisdiction often leads to *overlapping claims**, causing international friction. International law lacks a clear rule to resolve these conflicts, though the **territorial state* is often seen as having the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. --- The Role of Subsidiarity The concept of *subsidiarity* offers a way to navigate these challenges. It suggests that a "bystander" state should *defer* to a state with a stronger connection to a situation. However, this deference is *conditional**. If the "most interested" state fails to genuinely investigate, prosecute, or address a situation in a way that serves the global interest (especially for grave crimes), a bystander state may legitimately exercise **subsidiary jurisdiction* as a "trustee of mankind." --- Concluding Thoughts While multilateral agreements would be the ideal solution for jurisdictional conflicts, the text concludes that individual states will continue to play a leading role in global governance. This makes a *rule of reason* essential, requiring states to defer to those with a stronger regulatory interest, but allowing for the legitimate exercise of subsidiary jurisdiction when necessary to ensure justice and protect the interests of the international community.