You are on page 1of 70

The Lotus Case

Court Permanent Court of International Justice


Full case
name
The Case of the S.S. "Lotus" (France v.
Turke!
Ju"#es
sittin#
$u%er& Lo"er& 'eiss& Finla& (holm&
)oore& "e *ustamante& +ltamira& ,"a&
+n-ilotti& Pessoa&Fei-i./ame *e
The Lotus case concerns a criminal trial 0hich 0as the result of the 1 +u#ust 2314 collision
%et0een the S.S. Lotus& a French steamshi5 (or steamer!& an" the S.S. *o-.6ourt& a Turkish
steamer& in a re#ion 7ust north of )tilene (8reece!. +s a result of the acci"ent& ei#ht Turkish
nationals a%oar" the *o-.6ourt "ro0ne" 0hen the vessel 0as torn a5art % the Lotus.
Contents
9 2 *ack#roun"
9 1 Lotus 5rinci5le
9 : ;eferences
9 < ;esources
9 = See also
*ack#roun"
,n > Se5tem%er 231> the case 0as 5resente" %efore the Permanent Court of International
Justice& the 7u"icial %ranch of the Lea#ue of (ations& the 5re"ecessor of the ?nite" (ations.
The issue at stake 0as Turke@s 7uris"iction to tr )onsieur /emons& the French officer on
0atch "ut at the time of the collision. Since the collision occurre" on the hi#h seas& France
claime" that onl the state 0hose fla# the vessel fle0 ha" eAclusive 7uris"iction over the matter.
France 5roffere" case la0& throu#h 0hich it attem5te" to sho0 at least state 5ractice in su55ort of
its 5osition. $o0ever& those cases %oth involve" shi5s that fle0 the fla# of the fla# state an"
0ere thus easil "istin#uisha%le. The Court& therefore& re7ecte" France@s 5osition statin# that
there 0as no rule to that effect in international la0.
Lotus 5rinci5le
The Lotus 5rinci5le or Lotus a55roach& usuall consi"ere" a foun"ation of international la0&
sas that soverei#n states ma act in an 0a the 0ish so lon# as the "o not contravene an
eA5licit 5rohi%ition. The a55lication of this 5rinci5le B an out#ro0th of the Lotus case B to future
inci"ents raisin# the issue of 7uris"iction over 5eo5le on the hi#h seas 0as chan#e" % article
22
C2D
of the 23=E $i#h Seas Convention. The convention& hel" in 8eneva& lai" em5hasis on the
fact that onl the fla# state or the state of 0hich the alle#e" offen"er 0as a national ha"
7uris"iction over sailors re#ar"in# inci"ents occurrin# in hi#h seas.
The 5rinci5le has also %een use" in ar#uments a#ainst the reasons of the ?nite" States of
+merica& for o55osin# the eAistence of the International Criminal Court (ICC!.
C1D
;eferences

File H. c.

/ocket II

Ju"#ment (o. 3
> Se5tem%er 231>

PH;)+(H(T C,?;T ,F I(TH;(+TI,(+L J?STICH
T0elfth (,r"inar! Session

The Case of the S.S. Lotus

France v. Turke
Ju"#ment

*HF,;HJ Presi"entJ $u%er
Kice.
Presi"entJ
'eiss
Former
Presi"ent
Lo"er
Ju"#esJ Lor" Finla& (holm& )oore& /e *ustamante& +ltamira& ,"a& +n-ilotti&
Pessoa
(ational
Ju"#eJ
Fei-i./aim *e

;e5resente"
*J
FranceJ *as"evant& Professor at the Facult of La0 of Paris
TurkeJ $is HAcellenc )ahmout Hssat *e& )inister of Justice

Perm. LinkJ htt5JLL000.0orl"courts.comL5ci7Len#L"ecisionsL231>.R3.R>Tlotus.htm

CitationJ S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.!& 231> P.C.I.J. (ser. +! (o. 2R (Se5t. >!
Pu%licationJ Pu%lications of the Permanent Court of International Justice& Series + . (o. 2RU
Collection of Ju"#ments& +.'. Si7thoffVs Pu%lishin# Com5an& Le"en& 231>.


C5=D C2D * a s5ecial a#reement si#ne" at 8eneva on ,cto%er 21th& 2314& %et0een the
8overnments of the French an" Turkish ;e5u%lics an" file" 0ith the ;e#istr of the Court& in
accor"ance 0ith +rticle <R of the Statute an" +rticle := of the ;ules of Court& on Januar <th&
231>& % the "i5lomatic re5resentatives at The $a#ue of the aforesai" 8overnments& the latter
have su%mitte" to the Permanent Court of International Justice the Wuestion of 7uris"iction 0hich
has arisen %et0een them follo0in# u5on the collision 0hich occurre" on +u#ust 1n"& 2314&
%et0een the steamshi5s *o-.6ourt an" Lotus.
C1D +ccor"in# to the s5ecial a#reement& the Court has to "eci"e the follo0in# WuestionsJ
"(2! $as Turke& contrar to +rticle 2= of the Convention of Lausanne of Jul 1<th& 231:&
res5ectin# con"itions of resi"ence an" %usiness an" 7uris"iction& acte" in conflict 0ith the
5rinci5les of international la0 B an" if so& 0hat 5rinci5les . % institutin#& follo0in# the collision
0hich occurre" on +u#ust 1n"& 2314& on the hi#h seas %et0een the French steamer Lotus an" the
Turkish steamer *o-.6ourt an" u5on the arrival of the French steamer at Constantino5le as 0ell
as a#ainst the ca5tain of the Turkish steamshi5.7oint criminal 5rocee"in#s in 5ursuance of
Turkish la0 a#ainst ). /emons& officer of the 0atch on %oar" the Lotus at the time of the
collision& in conseWuence of the loss of the *o-.6ourt havin# involve" the "eath of ei#ht Turkish
sailors an" 5assen#ersX
(1! Shoul" the re5l %e in the affirmative& 0hat 5ecuniar re5aration is "ue to ). /emons&
5rovi"e"& accor"in# to the 5rinci5les of international la0& re5aration shoul" %e ma"e in similar
casesXY
C:D 8ivin# effect to the 5ro5osals 7ointl ma"e % the Parties to the s5ecial a#reement in
accor"ance 0ith the terms of +rticle :1 of the ;ules& the Presi"ent& un"er +rticle <E of the
Statute an" +rticles :: an" :3 of the ;ules& fiAe" the "ates for the filin# % each Part of a Case
an" Counter.Case as )arch 2st an" )a 1<th& 231>& res5ectivelU no time 0as fiAe" for the
su%mission of re5lies& as the Parties ha" eA5resse" the 0ish that there shoul" not %e an.
C<D The Cases an" Counter.Cases 0ere "ul file" 0ith the ;e#istr % the "ates fiAe" an" 0ere
communicate" to those concerne" as 5rovi"e" in +rticle <: of the Statute.
C=D In the course of hearin#s hel" on +u#ust 1n"& :r"& 4th& an" Eth.2Rth& 231>& the Court has
hear" the oral 5lea"in#s& re5l an" re7oin"er su%mitte" % the a%ove.mentione" +#ents for the
Parties. C54D
C4D In su55ort of their res5ective su%missions& the Parties have 5lace" %efore the Court& as
anneAes to the "ocuments of the 0ritten 5rocee"in#s& certain "ocuments& a list of 0hich is #iven
in the anneA.
C>D In the course of the 5rocee"in#s& the Parties have ha" occasion to "efine the 5oints of vie0
res5ectivel a"o5te" % them in relation to the Wuestions referre" to the Court. The have "one
so % formulatin# more or less "evelo5e" conclusions summari-in# their ar#uments. Thus the
French 8overnment& in its Case& asks for 7u"#ment to the effect thatJ
"?n"er the Convention res5ectin# con"itions of resi"ence an" %usiness an" 7uris"iction si#ne" at
Lausanne on Jul 1<th& 231:& an" the 5rinci5les of international la0& 7uris"iction to entertain
criminal 5rocee"in#s a#ainst the officer of the 0atch of a French shi5& in connection 0ith the
collision 0hich occurre" on the hi#h seas %et0een that vessel an" a Turkish shi5& %elon#s
eAclusivel to the French CourtsU
"ConseWuentl& the Turkish 7u"icial authorities 0ere 0ron# in 5rosecutin#& im5risonin# an"
convictin# ). /emons& in connection 0ith the collision 0hich occurre" on the hi#h seas %et0een
the Lotus an" the *o-.6ourt& an" % so "oin# acte" in a manner contrar to the a%ove.mentione"
Convention an" to the 5rinci5les of international la0U
Z+ccor"in#l the Court is aske" to fiA the in"emnit in re5aration of the in7ur thus inflicte"
u5on ). /emons at 4VRRR Turkish 5oun"s an" to or"er this in"emnit to %e 5ai" % the
8overnment of the Turkish ;e5u%lic to the 8overnment of the French ;e5u%lic."
CED The Turkish 8overnment& for its 5art& sim5l asks the Court in its Case to "#ive 7u"#ment in
favour of the 7uris"iction of the Turkish Courts".
C3D The French 8overnment& ho0ever& has& in its Counter.Case& a#ain formulate" the
conclusions& alrea" set out in its Case& in a sli#htl mo"ifie" form& intro"ucin# certain ne0
5oints 5rece"e" % ar#uments 0hich shoul" %e cite" in full& seein# that the summari-e in a %rief
an" 5recise manner the 5oint of vie0 taken % the French 8overnment U the ne0 ar#uments an"
conclusions are as follo0sJ
Z'hereas the su%stitution of the 7uris"iction of the Turkish Courts for that of the forei#n
consular courts in criminal 5rocee"in#s taken a#ainst forei#ners is the outcome of the consent
#iven % the Po0ers to this su%stitution in the Conventions si#ne" at Lausanne on Jul 1<th&
231:U C5>D
"+s this consent& far from havin# %een #iven as re#ar"s criminal 5rocee"in#s a#ainst forei#ners
for crimes or offences committe" a%roa"& has %een "efinitel refuse" % the Po0ers an" %
France in 5articularU
"+s this refusal follo0s from the re7ection of a Turkish amen"ment calculate" to esta%lish this
7uris"iction an" from the statements ma"e in this connectionU
"+s& accor"in#l& the Convention of Lausanne of Jul 1<th& 231:& construe" in the li#ht of these
circumstances an" intentions& "oes not allo0 the Turkish Courts to take co#ni-ance of criminal
5rocee"in#s "irecte" a#ainst a French citi-en for crimes or offences committe" outsi"e TurkeU
"Furthermore& 0hereas& accor"in# to international la0 as esta%lishe" % the 5ractice of civili-e"
nations& in their relations 0ith each other& a State is not entitle"& a5art from eA5ress or im5licit
s5ecial a#reements& to eAten" the criminal 7uris"iction of its courts to inclu"e a crime or offence
committe" % a forei#ner a%roa" solel in conseWuence of the fact that one of its nationals has
%een a victim of the crime or offenceU
"'hereas acts 5erforme" on the hi#h seas on %oar" a merchant shi5 are& in 5rinci5le an" from
the 5oint of vie0 of criminal 5rocee"in#s& amena%le onl to the 7uris"iction of the courts of the
State 0hose fla# the vessel flies U
"+s that is a conseWuence of the 5rinci5le of the free"om of the seas& an" as States& attachin#
es5ecial im5ortance thereto& have rarel "e5arte" therefromU
"+s& accor"in# to eAistin# la0& the nationalit of the victim is not a sufficient #roun" to overri"e
this rule& an" seein# that this 0as hel" in the case of the Costa ;icca PacketU
"'hereas there are s5ecial reasons 0h the a55lication of this rule shoul" %e maintaine" in
collision cases& 0hich reasons are mainl connecte" 0ith the fact that the cul5a%le character of
the act causin# the collision must %e consi"ere" in the li#ht of 5urel national re#ulations 0hich
a55l to the shi5 an" the carrin# out of 0hich must %e controlle" % the national authoritiesU
"+s the collision cannot& in or"er thus to esta%lish the 7uris"iction of the courts of the countr to
0hich it %elon#s& %e locali-e" in the vessel sunk& such a contention %ein# contrar to the factsU
"+s the claim to eAten" the 7uris"iction of the courts of the countr to 0hich one vessel %elon#s&
on the #roun" of the ZconneAit" (conneAite! of offences& to 5rocee"in#s a#ainst an officer of the
other vessel concerne" in the collision& 0hen the t0o vessels are not of the same nationalit& has
no su55ort in international la0 U
"'hereas a contrar "ecision reco#ni-in# the 7uris"iction of the Turkish Courts to take
co#ni-ance of the criminal 5rocee"in#s a#ainst the officer of the 0atch of the French shi5
involve" in the collision 0oul" amount to intro"ucin# an innovation entirel at variance 0ith
firml esta%lishe" 5rece"entU C5ED
"'hereas the s5ecial a#reement su%mits to the Court the Wuestion of an in"emnit to %e a0ar"e"
to )onsieur /emons as a conseWuence of the "ecision #iven % it u5on the first WuestionU
"+s an other conseWuences involve" % this "ecision& not havin# %een su%mitte" to the Court&
are i5so facto reserve"U
"+s the arrest& im5risonment an" conviction of )onsieur /emons are the acts of authorities
havin# no 7uris"iction un"er international la0& the 5rinci5le of an in"emnit enurin# to the
%enefit of )onsieur /emons an" char#ea%le to Turke& cannot %e "is5ute"U
"+s his im5risonment laste" for thirt.nine "as& there havin# %een "ela in #rantin# his release
on %ail contrar to the 5rovisions of the /eclaration re#ar"in# the a"ministration of 7ustice
si#ne" at Lausanne on Jul 1<th& 231: U
"+s his 5rosecution 0as follo0e" % a conviction calculate" to "o )onsieur /emons at least
moral "ama#eU
"+s the Turkish authorities& imme"iatel %efore his conviction& an" 0hen he ha" un"er#one
"etention a%out eWual to one half of the 5erio" to 0hich he 0as #oin# to %e sentence"& ma"e his
release con"itional u5on %all in 4VRRR Turkish 5oun"sU
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
"+sks for 7u"#ment& 0hether the 8overnment of the Turkish ;e5u%lic %e 5resent or a%sent& to
the effectJ
"That& un"er the rules of international la0 an" the Convention res5ectin# con"itions of resi"ence
an" %usiness an" 7uris"iction si#ne" at Lausanne on Jul 1<th& 231:& 7uris"iction to entertain
criminal 5rocee"in#s a#ainst the officer of the 0atch of a French shi5& in connection 0ith the
collision 0hich occurre" on the hi#h seas %et0een that shi5 an" a Turkish shi5& %elon#s
eAclusivel to the French CourtsU
"That& conseWuentl& the Turkish 7u"icial authorities 0ere 0ron# in 5rosecutin#& im5risonin# an"
convictin# )onsieur /emons& in connection 0ith the collision 0hich occurre" on the hi#h seas
%et0een the Lotus an" the *o-.6ourt& an" % so "oin# acte" in a manner contrar to the
5rinci5les of international la0 an" to the a%ove.mentione" ConventionU
"+ccor"in#l& the Court is aske" to fiA the in"emnit in re5aration of the in7ur thus inflicte" on
)onsieur /emons at 4&RRR Turkish 5oun"s an" to or"er this in"emnit to %e 5ai" % the
8overnment of the Turkish ;e5u%lic to the 8overnment of the French ;e5u%lic 0ithin one
month from the "ate of 7u"#ment& 0ithout 5re7u"ice to the re5ament of the %ail "e5osite" %
)onsieur /emons.
"The Court is also aske" to 5lace on recor" that an other conseWuences 0hich the "ecision #iven
mi#ht have& not havin# %een su%mitte" to the Court& are i5so facto reserve"."
C2RD The Turkish 8overnment. in its Counter.Case& confines itself to re5eatin# the conclusion of
its Case& 5rece"in# it& ho0ever& % C53D a short statement of its ar#ument& 0hich statement it 0ill
%e 0ell to re5ro"uce& since it corres5on"s to the ar#uments 5rece"in# the conclusions of the
French Counter.CaseJ
Z2..+rticle 2= of the Convention of Lausanne res5ectin# con"itions of resi"ence an" %usiness
an" 7uris"iction refers sim5l an" solel& as re#ar"s the 7uris"iction of the Turkish Courts& to the
5rinci5les of international la0& su%7ect onl to the 5rovisions of +rticle 24. +rticle 2= cannot %e
rea" as su55ortin# an reservation 0hatever or an construction #ivin# it another meanin#.
ConseWuentl& Turke& 0hen eAercisin# 7uris"iction in an case concernin# forei#ners& nee"&
un"er this article& onl take care not to act in a manner contrar to the 5rinci5les of international
la0.
Z1..+rticle 4 of the Turkish Penal Co"e& 0hich is taken 0or" for 0or" from the Italian Penal
Co"e& is not& as re#ar"s the case& contrar to the 5rinci5les of international la0.
Z:..Kessels on the hi#h seas form 5art of the territor of the nation 0hose fla# the fl& an" in the
case un"er consi"eration& the 5lace 0here the offence 0as committe" %ein# the S. S. *o-.6ourt
flin# the Turkish fla#& Turke@s 7uris"iction in the 5rocee"in#s taken is as clear as if the case
ha" occurre" on her territor.as is %orne out % analo#ous cases.
Z<..The *o-.6ourt.Lotus case %ein# a case involvin# "connecte"" offences ("elits conneAes!& the
Co"e of criminal 5roce"ure for trial.0hich is %orro0e" from France.las "o0n that the French
officer shoul" %e 5rosecute" 7ointl 0ith an" at the same time as the Turkish officerU this&
moreover @ is confirme" % the "octrines an" le#islation of all countries. Turke& therefore& is
entitle" from this stan"5oint also to claim 7uris"iction.
"=..Hven if the Wuestion %e consi"ere" solel from the 5oint of vie0 of the collision& as no
5rinci5le of international criminal la0 eAists 0hich 0oul" "e%ar Turke from eAercisin# the
7uris"iction 0hich she clearl 5ossesses to entertain an action for "ama#es& that countr has
Juris"iction to institute criminal 5rocee"in#s.
"4..+s Turke is eAercisin# 7uris"iction of a fun"amental character& an" as States are not&
accor"in# to the 5rinci5les of international la0& un"er an o%li#ation to 5a in"emnities in such
cases& it is clear that the Wuestion of the 5ament of the in"emnit claime" in the French Case
"oes not arise for the Turkish 8overnment& since that 8overnment has 7uris"iction to 5rosecute
the French citi-en /emons 0ho& as the result of a collision& has %een #uilt of manslau#hter.
"The Court is aske" for 7u"#ment in favour of the 7uris"iction of the Turkish Courts." C52RD
C22D /urin# the oral 5rocee"in#s& the +#ent of the French 8overnment confine" himself to
referrin# to the conclusions su%mitte" in the Counter.Case& sim5l reiteratin# his reWuest that the
Court shoul" 5lace on recor" the reservations ma"e therein as re#ar"s an conseWuences of the
7u"#ment not su%mitte" to the Court@s "ecision these reservations are no0 "ul recor"e".
C21D For his 5art& the +#ent for the Turkish 8overnment a%staine" %oth in his ori#inal s5eech an"
in his re7oin"er from su%mittin# an conclusion. The one he formulate" in the "ocuments file"
% him in the 0ritten 5rocee"in#s must therefore %e re#ar"e" as havin# %een maintaine"
unaltere".
The Facts
C2:D +ccor"in# to the statements su%mitte" to the Court % the Parties@ +#ents in their Cases an"
in their oral 5lea"in#s& the facts in 0hich the affair ori#inate" are a#ree" to %e as follo0sJ
C2<D ,n +u#ust 1n"& 2314& 7ust %efore mi"ni#ht& a collision occurre" %et0een the French mail
steamer Lotus& 5rocee"in# to Constantino5le& an" the Turkish collier *o-.6ourt& %et0een five
an" siA nautical miles to the north of Ca5e Si#ri ()itlene!. The *o-.6ourt& 0hich 0as cut in
t0o& sank& an" ei#ht Turkish nationals 0ho 0ere on %oar" 5erishe". +fter havin# "one
everthin# 5ossi%le to succour the shi50recke" 5ersons& of 0hom ten 0ere a%le to %e save"& the
Lotus continue" on its course to Constantino5le& 0here it arrive" on +u#ust :r".
C2=D +t the time of the collision& the officer of the 0atch on %oar" the Lotus 0as )onsieur
/emons& a French citi-en& lieutenant in the merchant service an" first officer of the shi5& 0hilst
the movements of the *o-.6ourt 0ere "irecte" % its ca5tain& $assan *e& 0ho 0as one of those
save" from the 0reck.
C24D +s earl as +u#ust :r" the Turkish 5olice 5rocee"e" to hol" an enWuir into the collision on
%oar" the Lotus U an" on the follo0in# "a& +u#ust <th& the ca5tain of the Lotus han"e" in his
master@s re5ort at the French Consulate.8eneral& transmittin# a co5 to the har%our master.
C2>D ,n +u#ust =th& Lieutenant /emons 0as reWueste" % the Turkish authorities to #o ashore to
#ive evi"ence. The eAamination& the len#th of 0hich inci"entall resulte" in "elain# the
"e5arture of C522D the Lotus& le" to the 5lacin# un"er arrest of Lieutenant /emons 0ithout
5revious notice %ein# #iven to the French Consul.8eneral . an" $assan *e& amon#st others.
This arrest& 0hich has %een characteri-e" % the Turkish +#ent as arrest 5en"in# trial (arrestation
5reventive!& 0as effecte" in or"er to ensure that the criminal 5rosecution institute" a#ainst the
t0o officers& on a char#e of manslau#hter& % the Pu%lic Prosecutor of Stam%oul& on the
com5laint of the families of the victims of the collision& shoul" follo0 its normal course.
C2ED The case 0as first hear" % the Criminal Court of Stam%oul on +u#ust . 1Eth. ,n that
occasion& Lieutenant /emons su%mitte" that the Turkish Courts ha" no 7uris"ictionU the Court&
ho0ever& overrule" his o%7ection. 'hen the 5rocee"in#s 0ere resume" on Se5tem%er 22th&
Lieutenant /emons "eman"e" his release on %ailJ this reWuest 0as com5lie" 0ith on Se5tem%er
I:th& the %ail %ein# fiAe" at 4VRRR Turkish 5oun"s.
C23D ,n Se5tem%er 2=th& the Criminal Court "elivere" its 7u"#ment& the terms of 0hich have not
%een communicate" to the Court % the Parties. It is& ho0ever& common #roun"& that it sentence"
Lieutenant /emons to ei#ht "asV im5risonment an" a fine of t0ent.t0o 5oun"s& $assan *e
%ein# sentence" to a sli#htl more severe 5enalt.
C1RD It is also common #roun" %et0een the Parties that the Pu%lic Prosecutor of the Turkish
;e5u%lic entere" an a55eal a#ainst this "ecision& 0hich ha" the effect of sus5en"in# its
eAecution until a "ecision u5on the a55eal ha" %een #ivenU that such "ecision has not et %een
#ivenU %ut that the s5ecial a#reement of ,cto%er 21th& 2314& "i" not have the effect of
sus5en"in# "the criminal 5rocee"in#s .... no0 in 5ro#ress in Turke".
C12D The action of the Turkish 7u"icial authorities 0ith re#ar" to Lieutenant /emons at once
#ave rise to man "i5lomatic re5resentations an" other ste5s on the 5art of the French
8overnment or its re5resentatives in Turke& either 5rotestin# a#ainst the arrest of Lieutenant
/emons or "eman"in# his release& or 0ith a vie0 to o%tainin# the transfer of the case from the
Turkish Courts to the French Courts.
C11D +s a result of these re5resentations& the 8overnment of the Turkish ;e5u%lic "eclare" on
Se5tem%er 1n"& 2314& that "it 0oul" have no o%7ection to the reference of the conflict of
7uris"iction to the Court at The $a#ue". C521D
C1:D The French 8overnment havin#& on the 4th of the same month& #iven "its full consent to the
5ro5ose" solution"& the t0o 8overnments a55ointe" their 5leni5otentiaries 0ith a vie0 to the
"ra0in# u5 of the s5ecial a#reement to %e su%mitte" to the CourtU this s5ecial a#reement 0as
si#ne" at 8eneva on ,cto%er 21th& 2314& as state" a%ove& an" the ratifications 0ere "e5osite" on
/ecem%er 1>th& 2314.
The La0
I. CPosition of the Parties Pursuant to the S5ecial +#reementD
C1<D *efore a55roachin# the consi"eration of the 5rinci5les of international la0 contrar to
0hich Turke is alle#e" to have acte" there% infrin#in# the terms of +rticle 2= of the
Convention of Lausanne of Jul 1<th& 231:& res5ectin# con"itions of resi"ence an" %usiness an"&
7uris"iction . & it is necessar to "efine& in the li#ht of the 0ritten an" oral 5rocee"in#s& the
5osition resultin# from the s5ecial a#reement. For& the Court havin# o%taine" co#ni-ance of the
5resent case % notification of a s5ecial a#reement conclu"e" %et0een the Parties in the case& it
is rather to the terms of this a#reement than to the su%missions of the Parties that the Court must
have recourse in esta%lishin# the 5recise 5oints 0hich it has to "eci"e. In this res5ect the
follo0in# o%servations shoul" %e ma"eJ
C1=D 2. B The collision 0hich occurre" on +u#ust 1n"& 2314& %et0een the S. S. Lotus& flin# the
French fla#& an" the S. S. *o-.6ourt& flin# the Turkish fla#& took 5lace on the hi#h seasJ the
territorial 7uris"iction of an State other than France an" Turke therefore "oes not enter into
account.
C14D 1. B The violation& if an& of the 5rinci5les of international la0 0oul" have consiste" in the
takin# of criminal 5rocee"in#s a#ainst Lieutenant /emons. It is not therefore a Wuestion relatin#
to an 5articular ste5 in these 5rocee"in#s . such as his %ein# 5ut to trial& his arrest& his "etention
5en"in# trial or the 7u"#ment #iven % the Criminal Court of Stam%oul . %ut of the ver fact of
the Turkish Courts eAercisin# criminal 7uris"iction. That is 0h the ar#uments 5ut for0ar" %
the Parties in %oth 5hases of C52:D the 5rocee"in#s relate eAclusivel to the Wuestion 0hether
Turke has or has not& accor"in# to the 5rinci5les of international la0& 7uris"iction to 5rosecute
in this case.
C1>D The Parties a#ree that the Court has not to consi"er 0hether the 5rosecution 0as in
conformit 0ith Turkish la0U it nee" not therefore consi"er 0hether& a5art from the actual
Wuestion of 7uris"iction& the 5rovisions of Turkish la0 cite" % Turkish authorities 0ere reall
a55lica%le in this case& or 0hether the manner in 0hich the 5rocee"in#s a#ainst Lieutenant
/emons 0ere con"ucte" mi#ht constitute a "enial of 7ustice& an" accor"in#l& a violation of
international la0. The "iscussions have %orne eAclusivel u5on the Wuestion 0hether criminal
7uris"iction "oes or "oes not eAist in this case.
C1ED :. B The 5rosecution 0as institute" %ecause the loss of the *o-.6ourt involve" the "eath of
ei#ht Turkish sailors an" 5assen#ers. It is clear& in the first 5lace& that this result of the collision
constitutes a factor essential for the institution of the criminal 5rocee"in#s in WuestionU secon"l&
it follo0s from the statements of the t0o Parties that no criminal intention has %een im5ute" to
either of the officers res5onsi%le for navi#atin# the t0o vesselsU it is therefore a case of
5rosecution for involuntar manslau#hter. The French 8overnment maintains that %reaches of
navi#ation re#ulations fall eAclusivel 0ithin the 7uris"iction of the State un"er 0hose fla# the
vessel sails U %ut it "oes not ar#ue that a collision %et0een t0o vessels cannot also %rin# into
o5eration the sanctions 0hich a55l to criminal la0 in cases of manslau#hter. The 5rece"ents
cite" % it an" relatin# to collision cases all assume the 5ossi%ilit of criminal 5rocee"in#s 0ith a
vie0 to the infliction of such sanctions& the "is5ute %ein# confine" to the Wuestion of 7uris"iction
concurrent or eAclusive . 0hich another State mi#ht claim in this res5ect. +s has alrea" %een
o%serve"& the Court has not to consi"er the la0fulness of the 5rosecution un"er Turkish la0U
Wuestions of criminal la0 relatin# to the 7ustification of the 5rosecution an" conseWuentl to the
eAistence of a neAus causalis %et0een the actions of Lieutenant /emons an" the loss of ei#ht
Turkish nationals are not relevant to the issue so far as the Court is concerne". )oreover& the
eAact con"itions in 0hich these 5ersons 5erishe" "o not a55ear from the "ocuments su%mitte" to
the Court U nevertheless& there is no "ou%t that their "eath ma %e re#ar"e" as the "irect C52<D
outcome of the collision& an" the French 8overnment has not conten"e" that this relation of
cause an" effect cannot eAist.
C13D <. B Lieutenant /emons an" the ca5tain of the Turkish steamshi5 0ere 5rosecute" 7ointl
an" simultaneousl. In re#ar" to the conce5tion of "conneAit" of offences (conneAite!& the
Turkish +#ent in the su%missions of his Counter.Case has referre" to the Turkish Co"e of
criminal 5roce"ure for trial& the 5rovisions of 0hich are sai" to have %een taken from the
corres5on"in# French Co"e. (o0 in French la0& amon#st other factors& coinci"ence of time an"
5lace ma #ive rise to "conneAit" (conneAite!. In this case& therefore& the Court inter5rets this
conce5tion as meanin# that the 5rocee"in#s a#ainst the ca5tain of the Turkish vessel in re#ar" to
0hich the 7uris"iction of the Turkish Courts is not "is5ute"& an" the 5rocee"in#s a#ainst
Lieutenant /emons& have %een re#ar"e" % the Turkish authorities& from the 5oint of vie0 of the
investi#ation of the case& as one an" the same 5rosecution& since the collision of the t0o steamers
constitutes a com5leA of acts the consi"eration of 0hich shoul"& from the stan"5oint of Turkish
criminal la0& %e entruste" to the same court.
C:RD =. B The 5rosecution 0as institute" in 5ursuance of Turkish le#islation. The s5ecial
a#reement "oes not in"icate 0hat clause or clauses of that le#islation a55l. (o "ocument has
%een su%mitte" to the Court in"icatin# on 0hat article of the Turkish Penal Co"e the 5rosecution
0as %ase"U the French 8overnment ho0ever "eclares that the Criminal Court claime"
7uris"iction un"er +rticle 4 of the Turkish Penal Co"e& an" far from "enin# this statement&
Turke& in the su%missions of her Counter.Case& conten"s that that article is in conformit 0ith
the 5rinci5les of international la0. It "oes not a55ear from the 5rocee"in#s 0hether the
5rosecution 0as institute" solel on the %asis of that article.
C:2D +rticle 4 of the Turkish Penal Co"e& La0 (o. >4= of )arch 2st& 2314 (,fficial 8a-ette (o.
:1R of )arch 2:th& 2314!& runs as follo0sJ
CTranslationD
"+n forei#ner 0ho& a5art from the cases contem5late" % +rticle <& commits an offence a%roa"
to the 5re7u"ice of Turke or of a Turkish su%7ect& for 0hich offence Turkish la0 5rescri%es a
5enalt involvin# loss of free"om for a C52=D minimum 5erio" of not less than one ear& shall %e
5unishe" in accor"ance 0ith the Turkish Penal Co"e 5rovi"e" that he is arreste" in Turke. The
5enalt shall ho0ever %e re"uce" % one thir" an" instea" of the "eath 5enalt& t0ent ears of
5enal servitu"e shall %e a0ar"e".
"(evertheless& in such cases& the 5rosecution 0ill onl %e institute" at the reWuest of the )inister
of Justice or on the com5laint of the in7ure" Part.
"If the offence committe" in7ures another forei#ner& the #uilt 5erson shall %e 5unishe" at the
reWuest of the )inister of Justice& in accor"ance 0ith the 5rovisions set out in the first 5ara#ra5h
of this article& 5rovi"e" ho0ever thatJ
"(2! the article in Wuestion is one for 0hich Turkish la0 5rescri%es a 5enalt involvin# loss of
free"om for a minimum 5erio" of three earsU
"(1! there is no eAtra"ition treat or that eAtra"ition has not %een acce5te" either % the
#overnment of the localit 0here the #uilt 5erson has committe" the offence or % the
#overnment of his o0n countr."
C:1D Hven if the Court must hol" that the Turkish authorities ha" seen fit to %ase the 5rosecution
of Lieutenant /emons u5on the a%ove.mentione" +rticle 4& the Wuestion su%mitte" to the Court
is not 0hether that article is com5ati%le 0ith the 5rinci5les of international la0U it is more
#eneral. The Court is aske" to state 0hether or not the 5rinci5les of international la0 5revent
Turke from institutin# criminal 5rocee"in#s a#ainst Lieutenant /emons un"er Turkish la0.
(either the conformit of +rticle 4 in itself 0ith the 5rinci5les of international la0 nor the
a55lication of that article % the Turkish authorities constitutes the 5oint at issue U it is the ver
fact of the institution of 5rocee"in#s 0hich is hel" % France to %e contrar to those 5rinci5les.
Thus the French 8overnment at once 5roteste" a#ainst his arrest& Wuite in"e5en"entl of the
Wuestion as to 0hat clause of her le#islation 0as relie" u5on % Turke to 7ustif it. The
ar#uments 5ut for0ar" % the French 8overnment in the course of the 5rocee"in#s an" %ase" on
the 5rinci5les 0hich& in its contention& shoul" #overn navi#ation on the hi#h seas& sho0 that it
0oul" "is5ute Turke@s 7uris"iction to 5rosecute Lieutenant /emons& even if that 5rosecution
0ere %ase" on a clause of the Turkish Penal Co"e other than +rticle 4& assumin# for instance that
the offence in Wuestion shoul" %e re#ar"e"& % reason of its conseWuences& to have %een actuall
committe" on Turkish territor. C524D
II. CKiolate" Princi5les of International La0D
C::D $avin# "etermine" the 5osition resultin# from the terms of the s5ecial a#reement& the Court
must no0 ascertain 0hich 0ere the 5rinci5les of international la0 that the 5rosecution of
Lieutenant /emons coul" conceiva%l %e sai" to contravene.
C:<D It is +rticle 2= of the Convention of Lausanne of Jul 1<th& 231:& res5ectin# con"itions of
resi"ence an" %usiness an" 7uris"iction& 0hich refers the contractin# Parties to the 5rinci5les of
international la0 as re#ar"s the "elimitation of their res5ective 7uris"iction.
C:=D This clause is as follo0sJ
"Su%7ect to the 5rovisions of +rticle 24& all Wuestions of 7uris"iction shall& as %et0een Turke an"
the other contractin# Po0ers& %e "eci"e" in accor"ance 0ith the 5rinci5les of international la0."
C:4D The French 8overnment maintains that the meanin# of the eA5ression "5rinci5les of
international la0" in this article shoul" %e sou#ht in the li#ht of the evolution of the Convention.
Thus it states that "urin# the 5re5arator 0ork& the Turkish 8overnment& % means of an
amen"ment to the relevant article of a "raft for the Convention& sou#ht to eAten" its 7uris"iction
to crimes committe" in the territor of a thir" State& 5rovi"e" that& un"er Turkish la0& such
crimes 0ere 0ithin the 7uris"iction of Turkish Courts. This amen"ment& in re#ar" to 0hich the
re5resentatives of France an" Ital ma"e reservations& 0as "efinitel re7ecte" % the *ritish
re5resentative U an" the Wuestion havin# %een su%seWuentl referre" to the /raftin# Committee&
the latter confine" itself in its version of the "raft to a "eclaration to the effect that Wuestions of
7uris"iction shoul" %e "eci"e" in accor"ance 0ith the 5rinci5les of international la0. The French
8overnment "e"uces from these facts that the 5rosecution of /emons is contrar to the intention
0hich #ui"e" the 5re5aration of the Convention of Lausanne.
C:>D The Court must recall in this connection 0hat it has sai" in some of its 5rece"in# 7u"#ments
an" o5inions& namel& that there is no occasion to have re#ar" to 5re5arator 0ork if the teAt of a
convention is sufficientl clear in itself. (o0 the Court consi"ers that the 0or"s "5rinci5les of
international la0"& as or"inaril use"& can onl mean international la0 as it is a55lie" %et0een all
nations %elon#in# to the communit of States. This inter5retation C52>D is %orne out % the
conteAt of the article itself 0hich sas that the 5rinci5les of international la0 are to "etermine
Wuestions of 7uris"iction . not onl criminal %ut also civil . %et0een the contractin# Parties&
su%7ect onl to the eAce5tion 5rovi"e" for in +rticle 24. +#ain& the 5ream%le of the Convention
sas that the $i#h Contractin# Parties are "esirous of effectin# a settlement in accor"ance "0ith
mo"em international la0"& an" +rticle 1E of the Treat of Peace of Lausanne& to 0hich the
Convention in Wuestion is anneAe"& "ecrees the com5lete a%olition of the Ca5itulations Zin ever
res5ect". In these circumstances it is im5ossi%le . eAce5t in 5ursuance of a "efinite sti5ulation .
to construe the eA5ression "5rinci5les of international la0" other0ise than as meanin# the
5rinci5les 0hich are in force %et0een all in"e5en"ent nations an" 0hich therefore a55l eWuall
to all the contractin# Parties.
C:ED )oreover& the recor"s of the 5re5aration of the Convention res5ectin# con"itions of
resi"ence an" %usiness an" 7uris"iction 0oul" not furnish anthin# calculate" to overrule the
construction in"icate" % the actual terms of +rticle 2=. It is true that the re5resentatives of
France& 8reat *ritain an" Ital re7ecte" the Turkish amen"ment alrea" mentione". *ut onl the
*ritish "ele#ate . an" this conforma%l to *ritish munici5al la0 0hich maintains the territorial
5rinci5le in re#ar" to criminal 7uris"iction . state" the reasons for his o55osition to the Turkish
amen"ment U the reasons for the French an" Italian reservations an" for the omission from the
"raft 5re5are" % the /raftin# Committee of an "efinition of the sco5e of the criminal
7uris"iction in res5ect of forei#ners& are unkno0n an" mi#ht have %een unconnecte" 0ith the
ar#uments no0 a"vance" % France.
C:3D It shoul" %e a""e" to these o%servations that the ori#inal "raft of the relevant article& 0hich
limite" Turkish 7uris"iction to crimes committe" in Turke itself& 0as also "iscar"e" % the
/raftin# CommitteeU this circumstance mi#ht 0ith eWual 7ustification #ive the im5ression that the
intention of the framers of the Convention 0as not to limit this 7uris"iction in an 0a.
C<RD The t0o o55osin# 5ro5osals "esi#ne" to "etermine "efinitel the area of a55lication of
Turkish criminal la0 havin# thus %een "iscar"e"& the 0or"in# ultimatel a"o5te" % common
consent for +rticle 2= can onl refer to the 5rinci5les of #eneral international la0 relatin# to
7uris"iction. C52ED
III. CFun"amental Princi5les of International La0D
C<2D The Court& havin# to consi"er 0hether there are an rules of international la0 0hich ma
have %een violate" % the 5rosecution in 5ursuance of Turkish la0 of Lieutenant /emons& is
confronte" in the first 5lace % a Wuestion of 5rinci5le 0hich& in the 0ritten an" oral ar#uments
of the t0o Parties& has 5rove" to %e a fun"amental one. The French 8overnment conten"s that
the Turkish Courts& in or"er to have 7uris"iction& shoul" %e a%le to 5oint to some title to
7uris"iction reco#ni-e" % international la0 in favour of Turke. ,n the other han"& the Turkish
8overnment takes the vie0 that +rticle 2= allo0s Turke 7uris"iction 0henever such 7uris"iction
"oes not come into conflict 0ith a 5rinci5le of international la0.
C<1D The latter vie0 seems to %e in conformit 0ith the s5ecial a#reement itself& (o. I of 0hich
asks the Court to sa 0hether Turke has acte" contrar to the 5rinci5les of international la0
an"& if so& 0hat 5rinci5les. +ccor"in# to the s5ecial a#reement& therefore& it is not a Wuestion of
statin# 5rinci5les 0hich 0oul" 5ermit Turke to take criminal 5rocee"in#s& %ut of formulatin#
the 5rinci5les& if an& 0hich mi#ht have %een violate" % such 5rocee"in#s.
C<:D This 0a of statin# the Wuestion is also "ictate" % the ver nature an" eAistin# con"itions
of international la0.
C<<D International la0 #overns relations %et0een in"e5en"ent States. The rules of la0 %in"in#
u5on States therefore emanate from their o0n free 0ill as eA5resse" in conventions or % usa#es
#enerall acce5te" as eA5ressin# 5rinci5les of la0 an" esta%lishe" in or"er to re#ulate the
relations %et0een these co.eAistin# in"e5en"ent communities or 0ith a vie0 to the achievement
of common aims. ;estrictions u5on the in"e5en"ence of States cannot therefore %e 5resume".
C<=D (o0 the first an" foremost restriction im5ose" % international la0 u5on a State is that B
failin# the eAistence of a 5ermissive rule to the contrar B it ma not eAercise its 5o0er in an
form in the territor of another State. In this sense 7uris"iction is certainl territorialU it cannot %e
eAercise" % a State outsi"e its territor C523D eAce5t % virtue of a 5ermissive rule "erive" from
international custom or from a convention.
C<4D It "oes not& ho0ever& follo0 that international la0 5rohi%its a State from eAercisin#
7uris"iction in its o0n territor& in res5ect of an case 0hich relates to acts 0hich have taken
5lace a%roa"& an" in 0hich it cannot rel on some 5ermissive rule of international la0. Such a
vie0 0oul" onl %e tena%le if international la0 containe" a #eneral 5rohi%ition to States to
eAten" the a55lication of their la0s an" the 7uris"iction of their courts to 5ersons& 5ro5ert an"
acts outsi"e their territor& an" if& as an eAce5tion to this #eneral 5rohi%ition& it allo0e" States to
"o so in certain s5ecific cases. *ut this is certainl not the case un"er international la0 as it
stan"s at 5resent. Far from lain# "o0n a #eneral 5rohi%ition to the effect that States ma not
eAten" the a55lication of their la0s an" the 7uris"iction of their courts to 5ersons& 5ro5ert an"
acts outsi"e their territor& it leaves them in this res5ect a 0i"e measure of "iscretion& 0hich is
onl limite" in certain cases % 5rohi%itive rulesU as re#ar"s other cases& ever State remains free
to a"o5t the 5rinci5les 0hich it re#ar"s as %est an" most suita%le.
C<>D This "iscretion left to States % international la0 eA5lains the #reat variet of rules 0hich
the have %een a%le to a"o5t 0ithout o%7ections or com5laints on the 5art of other States U it is in
or"er to reme" the "ifficulties resultin# from such variet that efforts have %een ma"e for man
ears 5ast& %oth in Huro5e an" +merica& to 5re5are conventions the effect of 0hich 0oul" %e
5recisel to limit the "iscretion at 5resent left to States in this res5ect % international la0& thus
makin# #oo" the eAistin# lacunw in res5ect of 7uris"iction or removin# the conflictin#
7uris"ictions arisin# from the "iversit of the 5rinci5les a"o5te" % the various States.
In these circumstances all that can %e reWuire" of a State is that it shoul" not overste5 the limits
0hich international la0 5laces u5on its 7uris"iction U 0ithin these limits& its title to eAercise
7uris"iction rests in its soverei#nt.
C<ED It follo0s from the fore#oin# that the contention of the French 8overnment to the effect that
Turke must in each case %e a%le to cite a rule of international la0 authori-in# her to eAercise
7uris"iction& is o55ose" to the #enerall acce5te" international la0 to 0hich +rticle 2: of the
Convention of Lausanne refers. $avin# re#ar" to the terms of +rticle 2= an" to the construction
0hich C51RD the Court has 7ust 5lace" u5on it& this contention 0oul" a55l in re#ar" to civil as
0ell as to criminal cases& an" 0oul" %e a55lica%le on con"itions of a%solute reci5rocit as
%et0een Turke an" the other contractin# PartiesU in 5ractice& it 0oul" therefore in man cases
result in 5aralsin# the action of the courts& o0in# to the im5ossi%ilit of citin# a universall
acce5te" rule on 0hich to su55ort the eAercise of their 7uris"iction.
x
C<3D (evertheless& it has to %e seen 0hether the fore#oin# consi"erations reall a55l as re#ar"s
criminal 7uris"iction& or 0hether this 7uris"iction is #overne" % a "ifferent 5rinci5leJ this mi#ht
%e the outcome of the close connection 0hich for a lon# time eAiste" %et0een the conce5tion of
su5reme criminal 7uris"iction an" that of a State& an" also % the es5ecial im5ortance of criminal
7uris"iction from the 5oint of vie0 of the in"ivi"ual.
C=RD Thou#h it is true that in all sstems of la0 the 5rinci5le of the territorial character of
criminal la0 is fun"amental& it is eWuall true that all or nearl all these sstems of la0 eAten"
their action to offences committe" outsi"e the territor of the State 0hich a"o5ts them& an" the
"o so in 0as 0hich var from State to State. The territorialit of criminal la0& therefore& is not
an a%solute 5rinci5le of international la0 an" % no means coinci"es 0ith territorial soverei#nt.
C=2D This situation ma %e consi"ere" from t0o "ifferent stan"5oints corres5on"in# to the 5oints
of vie0 res5ectivel taken u5 % the Parties. +ccor"in# to one of these stan"5oints& the 5rinci5le
of free"om& in virtue of 0hich each State ma re#ulate its le#islation at its "iscretion& 5rovi"e"
that in so "oin# it "oes not come in conflict 0ith a restriction im5ose" % international la0&
0oul" also a55l as re#ar"s la0 #overnin# the sco5e of 7uris"iction in criminal cases. +ccor"in#
to the other stan"5oint& the eAclusivel territorial character of la0 relatin# to this "omain
constitutes a 5rinci5le 0hich& eAce5t as other0ise eA5ressl 5rovi"e"& 0oul"& i5so facto& 5revent
States from eAten"in# the criminal 7uris"iction of their courts %eon" their frontiersU the
eAce5tions in Wuestion& 0hich inclu"e for instance eAtraterritorial 7uris"iction over nationals an"
over crimes "irecte" a#ainst 5u%lic safet& 0oul" therefore rest on s5ecial 5ermissive rules
formin# 5art of international la0. C512D
C=1D +"o5tin#& for the 5ur5ose of the ar#ument& the stan"5oint of the latter of these t0o sstems&
it must %e reco#ni-e" that& in the a%sence of a treat 5rovision& its correctness "e5en"s u5on
0hether there is a custom havin# the force of la0 esta%lishin# it. The same is true as re#ar"s the
a55lica%ilit of this sstem . assumin# it to have %een reco#ni-e" as soun" . in the 5articular
case. It follo0s that& even from this 5oint of vie0& %efore ascertainin# 0hether there ma %e a
rule of international la0 eA5ressl allo0in# Turke to 5rosecute a forei#ner for an offence
committe" % him outsi"e Turke& it is necessar to %e#in % esta%lishin# %oth that the sstem is
0ell.foun"e" an" that it is a55lica%le in the 5articular case. (o0& in or"er to esta%lish the first of
these 5oints& one must& as has 7ust %een seen& 5rove the eAistence of a 5rinci5le of international
la0 restrictin# the "iscretion of States as re#ar"s criminal le#islation.
C=:D ConseWuentl& 0hichever of the t0o sstems "escri%e" a%ove %e a"o5te"& the same result
0ill %e arrive" at in this 5articular caseJ the necessit of ascertainin# 0hether or not un"er
international la0 there is a 5rinci5le 0hich 0oul" have 5rohi%ite" Turke& in the circumstances
of the case %efore the Court& from 5rosecutin# Lieutenant /emons. +n" moreover& on either
h5othesis& this must %e ascertaine" % eAaminin# 5rece"ents offerin# a close analo# to the case
un"er consi"erationU for it is onl from 5rece"ents of this nature that the eAistence of a #eneral
5rinci5le a55lica%le to the 5articular case ma a55ear. For if it 0ere foun"& for eAam5le& that&
accor"in# to the 5ractice of States& the 7uris"iction of the State 0hose fla# 0as& flo0n 0as not
esta%lishe" % international la0 as eAclusive 0ith re#ar" to collision cases on the hi#h seas& it
0oul" not %e necessar to ascertain 0hether there 0ere a more #eneral restrictionU since& as
re#ar"s that restriction.su55osin# that it eAiste".the fact that it ha" %een esta%lishe" that there
0as no 5rohi%ition in res5ect of collision on the hi#h seas 0oul" %e tantamount to a s5ecial
5ermissive rule.
C=<D The Court therefore must& in an event ascertain 0hether or not there eAists a rule of
international la0 limitin# the free"om of States to eAten" the criminal 7uris"iction of their courts
to a situation unitin# the circumstances of the 5resent case. C511D
IK. CProhi%ition of Prosecution un"er International La0D
C==D The Court 0ill no0 5rocee" to ascertain 0hether #eneral international la0& to 0hich +rticle
2= of the Convention of Lausanne refers& contains a rule 5rohi%itin# Turke from 5rosecutin#
Lieutenant /emons.
C=4D For this 5ur5ose& it 0ill in the first 5lace eAamine the value of the ar#uments a"vance" %
the French 8overnment& 0ithout ho0ever omittin# to take into account other 5ossi%le as5ects of
the 5ro%lem& 0hich mi#ht sho0 the eAistence of a restrictive rule a55lica%le in this case.
C=>D The ar#uments a"vance" % the French 8overnment& other than those consi"ere" a%ove& are&
in su%stance& the three follo0in#J
(2! International la0 "oes not allo0 a State to take 5rocee"in#s 0ith re#ar" to offences
committe" % forei#ners a%roa"& sim5l % reason of the nationalit of the victim U an" such is
the situation in the 5resent case %ecause the offence must %e re#ar"e" as havin# %een committe"
on %oar" the French vessel.
(1! International la0 reco#ni-es the eAclusive 7uris"iction of the State 0hose fla# is flo0n as
re#ar"s everthin# 0hich occurs on %oar" a shi5 on the hi#h seas.
(:! Lastl& this 5rinci5le is es5eciall a55lica%le in a collision case.
xxx
C=ED +s re#ar"s the first ar#ument& the Court feels o%li#e" in the first 5lace to recall that its
eAamination is strictl confine" to the s5ecific situation in the 5resent case& for it is onl in
re#ar" to this situation that its "ecision is aske" for.
C=3D +s has alrea" %een o%serve"& the characteristic features of the situation of fact are as
follo0sJ there has %een a collision on the hi#h seas %et0een t0o vessels flin# "ifferent fla#s& on
one of 0hich 0as one of the 5ersons alle#e" to %e #uilt of the offence& 0hilst the victims 0ere
on %oar" the other.
C4RD This %ein# so& the Court "oes not think it necessar to consi"er the contention that a State
cannot 5unish offences committe" a%roa" % a forei#ner sim5l % reason of the nationalit of
the C51:D victim. For this contention onl relates to the case 0here the nationalit of the victim is
the onl criterion on 0hich the criminal 7uris"iction of the State is %ase". Hven if that ar#ument
0ere correct #enerall s5eakin# . an" in re#ar" to this the Court reserves its o5inion . it coul"
onl %e use" in the 5resent case if international la0 for%a"e Turke to take into consi"eration the
fact that the offence 5ro"uce" its effects on the Turkish vessel an" conseWuentl in a 5lace
assimilate" to Turkish territor in 0hich the a55lication of Turkish criminal la0 cannot %e
challen#e"& even in re#ar" to offences committe" there % forei#ners. *ut no such rule of
international la0 eAists. (o ar#ument has come to the kno0le"#e of the Court from 0hich it
coul" %e "e"uce" that States reco#ni-e themselves to %e un"er an o%li#ation to0ar"s each other
onl to have re#ar" to the 5lace 0here the author of the offence ha55ens to %e at the time of the
offence. ,n the contrar& it is certain that the courts of man countries& even of countries 0hich
have #iven their criminal le#islation a strictl territorial character& inter5ret criminal la0 in the
sense that offences& the authors of 0hich at the moment of commission are in the territor of
another State& are nevertheless to %e re#ar"e" as havin# %een committe" in the national territor&
if one of the constituent elements of the offence& an" more es5eciall its effects& have taken 5lace
there. French courts have& in re#ar" to a variet of situations& #iven "ecisions sanctionin# this
0a of inter5retin# the territorial 5rinci5le. +#ain& the Court "oes not kno0 of an cases in
0hich #overnments have 5roteste" a#ainst the fact that the criminal la0 of some countr
containe" a rule to this effect or that the courts of a countr construe" their criminal la0 in this
sense. ConseWuentl& once it is a"mitte" that the effects of the offence 0ere 5ro"uce" on the
Turkish vessel& it %ecomes im5ossi%le to hol" that there is a rule of international la0 0hich
5rohi%its Turke from 5rosecutin# Lieutenant /emons %ecause of the fact that the author of the
offence 0as on %oar" the French shi5. Since& as has alrea" %een o%serve"& the s5ecial a#reement
"oes not "eal 0ith the 5rovision of Turkish la0 un"er 0hich the 5rosecution 0as institute"& %ut
onl 0ith the Wuestion 0hether the 5rosecution shoul" %e re#ar"e" as contrar to the 5rinci5les
of international la0& there is no reason 5reventin# the Court from confinin# itself to o%servin#
that& in this case& a 5rosecution ma also %e 7ustifie" from the 5oint of vie0 of the so.calle"
territorial 5rinci5le. C51<D
C42D (evertheless& even if the Court ha" to consi"er 0hether +rticle 4 of the Turkish Penal Co"e
0as com5ati%le 0ith international la0& an" if it hel" that the nationalit of the victim "i" not in
all circumstances constitute a sufficient %asis for the eAercise of criminal 7uris"iction % the State
of 0hich the victim 0as a national& the Court 0oul" arrive at the same conclusion for the reasons
7ust set out. For even 0ere +rticle 4 to %e hel" incom5ati%le 0ith the 5rinci5les of international
la0& since the 5rosecution mi#ht have %een %ase" on another 5rovision of Turkish la0 0hich
0oul" not have %een contrar to an 5rinci5le of international la0& it follo0s that it 0oul" %e
im5ossi%le to "e"uce from the mere fact that +rticle 4 0as not in conformit 0ith those
5rinci5les& that the 5rosecution itself 0as contrar to them. The fact that the 7u"icial authorities
ma have committe" an error in their choice of the le#al 5rovision a55lica%le to the 5articular
case an" com5ati%le 0ith international la0 onl concerns munici5al la0 an" can onl affect
international la0 in so far as a treat 5rovision enters into account& or the 5ossi%ilit of a "enial
of 7ustice arises.
C41D It has %een sou#ht to ar#ue that the offence of manslau#hter cannot %e locali-e" at the s5ot
0here the mortal effect is felt U for the effect is not intentional an" it cannot %e sai" that there is&
in the min" of the "elinWuent& an cul5a%le intent "irecte" to0ar"s the territor 0here the mortal
effect is 5ro"uce". In re5l to this ar#ument it mi#ht %e o%serve" that the effect is a factor of
outstan"in# im5ortance in offences such as manslau#hter& 0hich are 5unishe" 5recisel in
consi"eration of their effects rather than of the su%7ective intention of the "elinWuent. *ut the
Court "oes not feel calle" u5on to consi"er this Wuestion& 0hich is one of inter5retation of
Turkish criminal la0. It 0ill suffice to o%serve that no ar#ument has %een 5ut for0ar" an"
nothin# has %een foun" from 0hich it 0oul" follo0 that international la0 has esta%lishe" a rule
im5osin# on States this rea"in# of the conce5tion of the offence of manslau#hter.
xxx
C4:D The secon" ar#ument 5ut for0ar" % the French 8overnment is the 5rinci5le that the State
0hose fla# is flo0n has eAclusive 7uris"iction over everthin# 0hich occurs on %oar" a merchant
shi5 on the hi#h seas. C51=D
C4<D It is certainl true that B a5art from certain s5ecial cases 0hich are "efine" % international
la0 . vessels on the hi#h seas are su%7ect to no authorit eAce5t that of the State 0hose fla# the
fl. In virtue of the 5rinci5le of the free"om of the seas& that is to sa& the a%sence of an
territorial soverei#nt u5on the hi#h seas& no State ma eAercise an kin" of 7uris"iction over
forei#n vessels u5on them. Thus& if a 0ar vessel& ha55enin# to %e at the s5ot 0here a collision
occurs %et0een a vessel flin# its fla# an" a forei#n vessel& 0ere to sen" on %oar" the latter an
officer to make investi#ations or to take evi"ence& such an act 0oul" un"ou%te"l %e contrar to
international la0.
C4=D *ut it % no means follo0s that a State can never in its o0n territor eAercise 7uris"iction
over acts 0hich have occurre" on %oar" a forei#n shi5 on the hi#h seas. + corollar of the
5rinci5le of the free"om of the seas is that a shi5 on the hi#h seas is assimilate" to the territor of
the State the fla# of 0hich it flies& for& 7ust as in its o0n territor& that State eAercises its
authorit& u5on it& an" no other State ma "o so. +ll that can %e sai" is that % virtue of the
5rinci5le of the free"om of the seas& a shi5 is 5lace" in the same 5osition as national territor %ut
there is nothin# to su55ort the claim accor"in# to 0hich the ri#hts of the State un"er 0hose fla#
the vessel sails ma #o farther than the ri#hts 0hich it eAercises 0ithin its territor 5ro5erl so
calle". It follo0s that 0hat occurs on %oar" a vessel on the hi#h seas must %e re#ar"e" as if it
occurre" on the territor of the State 0hose fla# the shi5 flies. If& therefore& a #uilt act
committe" on the hi#h seas 5ro"uces its& effects on a vessel flin# another fla# or in forei#n
territor& the same 5rinci5les must %e a55lie" as if the territories of t0o "ifferent States 0ere
concerne"& an" the conclusion must therefore %e "ra0n that there is no rule of international la0
5rohi%itin# the State to 0hich the shi5 on 0hich the effects of the offence have taken 5lace
%elon#s& from re#ar"in# the offence as havin# %een committe" in its territor an" 5rosecutin#&
accor"in#l& the "elinWuent.
C44D This conclusion coul" onl %e overcome if it 0ere sho0n that there 0as a rule of customar
international la0 0hich& #oin# further than the 5rinci5le state" a%ove& esta%lishe" the eAclusive
7uris"iction of the State 0hose fla# 0as flo0n. The French 8overnment has en"eavoure" to
5rove the eAistence of such a rule& havin# recourse for this 5ur5ose to the teachin#s of 5u%licists&
to "ecisions C514D of munici5al an" international tri%unals& an" es5eciall to conventions 0hich&
0hilst creatin# eAce5tions to the 5rinci5le of the free"om of the seas % 5ermittin# the 0ar an"
5olice vessels of a State to eAercise a more or less eAtensive control over the merchant vessels of
another State& reserve 7uris"iction to the courts of the countr 0hose fla# is flo0n % the vessel
5rocee"e" a#ainst.
C4>D In the Court@s o5inion& the eAistence of such a rule has not %een conclusivel 5rove".
C4ED In the first 5lace& as re#ar"s teachin#s of 5u%licists& an" a5art from the Wuestion as to 0hat
their value ma %e from the 5oint of vie0 of esta%lishin# the eAistence of a rule of customar
la0& it is no "ou%t true that all or nearl all 0riters teach that shi5s on the hi#h seas are su%7ect
eAclusivel to the 7uris"iction of the State 0hose fla# the fl. *ut the im5ortant 5oint is the
si#nificance attache" % them to this 5rinci5leU no0 it "oes not a55ear that in #eneral& 0riters
%esto0 u5on this 5rinci5le a sco5e "ifferin# from or 0i"er than that eA5laine" a%ove an" 0hich
is eWuivalent to sain# that the 7uris"iction of a State over vessels on the hi#h seas is the same in
eAtent as its 7uris"iction in its o0n territor. ,n the other han"& there is no lack of 0riters 0ho&
u5on a close stu" of the s5ecial Wuestion 0hether a State can 5rosecute for offences committe"
on %oar" a forei#n shi5 on the hi#h seas& "efinitel come to the conclusion that such offences
must %e re#ar"e" as if the ha" %een committe" in the territor of the State 0hose fla# the shi5
flies& an" that conseWuentl the #eneral rules of each le#al sstem in re#ar" to offences
committe" a%roa" are a55lica%le.
C43D In re#ar" to 5rece"ents& it shoul" first %e o%serve" that& leavin# asi"e the collision cases
0hich 0ill %e allu"e" to later& none of them relates to offences affectin# t0o shi5s flin# the
fla#s of t0o "ifferent countries& an" that conseWuentl the are not of much im5ortance in the
case %efore the Court. The case of the Costa ;ica Packet is no eAce5tion& for the 5rau0 on 0hich
the alle#e" "e5re"ations took 5lace 0as a"rift 0ithout fla# or cre0& an" this circumstance
certainl influence"& 5erha5s "ecisivel& the conclusion arrive" at % the ar%itrator.
C>RD ,n the other han"& there is no lack of cases in 0hich a State has claime" a ri#ht to 5rosecute
for an offence& committe" on %oar" a forei#n shi5& 0hich it re#ar"e" as 5unisha%le un"er its
le#islation. Thus 8reat *ritain refuse" the reWuest of the ?nite" C51>D States for the eAtra"ition
of John +n"erson& a *ritish seaman 0ho ha" committe" homici"e on %oar" an +merican vessel&
statin# that she "i" not "is5ute the 7uris"iction of the ?nite" States %ut that she 0as entitle" to
eAercise hers concurrentl. This case& to 0hich others mi#ht %e a""e"& is relevant in s5ite of
+n"erson@s *ritish nationalit& in or"er to sho0 that the 5rinci5le of the eAclusive 7uris"iction of
the countr 0hose fla# the vessel flies is not universall acce5te".
C>2D The cases in 0hich the eAclusive 7uris"iction of the State 0hose fla# 0as flo0n has %een
reco#ni-e" 0oul" seem rather to have %een cases in 0hich the forei#n State 0as intereste" onl
% reason of the nationalit of the victim& an" in 0hich& accor"in# to the le#islation of that State
itself or the 5ractice of its courts& that #roun" 0as not re#ar"e" as sufficient to authori-e
5rosecution for an offence committe" a%roa" % a forei#ner.
C>1D Finall& as re#ar"s conventions eA5ressl reservin# 7uris"iction eAclusivel to the State
0hose fla# is flo0n& it is not a%solutel certain that this sti5ulation is to %e re#ar"e" as
eA5ressin# a #eneral 5rinci5le of la0 rather than as corres5on"in# to the eAtraor"inar
7uris"iction 0hich these conventions confer on the state.o0ne" shi5s of a 5articular countr in
res5ect of shi5s of another countr on the hi#h seas. +5art from that& it shoul" %e o%serve" that
these conventions relate to matters of a 5articular kin"& closel connecte" 0ith the 5olicin# of the
seas& such as the slave tra"e& "ama#e to su%marine ca%les& fisheries& etc.& an" not to common.la0
offences. +%ove all it shoul" %e 5ointe" out that the offences contem5late" % the conventions in
Wuestion onl concern a sin#le shi5U it is im5ossi%le therefore to make an "e"uction from them
in re#ar" to matters 0hich concern t0o shi5s an" conseWuentl the 7uris"iction of t0o "ifferent
States.
C>:D The Court therefore has arrive" at the conclusion that the secon" ar#ument 5ut for0ar" %
the French 8overnment "oes not& an more than the first& esta%lish the eAistence of a rule of
international la0 5rohi%itin# Turke from 5rosecutin# Lieutenant /emons.
xxx
C><D It onl remains to eAamine the thir" ar#ument a"vance" % the French 8overnment an" to
ascertain 0hether a rule s5eciall C51ED a55lin# to collision cases has #ro0n u5& accor"in# to
0hich criminal 5rocee"in#s re#ar"in# such cases come eAclusivel 0ithin the 7uris"iction of the
State 0hose fla# is flo0n.
C>=D In this connection& the +#ent for the French 8overnment has "ra0n the Court@s attention to
the fact that Wuestions of 7uris"iction in collision cases& 0hich freWuentl arise %efore civil courts&
are %ut rarel encountere" in the 5ractice of criminal courts. $e "e"uces from this that& in
5ractice& 5rosecutions onl occur %efore the courts of the State 0hose fla# is flo0n an" that that
circumstance is 5roof of a tacit consent on the 5art of States an"& conseWuentl& sho0s 0hat
5ositive international la0 is in collision cases.
C>4D In the Court@s o5inion& this conclusion is not 0arrante". Hven if the rarit of the 7u"icial
"ecisions to %e foun" amon# the re5orte" cases 0ere sufficient to 5rove in 5oint of fact the
circumstance alle#e" % the +#ent for the French 8overnment& it 0oul" merel sho0 that States
ha" often& in 5ractice& a%staine" from institutin# criminal 5rocee"in#s& an" not that the
reco#ni-e" themselves as %ein# o%li#e" to "o soU for onl if such a%stention 0ere %ase" on their
%ein# conscious of havin# a "ut to a%stain 0oul" it %e 5ossi%le to s5eak of an international
custom. The alle#e" fact "oes not allo0 one to infer that States have %een conscious of havin#
such a "utU on the other han"& as 0ill 5resentl %e seen& there are other circumstances calculate"
to sho0 that the contrar is true.
C>>D So far as the Court is a0are there are no "ecisions of international tri%unals in this matterU
%ut some "ecisions of munici5al courts have %een cite". 'ithout 5ausin# to consi"er the value to
%e attri%ute" to the 7u"#ments of munici5al courts in connection 0ith the esta%lishment of the
eAistence of a rule of international la0& it 0ill suffice to o%serve that the "ecisions Wuote"
sometimes su55ort one vie0 an" sometimes the other. 'hilst the French 8overnment have %een
a%le to cite the ,rti#ia.,ncle.Jose5h case %efore the Court of +iA an" the Franconia.Strathcl"e
case %efore the *ritish Court for Cro0n Cases ;eserve"& as %ein# in favour of the eAclusive
7uris"iction of the State 0hose fla# is flo0n& on the other han" the ,rti#ia.,ncle.Jose5h case
%efore the Italian Courts an" the Hk%atana.'est.$in"er case %efore the *el#ian Courts have
%een cite" in su55ort of the o55osin# contention.
C>ED Len#th "iscussions have taken 5lace %et0een the Parties as to the im5ortance of each of
these "ecisions as re#ar"s the "etails C513D of 0hich the Court confines itself to a reference to the
Cases an" Counter.Cases of the Parties. The Court "oes not think it necessar to sto5 to consi"er
them. It 0ill suffice to o%serve that& as munici5al 7uris5ru"ence is thus "ivi"e"& it is har"l
5ossi%le to see in it an in"ication of the eAistence of the restrictive rule of international la0
0hich alone coul" serve as a %asis for the contention of the French 8overnment.
C>3D ,n the other han"& the Court feels calle" u5on to la stress u5on the fact that it "oes not
a55ear that the States concerne" have o%7ecte" to criminal 5rocee"in#s in res5ect of collision
cases %efore the courts of a countr other than that the fla# of 0hich 0as flo0n& or that the have
ma"e 5rotestsJ their con"uct "oes not a55ear to have "iffere" a55recia%l from that o%serve" %
them in all cases of concurrent 7uris"iction. This fact is "irectl o55ose" to the eAistence of a
tacit consent on the 5art of States to the eAclusive 7uris"iction of the State 0hose fla# is flo0n&
such as the +#ent for the French 8overnment has thou#ht it 5ossi%le to "e"uce from the
infreWuenc of Wuestions of 7uris"iction %efore criminal courts. It seems har"l 5ro%a%le& an" it
0oul" not %e in accor"ance 0ith international 5ractice that the French 8overnment in the
,rti#ia.,ncle.Jose5h case an" the 8erman 8overnment in the Hk%alana.'est.$in"er case
0oul" have omitte" to 5rotest a#ainst the eAercise of criminal 7uris"iction have % the Italian an"
*el#ian Courts& if the ha" reall thou#ht that this 0as a violation of international la0.
CERD +s re#ar"s the Franconia case (;. v. 6en 2E>>& L.;. 1 HA. /iv. 4:! u5on 0hich the +#ent
for the French 8overnment has 5articularl relie"& it shoul" %e o%serve" that the 5art of the
"ecision 0hich %ears the closest relation to the 5resent case is the 5art relatin# to the locali-ation
of the offence on the vessel res5onsi%le for the collision.
CE2D *ut& 0hatever the value of the o5inion eA5resse" % the ma7orit of the 7u"#es on this
5articular 5oint ma %e in other res5ects& there 0oul" seem to %e no "ou%t that if& in the min"s of
these 7u"#es& it 0as %ase" on a rule of international la0& their conce5tion of that la0& 5eculiar to
Hn#lish 7uris5ru"ence& is far from %ein# #enerall acce5te" even in common.la0 countries. This
vie0 seems moreover to %e %orne out % the fact that the stan"5oint taken % the ma7orit of the
7u"#es in re#ar" to the locali-ation of an offence& the author of 0hich is situate" in the territor
of one C5:RD State 0hilst its effects are 5ro"uce" in another State& has %een a%an"one" in more
recent Hn#lish "ecisions (;. v. (illins& 2EE<& =: L. J. 2=>U ;. v. 8o"fre& L. ;. 231:& 2 6. *. 1<!.
This "evelo5ment of Hn#lish case.la0 ten"s to su55ort the vie0 that international la0 leaves
States a free han" in this res5ect.
CE1D In su55ort of the theor in accor"ance 0ith 0hich criminal 7uris"iction in collision cases
0oul" eAclusivel %elon# to the State of the fla# flo0n % the shi5& it has %een conten"e" that it
is a Wuestion of the o%servance of the national re#ulations of each merchant marine an" that
effective 5unishment "oes not consist so much in the infliction of some months@ im5risonment
u5on the ca5tain as in the cancellation of his certificate as master& that is to sa& in "e5rivin# him
of the comman" of his shi5.
CE:D In re#ar" to this& the Court must o%serve that in the 5resent case a 5rosecution 0as institute"
for an offence at criminal la0 an" not for a %reach of "isci5line. (either the necessit of takin#
a"ministrative re#ulations into account (even i#norin# the circumstance that it is a Wuestion of
uniform re#ulations a"o5te" % States as a result of an international conference! nor the
im5ossi%ilit of a55lin# certain "isci5linar 5enalties can 5revent the a55lication of criminal
la0 an" of 5enal measures of re5ression.
CE<D The conclusion at 0hich the Court has therefore arrive" is that there is no rule of
international la0 in re#ar" to collision cases to the effect that criminal 5rocee"in#s are
eAclusivel 0ithin the 7uris"iction of the State 0hose fla# is flo0n.
CE=D This conclusion moreover is easil eA5laine" if the manner in 0hich the collision %rin#s the
7uris"iction of t0o "ifferent countries into 5la %e consi"ere".
CE4D The offence for 0hich Lieutenant /emons a55ears to have %een 5rosecute" 0as an act B of
ne#li#ence or im5ru"ence B havin# its ori#in on %oar" the Lotus& 0hilst its effects ma"e
themselves felt on %oar" the *o-.6ourt. These t0o elements are& le#all& entirel inse5ara%le& so
much so that their se5aration ren"ers the offence non.eAistent. (either the eAclusive 7uris"iction
of either State& nor the limitations of the 7uris"iction of each to the occurrences 0hich took 5lace
on the res5ective shi5s 0oul" a55ear calculate" to satisf the reWuirements of 7ustice an"
effectivel to 5rotect the interests of the t0o States. It is onl natural that each shoul" %e a%le to
eAercise 7uris"iction an" to "o so in res5ect C5:2D of the inci"ent as a 0hole. It is therefore a case
of concurrent 7uris"iction.
xxx
CE>D The Court& havin# arrive" at the conclusion that the ar#uments a"vance" % the French
8overnment either are irrelevant to the issue or "o not esta%lish the eAistence of a 5rinci5le of
international la0 5reclu"in# Turke from institutin# the 5rosecution 0hich 0as in fact %rou#ht
a#ainst Lieutenant /emons& o%serves that in the fulfilment of its task of itself ascertainin# 0hat
the international la0 is& it has not confine" itself to a consi"eration of the ar#uments 5ut for0ar"&
%ut has inclu"e" in its researches all 5rece"ents& teachin#s an" facts to 0hich it ha" access an"
0hich mi#ht 5ossi%l have reveale" the eAistence of one of the 5rinci5les of international la0
contem5late" in the s5ecial a#reement. The result of these researches has not %een to esta%lish
the eAistence of an such 5rinci5le. It must therefore %e hel" that there is no 5rinci5le of
international la0& 0ithin the meanin# of +rticle 2= of the Convention of Lausanne of Jul 1<th&
231:& 0hich 5reclu"es the institution of the criminal 5rocee"in#s un"er consi"eration.
ConseWuentl& Turke& % institutin#& in virtue of the "iscretion 0hich international la0 leaves to
ever soverei#n State& the criminal 5rocee"in#s in Wuestion& has not& in the a%sence of such
5rinci5les& acte" in a manner contrar to the 5rinci5les of international la0 0ithin the meanin# of
the s5ecial a#reement.
CEED In the last 5lace the Court o%serves that there is no nee" for it to consi"er the Wuestion
0hether the fact that the 5rosecution of Lieutenant /emons 0as "7oint" (conneAe! 0ith that of
the ca5tain of the *o-.6ourt 0oul" %e calculate" to 7ustif an eAtension of Turkish 7uris"iction.
This Wuestion 0oul" onl have arisen if the Court ha" arrive" at the conclusion that there 0as a
rule of international la0 5rohi%itin# Turke from 5rosecutin# Lieutenant /emonsU for onl in
that case 0oul" it have %een necessar to ask 0hether that rule mi#ht %e overri""en % the fact of
the conneAit" (conneAite! of the offences. C5:1D
K. C/is5ositionD
CE3D $avin# thus ans0ere" the first Wuestion su%mitte" % the s5ecial a#reement in the ne#ative&
the Court nee" not consi"er the secon" Wuestion& re#ar"in# the 5ecuniar re5aration 0hich mi#ht
have %een "ue to Lieutenant /emons.
C3RD F,; T$HSH ;H+S,(S&
The Court& havin# hear" %oth Parties&
#ives& % the Presi"ent@s castin# vote . the votes %ein# eWuall "ivi"e" .& 7u"#ment to the effect
(2! that& follo0in# the collision 0hich occurre" on +u#ust 1n"& 2314& on the hi#h seas %et0een
the French steamshi5 Lotus an" she Turkish steamshi5 *o-.6ourt& an" u5on the arrival of the
French shi5 at Stam%oul& an" in conseWuence of the loss of the *o-.6ourt havin# involve" the
"eath of ei#ht Turkish nationals& Turke& % institutin# criminal 5rocee"in#s in 5ursuance of
Turkish la0 a#ainst Lieutenant /emons& officer of the 0atch on %oar" the Lotus at the time of
the collision& has not acte" in conflict 0ith the 5rinci5les of international la0& contrar to +rticle
2= of the Convention of Lausanne of Jul 1<th& 231:& res5ectin# con"itions of resi"ence an"
%usiness an" 7uris"ictionU
(1! that& conseWuentl& there is no occasion to #ive 7u"#ment on the Wuestion of the 5ecuniar
re5aration 0hich mi#ht have %een "ue to Lieutenant /emons if Turke& % 5rosecutin# him as
a%ove state"& ha" acte" in a manner contrar to the 5rinci5les of international la0.
C32D This 7u"#ment havin# %een "ra0n u5 in French in accor"ance 0ith the terms of +rticle :3&
5ara#ra5h 2& secon" sentence& of the Statute of the Court& an Hn#lish translation is attache"
thereto. C5::D
C31D /one at the Peace Palace& The $a#ue& this seventh "a of Se5tem%er& nineteen hun"re" an"
t0ent.seven& in three co5ies& one of 0hich is to %e 5lace" in the archives of the Court& an" the
others to %e transmitte" to the +#ents of the res5ective Parties.
(Si#ne"! )aA $u%er&
Presi"ent.
(Si#ne"! +. $ammarsk7ol"&
;e#istrar.
C3:D )). Lo"er& former Presi"ent& 'eiss& Kice.Presi"ent& an" Lor" Finla& )). (holm an"
+ltamira& Ju"#es& "eclarin# that the are una%le to concur in the 7u"#ment "elivere" % the Court
an" availin# themselves of the ri#ht conferre" on them % +rticle &of the Statute& have "elivere"
the se5arate o5inions 0hich follo0 hereafter.
C3<D )r. )oore& "issentin# from the 7u"#ment of the Court onl on the #roun" of the connection
of the criminal 5rocee"in#s in the case 0ith +rticle 4 of the Turkish Penal Co"e& also "elivere" a
se5arate o5inion.
(Initialle"! ). $.
(Initialle"! +. $. C5:<D
/issentin# ,5inion % ). Lo"er
CTranslationD
C3=D Turke& havin# arreste"& trie" an" convicte" a forei#ner for an offence 0hich he is alle#e"
to have committe" outsi"e her territor& claims to have %een authori-e" to "o so % reason of the
a%sence of a 5rohi%itive rule of international la0.
C34D $er "efence is %ase" on the contention that un"er international la0 everthin# 0hich is not
5rohi%ite" is 5ermitte".
C3>D In other 0or"s& on the contention that& un"er international la0& ever "oor is o5en unless it
is close" % treat or % esta%lishe" Custom.
C3ED The Court in its 7u"#ment hol"s that this vie0 is correct& 0ell.foun"e"& an" in accor"ance
0ith actual facts.
C33D I re#ret that I am una%le to concur 0ith the o5inion of the Court.
C2RRD It seems to me that the contention is at variance 0ith the s5irit of international la0. This
la0 is for the most 5art un0ritten an" lacks sanctionsU it rests on a #eneral consensus of o5inionU
on the acce5tance % civili-e" States& mem%ers of the #reat communit& of nations& of rules&
customs an" eAistin# con"itions 0hich the are %oun" to res5ect in their mutual relations&
althou#h neither committe" to 0ritin# nor confirme" % conventions. This %o" of rules is calle"
international la0.
C2R2D These rules ma %e #ra"uall mo"ifie"& altere" or eAten"e"& in accor"ance 0ith the vie0s
of a consi"era%le ma7orit of these States& as this consensus of o5inion "evelo5s& %ut is seems to
me incorrect to sa that the munici5al la0 of a minorit of States suffices to a%ro#ate or chan#e
them.
C2R1D It also a55ears to me incorrect to claim that the a%sence of international "is5utes or
"i5lomatic "ifficulties in re#ar" to certain 5rovisions of the la0s of some States& 0hich are at
variance 0ith #enerall acce5te" i"eas& can serve to sho0 the "evelo5ment or mo"ification of
such i"eas.
C2R:D International "is5utes onl arise 0hen a 5articular a55lication of the la0s in Wuestion
sho0s them to %e at variance 0ith international la0.
C2R<D The famil of nations consists of a collection of "ifferent soverei#n an" in"e5en"ent
States. C5:=D
C2R=D The fun"amental conseWuence of their in"e5en"ence an" soverei#nt is that no munici5al
la0& in the 5articular case un"er consi"eration no criminal la0& can a55l or have %in"in# effect
outsi"e the national territor.
C2R4D This fun"amental truth& 0hich is not a custom %ut the "irect an" inevita%le conseWuence of
its 5remise& is a lo#ical 5rinci5le of la0& an" is a 5ostulate u5on 0hich the mutual in"e5en"ence
of States rests.
C2R>D The criminal la0 of a State a55lies in the first 5lace to all 5ersons 0ithin its territor&
0hether nationals or forei#ners& %ecause the ri#ht of 7uris"iction over its o0n territor is an
attri%ute of its soverei#nt.
C2RED The criminal la0 of a State ma eAten" to crimes an" offences committe" a%roa" % its
nationals& since such nationals are su%7ect to the la0 of their o0n countrU %ut it cannot eAten" to
offences committe" % a forei#ner in forei#n territor& 0ithout infrin#in# the soverei#n ri#hts of
the forei#n State concerne"& since in that State the State enactin# the la0 has no 7uris"iction.
C2R3D (or can such a la0 eAten" in the territor of the State enactin# it to an offence committe"
% a forei#ner a%roa" shoul" the forei#ner ha55en to %e in this territor after the commission of
the offence& %ecause the #uilt act has not %een committe" 0ithin the area su%7ect to the
7uris"iction of that State an" the su%seWuent 5resence of the #uilt 5erson cannot have the effect
of eAten"in# the 7uris"iction of the State.
C22RD It seems to me clear that such is the lo#ical conseWuence of the fun"amental 5rinci5le
a%ove enunciate".
C222D It ho0ever is also clear that this conseWuence can %e overri""en % some convention to the
contrar effect or % some eAce5tion #enerall an" even tacitl reco#ni-e" % international la0.
C221D Like all eAce5tions& ho0ever& such an eAce5tion must %e strictl construe" an" cannot %e
su%stitute" for the 0ell.esta%lishe" rule& to 0hich it is an eAce5tion.
C22:D (o0& the rule has #ra"uall un"er#one an im5ortant mo"ification in the le#islation of a
some0hat lar#e ma7orit of civili-e" States& a mo"ification 0hich "oes not seem to have
encountere" o%7ections an" 0hich ma %e re#ar"e" as havin# %een acce5te". This mo"ification
ten"s to eAce5t from the strict rule #overnin# the 7uris"iction over offences committe" %
forei#ners a%roa" such offences& in so far as the are "irecte" a#ainst the State itself or C5:4D
a#ainst its securit or cre"it. The in7ure" State ma tr the #uilt 5ersons accor"in# to its o0n
la0 if the ha55en to %e in its territor or& if necessar& it ma ask for their eAtra"ition.
C22<D +5art from this eAce5tion& the rule hol"s #oo".
C22=D The so.calle" sstem of "5rotection" 0hich Turke claims to %e entitle" to a55l an"
0hich is tantamount to the a%ro#ation of the rule itself& is ver far from %ein# acce5te" % the
#reat ma7orit of States an" is not in m o5inion in harmon 0ith 5ositive international la0.
C224D The alle#e" offence 0ith 0hich ). /emons is char#e" % Turke& namel& involuntar
manslau#hter& "oes not fall 0ithin the sco5e of the eAce5tion 0hich I have mentione". Turke
a"mits that she is a55lin# the so.calle" sstem of "5rotection" in 5ursuance of her munici5al
la0 an" she hol"s that she is authori-e" to "o so %ecause she has foun" no0here a 5ositive an"
acce5te" rule 5rohi%itin# her from so "oin#.
C22>D It 0ill a55ear from the fore#oin# that I am of o5inion that for this reason alone& Turke
must %e hel" to have acte" in contravention of C5:>D the 5rinci5les of international la0.
xxx
C22ED The Court has %een ma"e co#ni-ant of a "efinite occurrenceU it has to #ive 7u"#ment u5on
a 5articular case. This case is the collision %et0een the French shi5 Lotus an" the Turkish shi5
*o-.6ourt.
C223D Turke claims that %oth vessels& o0in# to fault navi#ation& 0ere 7ointl to %lame for this
collision.
C21RD The result of the collision 0as that the *o-.6ourt sank& an" that some mem%ers of the
cre0 an" 5assen#ers 0ere "ro0ne".
C212D Turke ar#ues from these facts that ). /emons& officer of the 0atch on %oar" the Lotus& is
#uilt of manslau#hter an" that he is res5onsi%le for the "eath of the 5ersons a%ove mentione".
C211D She ar#ues that this offence took 5lace on %oar" the *o-.6ourt %ecause it 0as there that
the effects of the alle#e" ne#li#ence 0ere felt.
C21:D She therefore conten"s that the 0ron#ful act havin# taken 5lace on %oar" the Turkish shi5&
its author is amena%le to the 7uris"iction of the Turkish Courts.
C21<D If this ar#ument %e soun"& in 5oint of fact the "e"uction ma"e from it is correct an" the
accusation of havin# acte" contrar to the 5rinci5les of international la0 at once falls to the
#roun"& %ecause ever State is entitle" to 5rosecute an" sentence an forei#ner 0ho commits an
offence 0ithin its territor. +n" the vessel *o-.6ourt must %e re#ar"e" as Turkish territor.
C21=D The Wuestion of the locali-ation of the offence is therefore of ca5ital im5ortance for the
5ur5oses of the "ecision of the "is5ute %efore the Court.
C214D It is clear that the 5lace 0here an offence has %een committe" is necessaril that 0here the
#uilt 5erson is 0hen he commits the act. The assum5tion that the 5lace 0here the effect is
5ro"uce" is the 5lace 0here the act 0as committe" is in ever case a le#al fiction. It is& ho0ever
7ustifie" 0here the act an" its effect are in"istin#uisha%le& 0hen there is a "irect relation %et0een
themU for instance& a shot fire" at a 5erson on the other si"e of a frontlerU a 5arcel containin# an
infernal machine inten"e" to eA5lo"e on %ein# o5ene" % the 5erson to 0hom it is sent. The
author of the crime inten"s in such cases to inflict in7ur at a 5lace other than that 0here he
himself is.
C21>D *ut the case 0hich the Court has to consi"er %ears no resem%lance to these instances. The
officer of the Lotus& 0ho ha" never set foot on %oar" the *o-.6ourt& ha" no intention of in7urin#
anone& an" no such intention is im5ute" to him. The movements eAecute" in the navi#ation of a
vessel are onl "esi#ne" to avoi" an acci"ent.
C21ED ,nl an investi#ation % naval eA5erts into the circumstances can sho0 0hether the
manner in 0hich the shi5 0as navi#ate" is to %e re#ar"e" as contrar to the re#ulations or
ne#li#ent in some res5ect& or 0hether some unforeseen movement % the other vessel contri%ute"
to the acci"ent . an" this investi#ation is a matter solel for the naval authorities of the countr of
the 5erson res5onsi%le for navi#atin# the shi5.
C213D In these circumstances& it seems to me that the le#al fiction 0here% the act is hel" to have
%een committe" at the 5lace 0here the effect is 5ro"uce" must %e "iscar"e".
xxx
C2:RD Turke seeks to %ase her 7uris"iction u5on an alle#e" "conneAit" %et0een the movements
of the t0o vessels. C5:ED
C2:2D She& in fact& claims that the offence of involuntar manslau#hter& im5ute" to ). /emons&
is "connecte"" (conneAe! 0ith the i"entical char#e a#ainst the ca5tain of the *o-.6ourt an" that
the Turkish court has 7uris"iction on this #roun".
C2:1D This ar#ument is also unsoun".
C2::D Simultaneousness is not the same as "conneAit".
C2:<D The movements of the t0o vessels 0ere in"e5en"ent of each otherJ the movement of each
shi5 0as even unkno0n to the officer comman"in# the other.
C2:=D The result of %oth movements ma have %een the collision& %ut there is no kin" of
"conneAit" %et0een them.
C2:4D + munici5al statute& or a co"e of 5roce"ure& ma& in or"er to sim5lif the con"uct of t0o
or more cases an" to facilitate their eAamination& 5rovi"e for the 5ossi%ilit of their 7oin"er %
reason of their %ein# connecte". Procee"in#s must then have %een institute" in %oth cases %efore
the can %e 7oine" on the #roun" of connection %et0een them (conneAite!. +n" 7oin"er 0ill onl
%e 5ossi%le if the 7u"#e %efore 0hom the 7oine" causes are %rou#ht has 7uris"iction in res5ect of
each of them se5aratel.
C2:>D Join"er on the #roun" of "conneAit" is a 5rocee"in# un"er munici5al la0U "conneAit"
"oe not create 7uris"iction.
xxx
C2:ED The #eneral rule that the criminal la0 of a State loses its com5ellin# force an" its
a55lica%ilit in relation to offences committe" % a forei#ner in forei#n territor& a rule "erive"
from the %asic 5rinci5le of the soverei#nt an" in"e5en"ence of States& has in"ee" un"er#one
mo"ifications an" has %een ma"e su%7ect to eAce5tions restrictin# its sco5e % the mutual
consent of the "ifferent Po0ers in so far as territor 5ro5erl so calle" is concerne".
C2:3D *ut accor"in# to a #enerall acce5te" vie0& this is not the case as re#ar"s the hi#h seas.
There the la0 of the fla# an" national 7uris"iction have retaine" their in"is5uta%le authorit to
the eAclusion of all forei#n la0 or 7uris"iction. I la s5ecial stress on the 0or" "forei#n". + #uilt
5erson on %oar" a shi5 flin# the fla# of a State other than the one to 0hich he o0es alle#iance&
ma of course %e in"icte" an" sentence" % the State of 0hich he is a national. In that case& %ut
onl then& there 0ill %e concurrent 7uris"iction. C5:3D
C2<RD *ut that is not ). /emons@ case.
C2<2D + merchant shi5 %ein# a com5lete entit& or#ani-e" an" su%7ect to "isci5line in conformit
0ith the la0s an" su%7ect to the control of the State 0hose fla# it flies& an" havin# re#ar" to the
a%sence of all territorial soverei#nt u5on the hi#h seas& it is onl natural that as far as concerns
criminal la0 this entit shoul" come un"er the 7uris"iction of that State. This a55lies 0ith
es5ecial force to the case no0 %efore the Court. The accusation a#ainst Lieutenant /emons is
that 0hilst navi#atin# his shi5 he #ave an or"er for a 0ron# manoeuvre.
C2<1D The rules for navi#ation 0hich he 0as o%li#e" to follo0 0ere those containe" in his
national re#ulations. $e 0as res5onsi%le to his national authorities for the o%servance of these
rules. It 0as solel for these authorities to consi"er 0hether the officer ha" o%serve" these rules&
0hether he ha" "one his "ut& an"& if not& 0hether he ha" ne#lecte" their o%servance to such a
"e#ree as to have incurre" criminal res5onsi%ilit.
C2<:D It conseWuentl seems to me that Turke& in arro#atin# to herself 7uris"iction over the acts
of a forei#n officer "oin# "ut on the hi#h seas on a shi5 carrin# a forei#n fla#& has acte" in
contravention of the 5rinci5le of international la0 set out a%ove.
C2<<D ,n these #roun"s I re#ret that I am una%le to concur 0ith the Court in its 5resent 7u"#ment.
C5<RD
/issentin# ,5inion % ). 'eiss
CTranslationD
C2<=D I also& to m ver keen re#ret& am una%le& in the case no0 %efore the Court& to share the
o5inion of the ma7orit of m collea#ues.
C2<4D The reasons 0hich in"uce me to a"o5t this conclusion are %riefl as follo0sJ
The Peace Treat si#ne" at Lausanne& on Jul 1<th& 231:& %et0een Turke an" the +llie"
Po0ers& terminate" com5letel an" once an" for all the re#ime esta%lishe" centuries a#o kno0n
as the Ca5itulations 0hich from the "as of Francis I an" until the conclusion of this Treat ha"
#overne" the le#al an" 7u"icial relations %et0een the ,ttoman Hm5ire an" Christen"om.
C2<>D +rticle 1E of the Treat is as follo0sJ
"Hach of the $i#h Contractin# Parties here% acce5ts& in so far as it is concerne"& the com5lete
a%olition of the Ca5itulations in Turke in ever res5ect."
C2<ED The ne0 Turke therefore fin"s herself free" from the ham5erin# servitu"es 0hich for so
lon# ha" 5lace" her in a situation a5art& in an inferior 5osition amon#st the nationsU she no0
%ecomes their eWual& havin# like them no other soverei#n than international la0. +n" it is
5recisel this su%7ection to international la0 0hich is lai" "o0n in the Convention res5ectin#
con"itions of resi"ence an" %usiness an" 7uris"iction& conclu"e" at Lausanne on the same "a as
the Peace Treat.
C2<3D The intention of %rin#in# Turkish la0 into harmon 0ith the international la0& 0hich has
hitherto #overne" intercourse %et0een the 'estern States& is in the first 5lace announce" in the
5ream%le of this ConventionJ "*ein# "esirous of 5rescri%in#& in accor"ance 0ith mo"ern
international la0& the. con"itions un"er 0hich nationals of the other contractin# Po0ers ma
settle in Turke an" Turkish nationals ma settle in the territor of those Po0ers& as 0ell as
certain Wuestions relatin# to 7uris"iction&" etc.
C2=RD This 5reliminar "eclaration is #iven full effect an" 5ut into 5ractical a55lication %&
amon#st others& +rticles 2= an" 2> of the Convention& 0hich run as follo0sJ C5<2D
+rticle 2=. B ZSu%7ect to the 5rovisions of +rticle 24 C50hich relates to Wuestions of 5ersonal
statusD& all Wuestions of 7uris"iction shall& as %et0een Turke an" the other contractin# Po0ers&
%e "eci"e" in accor"ance 0ith the 5rinci5les of international la0.Y
+rticle 2>. B ZThe Turkish 8overnment "eclares that the Turkish Courts 0ill ensure to forei#ners
in Turke& %oth as re#ar"s 5erson an" 5ro5ert& 5rotection in accor"ance 0ith international la0
an" the 5rinci5les an" metho"s #enerall a"o5te" in other countries.Y
C2=2D ,f those t0o clauses of the Convention of Lausanne onl the first. namel +rticle 2= . is
of "irect interest for the case %efore the Court. It follo0s from it that in all cases& that is to sa& in
criminal cases as 0ell as in cases of civil an" commercial la0& conflicts of 7uris"iction 0hich
ma arise %et0een Turke an" the other si#nator States are to %e settle" in accor"ance 0ith the
5rinci5les of international la0.
C2=1D These 5rinci5les B an" it is Wuite certain that& as the Court has not faile" to %rin# out& in this
connection& the 5rinci5les of #eneral international la0 an" no others are meant . & 0hich are the
in the 5resent case an" 0here are the 0rittenX
C2=:D The clause on 0hich the 7u"#ment #iven a#ainst Lieutenant /emons a55ears 0ith certaint
to have %een %ase"& althou#h no authentic co5 of this 7u"#ment has %een 5lace" %efore us&
%elon#s to Turkish munici5al la0U it is +rticle 4 of the Criminal Co"e 0hich has %een taken from
the Italian Co"e an" runs as follo0sJ
CTranslation.D
"+n forei#ner 0ho commits an offence a%roa" to the 5re7u"ice of a Turkish su%7ect& for 0hich
offence Turkish la0 5rescri%es a 5enalt involvin# loss of free"om for a minimum 5erio" of not
less than one ear& shall %e 5unishe" % the Turkish Courts an" in accor"ance 0ith the Turkish
Penal Co"e 5rovi"e" that he is arreste" in Turke. In such cases& the 5rosecution 0ill onl %e
institute" at the reWuest of the )inister of 7ustice or on the com5laint of the in7ure" Part."
C2=<D *ut this +rticle 4 is not& accor"in# to +rticle 2= of the Convention of Lausanne& self.
containe"U it must& as re#ar"s relations %et0een Turks an" forei#ners& %e su55lemente" %& an"
rea" in the li#ht of& the 5rinci5les of international la0. C5<1D
C2==D /oes international la0 authori-e the a55lication of Turkish la0 an" the intervention of
Turkish Courts for the re5ression of offences or crimes committe" % a forei#n su%7ect outsi"e
Turke& as is 5ossi%le un"er the a%ove.mentione" +rticle 4X 'ithout attri%utin# to the recor"s of
the 5re5arator 0ork in such case a 0ei#ht 0hich mi#ht %e "is5ute"& I ma 0ell venture to recall
that this 0as the claim 5ut for0ar" % the Turkish 5leni5otentiaries from the outset of the
Conference of Lausanne. The amen"ment su%mitte" % them at the reWuest of Ismet Pasha leaves
no room for "ou%t on this 5ointJ In Turke B 0e rea" in this "ocument B Zthe Turkish Courts
0ill& in criminal matters& have 7uris"iction over all char#es arisin# in Turke a#ainst nationals of
the other contractin# countries& out of crimes& offences or contraventions committe" % them in
Turke& as 0ell as over char#es arisin# out of acts committe" % them in the territor of a thir"
State& an" 0hich& accor"in# to Turkish la0& fall 0ithin the 7uris"iction of those Courts[Y
C2=4D This 5ro5osal the terms of 0hich& it shoul" %e o%serve" in 5assin#& leave offences
committe" % a forei#ner u5on the hi#h seas an" not u5on the territor of a thir" State outsi"e
the limits of the cases eA5ressl 5rovi"e" for therein& in"uce" the *ritish /ele#ate& Sir $orace
;um%ol"& to make a stron# 5rotestJ he "eclare" that it coul" not %e acce5te"U an" his French an"
Italian collea#ues a""e" their reservations in this re#ar" to his. In vie0 of this o55osition Turke
"i" not insist& an" +rticle 2= 0as "rafte" in its final form. From the a%sence of an reference in
this article to the 7uris"iction of the Turkish Courts to take co#ni-ance of crimes or offences
committe" % forei#ners on forei#n territor& it therefore follo0s that no such 7uris"iction 0as
reco#ni-e" as %ein# a rule of international la0.
C2=>D *ein# una%le to fin" an su55ort for her claim in treat la0& Turke consi"era%l enlar#e"
the fiel" of "iscussionU she ha" recourse to the #eneral 5rinci5les of international la0U she
5lea"e" the soverei#nt of States u5on 0hich this la0 is %ase".
C2=ED Hver State& she claime"& an" Turke herself from the time of the annulment of the
servitu"es 0hich have for so lon# %een a %ur"en u5on her international life& is i5so facto
soverei#nU this im5lies that she can "o as she thinks fit as re#ar"s 5ersons or thin#s unless a
s5ecific 5rovision in a treat or an esta%lishe" custom in international relations 5revents her from
so "oin#. This 5o0er is thus in its essence unlimite"& an" it im5lies as re#ar"s the oun# Turkish
;e5u%lic& if no 5rohi%ition 5revents its %ein# eAercise"& C5<:D an a%solute ri#ht of 7uris"iction
over the hi#h seas& as 0ell as over such of her nationals as ma %e u5on forei#n territor as
resi"ents or as visitors& an" even over forei#ners livin# a%roa" 0ho ma have %een #uilt of an
offence in7urious to Turke or to one of her su%7ects.
C2=3D In su55ort of this contention an" of the inferences 0hich she "e"uce" therefrom es5eciall
in reference to the Lotus case& Turke .has also& 0ith the ai" of numerous Wuotations from
authors an" 7u"icial "ecisions& taken from the theor an" 5ractice of man countries& %rou#ht
for0ar" a certain num%er of consi"erations or sstems 0hich& in her vie0& "emonstrate that the
5rocee"in#s institute" at Stam%oul a#ainst the French officer /emons& an" the sentence 0hich
0as ren"ere" a#ainst him& not onl "i" not contravene an 5rohi%ition in international la0& %ut
0ere %esi"es entirel in conformit 0ith the 5ractice universall follo0e" % States. It 0as thus
that she en"eavoure" to rest the 7uris"iction of the Turkish Court in this case u5on the "ut of
5rotection 0hich 0as alle#e" to %e incum%ent u5on ever State as re#ar"s its nationals in forei#n
territorU or u5on the locali-ation of the facts constitutin# the offence of causin# the collision& on
the shi5 that 0as sunkU or finall u5on the 5rinci5les follo0e" in the le#islation of man
countries an" % French le#islation in 5articular& relatin# to "connecte"" offences (infractions
conneAes!.
C24RD 'ithout enterin# at the 5resent moment into the "etails of this threefol" ar#ument 0hich
the Court has& moreover& taken care not to en"orse entirel& it 0ill %e sufficient for me to o%serve
that the Turkish 8overnment& ha" it %een Wuite certain that its contention 0as su55orte" %
international la0& 0oul" no "ou%t not have thou#ht it necessar to %rin# for0ar" in a""ition
more or less "is5uta%le reasons an" theories& 0hich coul" onl 0eaken the force of the
contention 5lea"e" in its name& % revealin# its 0eak 5oints.
C242D The fun"amental error of this contention is its en"eavour to fin" sources of international
la0 in 5laces 0here the "o not eAist. International la0 is not create" % an accumulation of
o5inions an" sstemsU neither is its source a sum total of 7u"#ments& even if the a#ree 0ith each
other. Those are onl metho"s of "iscoverin# some of its as5ects& of fin"in# some of its
5rinci5les& an" of formulatin# these 5rinci5les satisfactoril.
C241D In realit the onl source of international la0 is the consensus C5<<D omnium. 'henever it
a55ears that all nations constitutin# the international communit are in a#reement as re#ar"s the
acce5tance or the a55lication in their mutual relations of a s5ecific rule of con"uct& this rule
%ecomes 5art of international la0 an" %ecomes one of those rules the o%servance of 0hich the
Lausanne Convention recommen"s to the si#nator States.
C24:D +mon# the foremost of these rules there is one 0hich is 5aramount an" 0hich "oes not
even reWuire to %e em%o"ie" in a treatJ that is the rule sanctionin# the soverei#nt of States. If
States 0ere not soverei#n& no international la0 0oul" %e 5ossi%le& since the 5ur5ose of this la0
5recisel is to harmoni-e an" reconcile the "ifferent soverei#nties over 0hich it eAercises its
s0a.
C24<D Turke also a"mits& as I have 7ust state"& the 5rinci5le of the soverei#nt of States& %ut she
a55lies it %eon" its "ue limits makin# its action to %e felt in a fiel" 0hich is outsi"e its 5ro5er
sco5e.
C24=D * virtue of soverei#nt such as 0e un"erstan" it& ever State has 7uris"iction to sentence
an" 5unish the 5er5etrators of offences committe" 0ithin its territorU in"ee"& this is a Wuestion
of 5u%lic securit& an" of 5u%lic or"er& 0hich a State cannot i#nore 0ithout ne#lectin# its "ut as
a State& an" one 0hich arises 0hatever the nationalit of the "elinWuent ma %e.
C244D *ut& outsi"e the territor& the frontier havin# once %een traverse"& the ri#ht of States to
eAercise 5olice "uties an" 7uris"iction ceases to eAistU their soverei#nt "oes not o5erate& an"
crimes an" offences& even in the case of those inflictin# in7ur u5on the States themselves& fall
normall outsi"e the sanctionin# force of their courts. HAtra territorium 7us "iceni im5une non
5aretur.
C24>D That is the 5rinci5le u5on 0hich case.la0 in the ?nite" States is %ase" (see Cuttin# case!
an" 0hich a55ears to have %een sanctione" % the Treat of International Penal La0 si#ne" at
)ontevi"eo on Januar 1:r"& 2EE3& %et0een the +r#entine ;e5u%lic& *olivia& Para#ua& Peru
an" ?ru#ua. )an other States in their international le#islation also a"mit the 5rinci5le of the
eAclusivel an" a%solutel territorial character of criminal 7uris"ictionJ that is the case in 8reat
*ritain& an" it 0as also the case for a lon# time in FranceJ the ri#ht of inflictin# 5unishment& the
Cour "e cassation "eclares in its 7u"#ment of Januar 2Rth& 2E>: (/allo-& 2E>:& I. <I!& is "erive"
from the ri#ht of soverei#nt& 0hich "oes not eAten" %eon" the territorial limits. C5<=D
C24ED It is true that of late ears ne0 rules have 5enetrate" into the 5enal le#islation of various
countries. It is no0& % a note0orth eAtension of territorial 7uris"iction& rea"il reco#ni-e" that
a 5erson ma %e 5rosecute" %efore the courts of his o0n countr for an offence committe"
a%roa" either a#ainst a com5atriot or a#ainst the institutions& securit or cre"it of the State of
0hich he is a national. (See es5eciall +rticles = an" > of the French Co"e of 5roce"ure for trial.!
*ut this eAtension& 0hich is not even al0as confine" to nationals& an" 0hich has& 5ro5erl
s5eakin#& nothin# to "o 0ith the 5rinci5le of the soverei#nt of States in criminal matters& 0hich
it ma rather %e sai" to contra"ict& is eA5laine" % s5ecial consi"erations entirel irrelevant to the
Lotus case& an" this eAtension& to o%tain its full force an" to %ecome a rule of international la0&
0oul" reWuire& as has %een 5ointe" out % the ?nite" States /e5artment of State in its re5ort on
the Cuttin# case& Zthe #eneral consent of the nations or a s5ecial conventionYU moreover& the
reasons of eA5e"ienc on 0hich it is %ase" are themselves ver "e%ata%le in la0.
C243D The criminal 7uris"iction of a State therefore is %ase" on an" limite" % the territorial area
over 0hich it eAercises soverei#nt. This is the 5rinci5le& an" it is an in"is5uta%le 5rinci5le of
international la0.
C2>RD *ut 0hat ha55ens to this 5rinci5le 0hen the offence committe" takes 5lace not on terra
firma& 0hich is su%7ect to the soverei#nt of the State occu5in# it& %ut on the hi#h seas outsi"e
the -one of territorial 0aters over 0hich it is #enerall hel" that a State eAercises ri#hts of 5olice
an" 7uris"iction X
C2>2D $ere 0e come face to face 0ith another an" eWuall "efinite 5rinci5le of international la0J
the 5rinci5le of the free"om of the hi#h seas. The hi#h seas are free an" res nullius& an"& a5art
from certain eAce5tions or restrictions im5ose" in the interest of the common safet of States&
the are su%7ect to no territorial authorit. Since& ho0ever& it is im5ossi%le to allo0 free sco5e to
all the enter5rises an" attacks 0hich mi#ht %e un"ertaken a#ainst the 5ersons an" 5ro5ert of
those voa#in# u5on the seas& it has a55eare" eA5e"ient to eAten" to merchant vessels on the
hi#h seas the 7uris"iction of the authorities of the State 0hose fla# the fl. These vessels an"
their cre0s are ans0era%le onl to the la0 of the fla#& a situation 0hich is often "escri%e" %
sain#& 0ith more or less C5<4D accurac& that these vessels constitute a "etache" an" floatin#
5ortion of the national territor. The effect of this is to eAclu"e& 7ust as much as on the national
territor itself& an" a5art from certain eAce5tional cases& the eAercise of an 7uris"iction other
than that of the fla#& an" in 5articular that of a forei#n 5ort at 0hich a vessel ma touch after the
commission of some offence on the hi#h seas. (;ules "ra0n u5 at The $a#ue % the Institute of
International La0 in 23RE.!
C2>1D This 5rinci5le has %een fairl freWuentl a55lie" in international cases& es5eciall in
collision cases (see the 5rece"ent of the Costa ;ica Packet referre" for ar%itration to m
illustrious collea#ue& Fre"eric "e )artens!U an" it 0oul" not a55ear that there is an reason for
not a55lin# it in the case of the *o-.6ourt an" Lotus. +ssumin# that the "estruction of the
former vessel 0as the result of a 0ron# manoeuvre& of an error in navi#ation& of an offence
committe" on the hi#h seas& for 0hich Lieutenant /emons 0as res5onsi%le& it is the national la0&
the la0 of the fla# un"er 0hich he 0as sailin#& 0hich alone is a55lica%le to him& since there is in
this case no territorial la0 or territorial soverei#nt.
C2>:D The Turkish 8overnment has not "enie" the 7uris"iction of the la0 of the fla# as re#ar"s
the re5ression of offences committe" on the hi#h seas& es5eciall in the case of collision %et0een
t0o vessels of "ifferent nationalitU it has not "enie" that the French Courts have the ri#ht of
convictin# an" sentencin# Lieutenant /emons 0ho 0as officer of the 0atch on %oar" the Lotus
at the time of the collision& shoul" his #uilt a55ear to them esta%lishe". *ut the Turkish
8overnment hol"s that this 7uris"iction is not eAclusive. +n" it alle#es various circumstances
arisin# in the 5articular case an" various theories of international la0& 0ith a vie0 to sho0in#
that Turke an" its courts 5ossess concurrent ri#hts of 7uris"iction& in virtue of the #eneral ri#ht
of soverei#nt 0hich Turke assumes even outsi"e her o0n territor.
C2><D It has %een ar#ue" % Turke B %ut the 7u"#ment 0hich has %een rea" "oes not #o as far as
that B that the 7uris"iction claime" % the courts of Stam%oul in the Lotus case 0as 7ustifie" %
the ri#ht of 5rotection 5ossesse" % ever State in res5ect of its nationals even %eon" its
frontiers. Turke conten"s that the fact that the offence committe" on the hi#h seas % a
forei#ner shoul" have in7ure" some of her nationals suffices to #ive her 5o0er an" to make it her
"ut to 5unish the offence. +n" this is 5recisel 0hat ha55ene" in the C5<>D Lotus case. This
sstem& 0hich has foun" favour in the 5ositive le#islations of some countries& is not in itself
contrar to international la0& %ut it is outsi"e the sco5e of international la0J it "oes not in itself
constitute a 5rinci5le of international la0 ca5a%le of overcomin# the 5rinci5le of the free"om of
the seas an" that of the la0 of the fla# 0hich is the corollar of the former. (one of the
le#islative or 7u"icial evi"ence cite" % Turke in su55ort of the ri#ht of 5rotection of nationals&
esta%lishes the eAistence of such a 5rinci5le& an" it is moreover in contra"iction 0ith the rules
consistentl a55lie" % courts in maritime cases for the re5ression of crimes an" offences
committe" on the hi#h seas an" es5eciall in collision cases. It 0ill suffice for me to allu"e in
this res5ect to the ar%itral a0ar" #iven % ). "e )artens in the case of the Costa ;ica Packet& to
0hich I have alrea" referre".
C2>=D ,ther titles to 7uris"iction& inten"e" to su55ort the ar#ument %ase" on Turkish soverei#nt&
have %een 5ut for0ar" % the re5resentatives of that countr. The en"eavoure" to locali-e the
offence& 0hich it 0as sou#ht to 5unish& u5on the vessel 0hich sustaine" the in7urious result& that
is to sa on the vessel run "o0n. The ar#ue" that it 0as the *o-.6ourt 0hich 5erishe" in the
collision of +u#ust 1n"& 2314& an" that it 0as the 5assen#ers an" sailors of that vessel 0ho met
their "eaths. The offence therefore 5ro"uce" its effects in the *o-.6ourt& i.e.& accor"in# to the
#enerall acce5te" le#al fiction& on Turkish territor. ConseWuentl& it 0as Wuite natural that the
Turkish Courts& that is to sa the territorial courts& shoul" eAercise 7uris"iction. The error here is
clear an" it has %een full %rou#ht out in the famous "ecision #iven in the Franconia case % the
*ritish Court for Cro0n Cases ;eserve". In fiAin# the 5lace 0here an offence has occurre"& it is
not to the 5lace 0here the offence& often contrar to an reasona%le antici5ation& 5ro"uces its
in7urious effects u5on 5ersons or thin#s& that attention must %e "irecte"& %ut solel to the 5lace
0here the 5unisha%le act has %een committe" an" 0here the 5erson res5onsi%le for that act 0as
at the time 0hen it 0as committe"U it is there that the offence has reall taken 5lace.
C2>4D (o0& in the case of the runnin# "o0n of the *o-.6ourt % the Lotus& the errors of
navi#ation& 0ith 0hich Turke has char#e" the officer of the latter vessel& an" 0hich ma have
le" to the "estruction of the Turkish collier an" to the loss of several lives& coul" onl have taken
5lace at the s5ot 0here Lieutenant /emons eAercise" C5<ED his comman"& i.e. in the vessel
res5onsi%le for the collision. $e never set foot on %oar" the *o-.6ourt& an" there is nothin# to
sho0 that it 0as on %oar" the shi5 an" not at the %ottom of the sea& into 0hich the 0ere no
"ou%t imme"iatel thro0n % the force of the im5act& that the seamen an" 5assen#ers 5erishe".
C2>>D It is therefore on the vessel res5onsi%le for the collision an" not on the vessel run "o0n
that the "isaster shoul" have %een locali-e"& if an im5ortance 0ere attache" to such locali-ation
from the 5oint of vie0 of 7uris"ictionU the la0 an" 7uris"iction of the fla# un"er 0hich Lieutenant
/emons saile" 0oul" then a55l 5erfectl naturall. *ut that is onl a secon"ar consi"eration&
0hich& in the case %efore the Court& ten"s further to su55ort the 7uris"iction of the la0 of the fla#.
C2>ED 'hat makes the a55lication on the hi#h seas of the la0 of the fla# in res5ect of
occurrences on %oar" a merchant vessel essential& is the fact that such a vessel is not "irectl
su%7ect to an territorial soverei#nt& %ut that on the other han"& re#ar"in# it as an eAtension of
territor& it constitutes an or#ani-e" entit& su%7ect to the "isci5line an" control of the State
0hose fla# it flies& 0hich State therefore is %oth more Wualifie" an" has more interest than an
other to ensure the maintenance of or"er on %oar".
C2>3D The Turkish 8overnment ha" finall en"eavoure" to link u5 the 5rocee"in#s taken a#ainst
the French officer 0ith a theor of ZconneAit" (conneAity!& makin# these 5rocee"in#s "e5en"ent
u5on those taken in 5ursuance of Turkish la0 a#ainst the Turkish officer of the *o-.6ourtU "oes
not the close connection eAistin# %et0een these t0o sets of 5rocee"in#s taken as a result of one
an" the same act in "ifferent countries& reWuire in"ee"& in the interests of 7ustice& that the shoul"
come %efore the same 7u"#eX It is eas to re5l& althou#h the Court has not seen fit to consi"er
this Wuestion.& that ZconneAitY im5lin# eAtension of 7uris"iction onl takes effect in relations
%et0een t0o or more courts of the same instance& sittin# 0ithin the %oun"aries of the same State
an" that& accor"in# to an o5inion unanimousl hel"& this conce5tion is com5letel forei#n to
international relations& % reason of the mo"ifications 0hich it 0oul" involve %oth as re#ar"s the
la0 a55lica%le to offences alle#e" to %e "connecte"" (conneAes! an" the sstem of 5enalties
0hich 0oul" %e a55lica%le to them. "ConneAit" (conneAity! is a rule of internal convenience
a55lica%le in those States 0hich have inclu"e" it in their co"es of 5roce"ure U it is ineffective
outsi"e their frontiers. C5<3D
C2ERD (one of the various #roun"s a"vance" % Turke in su55ort of her claim to 7uris"iction B
some of 0hich have %een hel" to %e 0ell foun"e" % the Court B therefore remain to authori-e
the 5enal measures takn a#ainst the French officer /emons& in conseWuence of the loss of the
*o-.6ourt.
C2E2D T0o 5rinci5les of international la0 clearl emer#e from the controversial "octrine an"
contra"ictor 7u"icial "ecisions 0hich have %een invoke" as authorit % %oth Parties in the
course of the hearin#sJ
2. First of all& there is the 5rinci5les of the soverei#nt of States in criminal matters& not a
universal& un"efine"& unlimite" soverei#nt such as Turke a""uce"& %ut a soverei#nt foun"e"
u5on an" limite" % the territor over 0hich the State eAercises its "ominion& that is to sa&
territorial soverei#nt.
1. Secon"l& there is the 5rinci5le of the free"om of the hi#h seas& inclu"in# the a55lication of
the la0 of the fla# 0hich is its corollar.
C2E1D The Turkish 8overnment& in 5rocee"in# a#ainst the French Lieutenant /emons u5on the
%asis of acts 0hich ha" taken 5lace outsi"e Turkish territor on a vessel flin# the French fla#
has "isre#ar"e" those t0o fun"amental 5rinci5les of international la0U it has conseWuentl acte"
in contravention of +rticle 2= of the Lausanne Convention. +n" m conscience as a 7urist an"
7u"#e "oes not allo0 me to su%scri%e to the a55roval %esto0e" u5on its action % the Court.
C5=RD
/issentin# ,5inion % Lor" Finla
C2E:D This case arose out of a collision %et0een the Lotus& a French liner& an" the Turkish
steamer *o-.6ourt. It took 5lace off Ca5e Si#ri& in )itlene& not 0ithin territorial 0aters %ut on
the hi#h seas. The *o-.6ourt 0as sunk an" ei#ht 5ersons& sailors an" 5assen#ers& 0ere "ro0ne".
The officer of the 0atch on %oar" the Lotus 0as Lieutenant /emons& an" on the arrival of the
Lotus at Constantino5le& he 0as arreste" % the Turkish authorities an" 5ut on his trial on char#e
of havin# committe" an offence un"er +rticle 4 of the Turkish Penal Co"e.
C2E<D That article is as follo0sJ
z{uan" un ytran#er commet contre un Turc en 5as ytran#er un acte susce5ti%le "@entra|ner 5our
son auteur& "@a5r}s les "is5ositions "u Co"e 5ynal turc& un em5risonnement "e 5lus "@une annye&
cet ytran#er sera 7u#y 5ar les tri%unauA et conformyment auA lois 5ynales "e TurWuie& s@il est
trouvy sur le territoire turc.
zHn 5areil cas& les 5oursuites ne 5euvent avoir lieu Wue sur la 5lainte "e la Partie lysye ou sur
celle "u ministre "e la Justice. ~
C2E=D 'e have not #ot %efore us the "ocuments in the 5rocee"in#s %efore the Turkish Courts& %ut
it is clear that /emons 0as char#e" 0ith havin# %rou#ht a%out the collision % his ne#li#ence
an" there% causin# the "eath of the ei#ht Turks 0ho 0ere "ro0ne". $e 0as convicte" an"
sentence" to fine an" im5risonment.
C2E4D The French 8overnment alle#e" that the 5rocee"in#s in the Turkish Courts 0ere 0ithout
7uris"iction& an" % the com5romis "ate" ,cto%er 21th& 2314& ma"e %et0een the French an" the
Turkish 8overnments& the "is5ute 0as referre" to the Permanent Court of International Justice.
+rticle 2 of the com5romis is as follo0sJ
zLa Cour 5ermanente "e 7ustice internationale sera 5riye "e statuer sur les Wuestions suivantesJ
z2! La TurWuie a.t.elle& contrairement 2@article 2= "e la Convention "e Lausanne "u. 1< 7uillet
231: relative 2@eta%lissement et la com5ytence 7u"iciaire& a#i en contra"iction "es C5=2D
5rinci5es "u "roit international B et& si oui& "e Wuels 5rinci5es B en eAerant& la suite "e la
collision survenue le 1 aot 2314 en haute mer entre le va5eur franais Lotus et le va5eur *o-.
6ourt et lors "e lVarrivye "u navire franais Stam%oul& en mme tem5s Wue contre le ca5itaine
"u va5eur turc& "es 5oursuites 5ynales conneAes en vertu "e la ly#islation turWue& contre le sieur
/emons& officier "e Wuart %or" "u Lotus au moment "e la collision& en raison "e la 5erte "e
*o-.6ourt aant entra|ny la mort "e huit marins et 5assa#ers turcsX
z 1! [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ . ~
C2E>D The Wuestion for the Court is 0hether Turke in this matter acte" in contravention of the
5rinci5les of international la0U in other 0or"s& ha" the Turkish Courts Juris"iction to tr an"
convict /emonsX
C2EED +rticle 2= of the Convention of Lausanne 5rovi"es that Zin all matters un"er reserve of
+rticle 24 Wuestions of 7u"icial com5etence shall& in the relations %et0een Turke an" the other
contractin# Po0ers& %e re#ulate" conforma%l to the 5rinci5les of international la0Y.
C2E3D This clearl refers to the #eneral 5rinci5les of international la0 in the or"inar sense of the
term an" it a55lies to criminal as 0ell as to civil 5rocee"in#s. +rticle 24 is for 5resent 5ur5oses
irrelevant.
C23RD The Wuestion for the Court is one 5urel of criminal la0. The 5ractice 0ith re#ar" to
crimes committe" at sea has %een that the accuse" shoul" %e trie" % the courts of the countr to
0hich his shi5 %elon#s& 0ith the 5ossi%le alternative of the courts of the countr to 0hich the
offen"er 5ersonall %elon#s& if his nationalit is "ifferent from that of the shi5. There has %een
onl one eAce5tionJ 5irates have %een re#ar"e" as hostes humai #eneris an" mi#ht %e trie" in the
courts of an countr.
C232D In the or"inar course an trial of /emons on a char#e of havin# % criminal ne#li#ence in
navi#ation cause" the sinkin# of the. Turkish vessel % collision 0oul" have %een hel" in a
French court& as France 0as his countr as 0ell as that of the fla# of the shi5. $e 0as trie" an"
convicte" % a Turkish court an" accor"in# to Turkish la0. C5=1D
C231D The first 5oint 0ith 0hich the Court has to "eal is thisJ 'hat is the eAact meanin# of the
Wuestion 5ut in the com5romisJ La TurWuie a.t.elle a#i en contra"iction "es 5rinci5es "u "roit
international X
C23:D It has %een ar#ue" for Turke that this Wuestion im5lies that France& in or"er to succee"&
must 5oint to some "efinite rule of international la0 for%i""in# 0hat Turke "i". I am una%le to
rea" the com5romis in this sense. 'hat it asks is sim5l 0hether the Turkish Courts ha"
7uris"iction to tr an" 5unish /emonsU if international la0 authori-es this& the Wuestion 0oul" %e
ans0ere" in the affirmative& other0ise in the ne#ative. The com5romis. cannot& 0ith an
fairness& %e rea" so as to reWuire France to 5ro"uce some "efinite rule for%i""in# 0hat 0as "one
% Turke. If the Turkish 5rocee"in#s 0ere not authori-e" % international la0& Turke acte" en
contra"iction "es 5rinci5es "u "roit international. There is no mention of an "rule" %ut onl of
"5rinci5les".
C23<D The Wuestion is 5ut in the com5romis 0ith 5erfect fairness as %et0een the t0o countries
an" the attem5t to torture it into meanin# that France must 5ro"uce a rule for%i""in# 0hat
Turke "i" arises from a misconce5tion. The Wuestion is 0hether the 5rinci5les of international
la0 authori-e 0hat Turke "i" in this matter.
I. CTurkish Juris"iction +r#ument (o. 2D
C23=D It 0as ar#ue" for Turke that the "ylit committe" % /emons 0as committe" on %oar" the
*o-.6ourt 0hen % a fault manoeuvre of his she 0as struck % the Lotus& an" as the *o-.6ourt
0as a Turkish shi5 she must& it 0as sai"& %e re#ar"e" as 5art of Turkish territor an" the "ylit
0as therefore committe". on Turkish territor as much as if it ha" %een committe" on shore
0ithin the territorial limits of Turke.
C234D This is a ne0 an" startlin# a55lication of a meta5hor an"& if it is hel" #oo"& it 0oul" mean
that if there is a collision on the hi#h seas %et0een a Turkish vessel an" a shi5 of an other
nationalit& an of the officers an" cre0 of that other shi5 ma %e arreste" in an Turkish 5ort
an" 5ut on their trial %efore a Turkish court on a C5=:D criminal char#e of havin# cause" the
collision % their ne#li#ence. This vie0 a55ears to %e %ase" on a misconce5tion of the
5ro5osition that a shi5 on the hi#h seas ma %e re#ar"e" as 5art of the territor of the countr
0hose fla# she flies.
C23>D Turke@s case is that the crime 0as committe" in Turkish territor& namel& on a Turkish
shi5 on the hi#h seas& an" that the Turkish Courts therefore have a territorial 7uris"iction. + shi5
is a mova%le chattel& it is not a 5laceU 0hen on a voa#e it shifts its 5lace from "a to "a an"
from hour to hour& an" 0hen in "ock it is a chattel 0hich ha55ens at the time to %e in a 5articular
5lace. The 7uris"iction over crimes committe" on a shi5 at sea is not of a territorial nature at all.
It "e5en"s u5on the la0 0hich for convenience an" % common consent is a55lie" to the case of
chattels of such a ver s5ecial nature as shi5s. It a55ears to me to %e im5ossi%le 0ith an reason
to a55l the 5rinci5le of localit to the case of shi5s comin#. into collision for the 5ur5ose of
ascertainin# 0hat court has 7uris"ictionU that "e5en"s on the 5rinci5les of maritime la0. Criminal
7uris"iction for ne#li#ence causin# a collision is in the courts of the countr of the fla#& 5rovi"e"
that if the offen"er is of a nationalit "ifferent from that of his shi5& the 5rosecution ma
alternativel %e in the courts of his o0n countr.
C23ED The case seems to me clear on 5rinci5le& %ut there is also authorit 0hich 5oints to the
same conclusion.
C23ED In the Franconia case (;. v. 6en& 2E>>& 1 HA. /iv. 4:!& it 0as ar#ue" for the Cro0n that
there 0as 7uris"iction in the Hn#lish Courts to tr a char#e of manslau#hter on the ver #roun"
0hich 0e are no0 consi"erin#.
C233D 6en 0as in comman" of a 8erman shi5 an" % his ne#li#ence he came into collision 0ith
a *ritish vessel& the Strathcl"eU the Strathcl"e 0as sunk an" an Hn#lish 5assen#er on %oar" her
0as "ro0ne". 6en 0as foun" #uilt of manslau#hter at the Central Criminal Court. The
Wuestion of 7uris"iction 0as ar#ue" in the Court for Cro0n Cases ;eserve". It 0as ur#e" that
there 0as 7uris"iction in the Hn#lish Courts on the #roun" that 6en ha" committe"
manslau#hter on %oar" a *ritish shi5. The collision took 5lace 0ithin the territorial 0aters %ut
this for 5resent C5=<D 5ur5oses is immaterial. +s +m5hlett& J.+.& sai" (5a#e. 22E of the ;e5ort in
1 HA. /iv.!& the #roun" 0as Wuite in"e5en"ent of the three.mile -one an" if vali" 0oul" 7ustif
the conviction of the 5risoner& ha" the offence %een committe" in the mi""le of the ocean. It 0as
"eci"e" % eleven out of the thirteen 7u"#es 0ho forme" the Court that the conviction coul" not
%e su55orte" on this #roun".
C1RRD The 5oint so "eci"e" is eAactl the same as that 0hich arises in the 5resent case. The
"ecision 0as that the fact that "eath 0as cause" on %oar" the *ritish shi5 % the criminal
ne#li#ence of the ca5tain of the forei#n shi5 "i" not #ive 7uris"iction to the Hn#lish Courts to tr
him on the criminal char#e. This 0as the case of a collision %et0een a 8erman an" a *ritish shi5
an" on the face of it raise" a Wuestion of international la0. * eleven 7u"#es to t0o it 0as hel"
that this "i" not #ive 7uris"iction to the Hn#lish Court. I "o not think it is correct to sa that this
raise" onl a Wuestion of Hn#lish la0. +s the shi5s 0ere of "ifferent nationalities& the "ecision
"e5en"e" on the 5rinci5les of international la0. International la0& 0herever a55lica%le& is
consi"ere" as 5art of the la0 of Hn#lan"& an" our 7u"#es must a55l it accor"in#l. It seems to
me that it is not ri#ht to treat ;. v. 6en as if it ha" %een a "ecision merel on a Wuestion of
Hn#lish munici5al la0. The 7u"#es cannot have overlooke" the fact that the 0ere "ealin# 0ith
vessels of "ifferent nationalities an" the "ecision must have 5rocee"e" on the la0 a55lica%l to
such a case. The "ecision of course 5rocee"e" u5on the vie0 0hich the Hn#lish Court took of the
international la0 on the 5oint& %ut it 0as international la0 0hich the ha" to a55l. The "ecision
is not %in"in# u5on this Court %ut it must %e re#ar"e" as of #reat 0ei#ht an" cannot %e %rushe"
asi"e as turnin# merel on a 5oint of Hn#lish munici5al la0. Some eA5ressions use" % one of
the t0o "issentient 7u"#es (/enman& J.! mi#ht #ive rise on a hast 5erusal to the i"ea that the
case turne" on Hn#lish la0. These eA5ressions occur on 5a#e 2RR an" 5a#e 2R2 of the ;e5ort
(u%i su5ra!. The learne" 7u"#e 0as "iscussin# the meanin# of Section 11 of the Statute < an" =
'illiam IK& Cha5ter :4& #ivin# 7uris"iction tot he Central Criminal Court to tr offences
committe" on the hi#h seas. $e sai"J ZThis Wuestion a55ears to me to turn mainl u5on the
WuestionJ 0here is the offence committe"X +n" in "eci"in# this Wuestion I think 0e are %oun" to
"eci"e accor"in# to the 5rinci5les of Hn#lish la0.Y $e 0e on to sa that one 5rinC5==Dci5le of
Hn#lish la0 is that a *ritish shi5 as re#ar"s criminal offences committe" on %oar" of her is to %e
treate" as *ritish territor& an" as much su%7ect to our la0 as an other 5art of the {ueen@s
"ominions. These eA5ressions of )r. Justice /enman "o not a55ear to me to have an relevance
to the Wuestion of the la0 a55lica%le in the case of a collision %et0een a *ritish an" a forei#n
shi5.
II. CTurkish Juris"iction +r#ument (o. 1D
C1R2D Turke ho0ever& has another #roun" u5on 0hich she conten"s that there 0as 7uris"iction.
The 7u"#ment of the Permanent Court is silent 0ith reference to this 5ointU as the Court 0as in
favour of Turke u5on the first 5oint& . that 0ith 0hich I have %een hitherto "ealin#& . it 0as
thou#ht unnecessar for them to 5ronounce u5on this further 5oint. *ut as I have the misfortune
to "iffer from the conclusion at 0hich the Court arrive" on the first 5oint& it is necessar for me
to "eal 0ith this further 5oint. 'e have ha" the a"vanta#e of ver full an" most ela%orate
ar#uments u5on it.
C1R1D Turke asserts that the trial of /emons %efore the Turkish Courts 0as 7ustifie" % +rticle 4
of the Turkish Penal Co"e& a%ove set out& on the #roun" that /emons& % his ne#li#ent
navi#ation of the Lotus resultin# in the collision an" loss of Turkish lives& ha" %een #uilt of an
act 0hich& % Turkish la0 0hen he came to Turke& ren"ere" him lia%le to 5rosecution for it in
the Turkish Courts accor"in# to that article. It has % consent %een assume" for the 5ur5oses of
the case that the collision off Ca5e Si#ri 0as en 5as ytran#er 0ithin the meanin# of the article
an" the Wuestion for us is one of international la0 onl.
C1R:D The 5assin# of such la0s to affect aliens is "efen"e" on the #roun" that the are necessar
for the Z5rotectionY of the national. Hver countr has the li#ht an" the "ut to 5rotect its
nationals 0hen out of their o0n countr. If crimes are committe" a#ainst them 0hen a%roa"& it
ma insist on the offen"ers %ein# %rou#ht to 7ustice& %ut C5=4D this must %e "one in the 5ro5er
0a an" %efore tri%unals havin# 7uris"iction. The #overnment of the countr of the in7ure"
5erson is entitle" to %rin# 5ressure to %ear u5on the #overnment of the offen"er to have him
%rou#ht to 7ustice& %ut it has no ri#ht to assert for this 5ur5ose in its o0n courts a 7uris"iction
0hich the "o not 5ossess.
C1R<D The La0 of (ations "oes not reco#ni-e the assum5tion of 7uris"iction for Z5rotectionYU
there never has %een an such #eneral consent % the nations as 0oul" %e reWuire" to make this
"octrine a 5art of international la0. +n State 0hich fin"s it necessar to acWuire such a 5o0er
shoul" % convention #et the consent of the other States affecte". Such a convention 0oul" of
course have to "efine the limits an" con"itions affectin# the eAercise of the 5o0er. + countr is
no more entitle" to assume 7uris"iction over forei#ners than it 0oul" %e to anneA a %it of territor
0hich ha55ene" to %e ver convenient for it. +n such convention affectin# the 7uris"iction to
tr crimes % ne#li#ence in navi#ation 0oul" of course reWuire the most careful consi"eration as
to the "efinition of 0hat .amounte" to criminal ne#li#ence for this. 5ur5ose. It 0oul" %e
eAtraor"inar if it shoul" a55ear that 7uris"iction ha" %een conferre"& leavin# it to the court of the
countr in each case to "etermine 0hat 0as criminal ne#li#ence for the 5ur5oses of such
7uris"iction.
C1R=D I "esire to refer to 0hat 0as sai" % )r. ,55enheim on this su%7ect of "Protection" (Kol. 2&
"Peace"& 5. 1:3& 5ara#ra5h 2<>!J
")an States claim 7uris"iction an" threaten 5unishment for certain acts committe" % a
forei#ner in forei#n countries. States 0hich claim 7uris"iction of this kin" threaten 5unishment
for certain acts either a#ainst the State itself& such as hi#h treason& for#in# %ank.notes& an" the
like& or a#ainst its citi-ens& such as mur"er or arson& li%el an" slan"er& an" the like. These States
cannot& of course& eAercise this 7uris"iction as lon# as the forei#ner concerne" remains outsi"e
their territor. *ut if& after the committal of such act& he enters their territor an" comes there%
un"er their territorial su5remac& the have an o55ortunit of inflictin# 5unishment. The
Wuestion is& therefore& 0hether States have a ri#ht C5=>D to 7uris"iction over acts of forei#ners
committe" in forei#n countries& an" 0hether the home State of such an alien has a "ut to
acWuiesce in the latter@s 5unishment into the 5o0er of these States. The Wuestion& 0hich is
controversial& ou#ht to %e ans0ere" in the ne#ative. For at the time such criminal acts are
committe"& the 5er5etrators are neither un"er the territorial nor un"er 5ersonal su5remac of the
States concerne". +n" a State can onl reWuire res5ect for its la0s from such aliens as are
5ermanentl or transientl 0ithin its territor. (o ri#ht for a State to eAten" its 7uris"iction over
acts of forei#ners committe" in forei#n countries can %e sai" to have #ro0n u5 accor"in# to the
La0 of (ations& an" the ri#ht of 5rotection over citi-ens a%roa" hel" % ever State 0oul" 7ustif
it in an intervention in case one of its citi-ens a%roa" shoul" %e reWuire" to stan" this trial %efore
the courts of another State for criminal acts 0hich he "i" not commit "urin# the time he 0as
un"er the territorial su5remac of such State.Y
C1R4D This 5assa#e& in m o5inion& is an accurate statement of the international la0 a55lica%le.
Its value is not affecte" % the fact referre" to in the notes on 5a#e 1<R that continental 5u%licists
have thou#ht other0iseU 0e are concerne" 0ith the Wuestion 0hat international la0 is& not 0hat it
ou#ht to %e.
C1R>D )r. ,55enheim 0ent on to refer to the case of Cuttin#& 0hich arose %et0een )eAico an"
the ?nite" States in 2EE4& the facts of 0hich have %een alrea" state" in the course of the 5resent
5rocee"in#s. (othin# 0as "eci"e" in the Cuttin# case an" the Wuestion of 7uris"iction continue"
to form a su%7ect of "iscussion amon# 7urists. In the *ritish ear *ook of International La0 for
231= there 0ill %e foun" on 5a#e << et sWW. an article % )r. '. H. *eckett on "The HAercise of
Criminal 7uris"iction over Forei#ners"& in 0hich the histor of the controvers u5 to "ate is
#iven.
C1RED This Court never can have to consi"er 0hether Z5rotectionY of this sort is or is not
"esira%le. The Wuestion for the Court must al0as %e& in the a%sence of convention& sim5l
0hether it has %een a"o5te" % the common consent of nations as a 5art of international la0. +s
a 5lain matter of fact& it a55ears to me C5=ED that it has not et %een so a"o5te". The Court& of
course& coul" never allo0 itself to %e entan#le" in ar#uments for an" a#ainst the theor. The
Wuestion sim5l is 0hether& % #eneral consent& Z5rotectionY of this kin" has %ecome a 5art of
international la0. If that Wuestion is ans0ere" in the ne#ative& as I think it must %e& +rticle 4 of
the Turkish Penal Co"e "i" not %in" France& an" the 7uris"iction of the Turkish Court to tr
/emons coul" not %e su55orte" on this #roun".
C1R3D ,f course& ever countr has the ri#ht to 5rotect the 5ersons an" the 5ro5ert of its
citi-ens. If a 0ron# is "one& the State ma "eman" re"ress an" enforce it& %ut the assertion that
an State can % an la0 of its o0n assume criminal 7uris"iction in res5ect of alle#e" crimes
committe" a%roa" or on the hi#h seas is a ne0 one. The #overnment of the countr of the in7ure"
5erson ma call& u5on the #overnment of the countr 0here the in7ur 0as committe" to have the
offen"ers 5unishe" in "ue course % la0& %ut it cannot make la0s for their 5unishment in its o0n
courts& eAce5t in 5ursuance of a convention 0ith the other Po0er affecte".
C12RD In m o5inion& %oth the #roun"s on 0hich Turke has trie" to su55ort the conviction are
unsoun" an" France is entitle" to the 7u"#ment of this Court.
(Si#ne"! Finla. C5=3D
/issentin# ,5inion % ). (holm
CTranslationD
C122D In or"er to re5l to the Wuestion un"er consi"eration& it is necessar in the first 5lace to
ascertain 0hether Turke@s action falls 0ithin a "omain #overne" % the La0 of (ations an"
0hether there eAists not onl a 5rinci5le %ut a rifle of the La0 of (ations 0hich 0oul" thus
re5resent the 5ositive 5u%lic la0 a55lica%le to the 5articular case.
C121D In en"eavourin# to trace the #eneral lines alon# 0hich 5u%lic international la0 is forme"&
t0o 5rinci5les 0ill %e foun" to eAist the 5rinci5le of soverei#nt an" the territorial 5rinci5le&
accor"ance to 0hich each nation has "ominion over its territor an" B on the other han" . has no
authorit to interfere in an 0a in matters takin# 5lace on the territories of other nations. There
eAists %et0een countries an em5t s5ace over 0hich no authorit eAten"s. In conseWuence of the
relations 0hich o0in# to the eAi#encies of life must necessaril %e forme" %et0een nations& this
em5t s5ace must %e fille" u5 % the creation of rules fiAin# the metho" to %e follo0e" in or"er
to treat similarl& on the one han"& the material 5ro%lems 0hich arise simultaneousl an" often in
an i"entical manner in the "ifferent countries& an"& on the other& 5ersonal 5ro%lems& namel the
treatment of in"ivi"uals on forei#n territor& 0hich is actuall the 5ro%lem in this case. +s a
metho" of re#ulatin# the relations %et0een countries& in the first 5lace shoul" %e mentione" more
or less universal conventions conclu"e" %et0een States an" servin# to %ri"#e over the "omain
not su%7ect to an re#ulation. ?niversal la0s a"o5te" % all countries an" havin# as their o%7ect
the creation or the co"ification of international la0 0oul" constitute a solution of the 5ro%lem&
%ut the "o not eAist an" one can onl en"eavour to esta%lish international la0 % custom.
C12:D The ascertainment of a rule of international la0 im5lies conseWuentl an investi#ation of
the 0a in 0hich customs acWuire consistenc an" thus come to %e consi"ere" as constitutin#
rules #overnin# international relations. + series of "efinitions ten" to fiA the elements necessar
for the esta%lishment of an international custom. There must have %een acts of State
accom5lishe" in the "omain of international relations& 0hilst mere munici5al la0s C54RD are
insufficientU moreover& the foun"ation of a custom must %e the unite" 0ill of several an" even of
man States constitutin# a union of 0ills& or a #eneral consensus of o5inion amon# the countries
0hich have a"o5te" the Huro5ean sstem of civili-ation& or a manifestation of international le#al
ethics 0hich takes 5lace throu#h the continual recurrence of events 0ith an innate consciousness
of their %ein# necessar.
C12<D These "ifferent theories #ive a #eneral i"ea of the necessar con"itions for the eAistence of
an international la0 an" the sho0 the necessit of some action ("acts"& "0ill"& "a#reement"! on
the 5art of States& 0ithout 0hich a rule of international la0 cannot %e %ase" on custom. This
result is the conseWuence of the initial 5rinci5le 0hich limits ever State to its territor as re#ar"s
the eAercise of its ri#ht of soverei#nt an" of its territorial 7uris"iction& 5rinci5les 0hich have
%een "efinitel reco#ni-e" in international la0. The 5resent case& 0hich concerns the fact of a
nation havin# eAten"e" its 7uris"iction to a forei#ner in re#ar" to acts committe" % the latter in
his o0n countr& su55lies an eAam5le of an actual infrin#ement of the 5rinci5le of territorialit.
This infrin#ement cannot %e le#ali-e" % mere tacit acce5tance. +mon# nations consent must not
merel %e tacit& %ut& in most cases& eA5ress& if the situation 5rovi"e" % the a%ove eAam5le is to
%e reco#ni-e" as %ein# authori-e" % 5u%lic international la0.
C12=D Thencefor0ar" it cannot %e maintaine" . as the 7u"#ment sets out B that& failin# a 5ositive
restrictive rule& States leave other States free to e"ict their le#islations as the think fit an" to act
accor"in#l& even 0hen& in contravention of the 5rinci5le of territorialit& the assume ri#hts
over forei#n su%7ects for acts 0hich the latter have committe" a%roa". The reasonin# of the
7u"#ment a55ears to %e that& failin# a rule of 5ositive la0& the relations %et0een States in the
matter un"er consi"eration are #overne" % an a%solute free"om. If this reasonin# %e follo0e"
out& a 5rinci5le of 5u%lic international la0 is set u5 that 0here there is no s5ecial rule& a%solute
free"om must eAist. The %asis of this reasonin# a55ears to %e that it is va#uel felt that& even
outsi"e the "omain of 5ositive 5u%lic international la0& the situation of fact as re#ar"s relations
%et0een nations in itself em%o"ies a 5rinci5le of 5u%lic la0. *ut that is a confusion of i"eas. In
consi"erin# the eAistin# situation of fact& a "istinction shoul" %e "ra0n %et0een that 0hich is
merel an interC542Dnational situation of fact an" that 0hich constitutes a rule of international
la0. The latter can onl %e create" % a s5ecial 5rocess an" cannot %e "e"uce" from a situation
0hich is merel one of fact.
xxx
C124D From the a55lication of the 5rinci5les set out a%ove the follo0in# conclusions can %e
"ra0n. In the first 5lace& t0o 5reliminar Wuestions must %e "ealt 0ith& 0hich 0oul"& if ans0ere"
in the affirmative& eAercise a "ecisive effect u5on the case.
C12>D In a#reement 0ith the 7u"#ment& it must %e reco#ni-e" that +rticle 2= of the Convention of
Lausanne "oes not constitute a s5ecial convention %et0een France an" Turke. This 5rovision is
merel a statement of a #eneral a55lication of international la0. +nother Wuestion is raise" %
Turke& 0ho ar#ues that the offence 0as committe" on Turkish territor& that is to sa on the
Turkish shi5& 0hich& accor"in# to the acce5te" international la0& constitutes a floatin# eAtension
of Turkish territor. 'ithout #oin# into the various theories re#ar"in# offences 5ro"ucin# their
effect at a "istance an" re#ar"in# the "irect an" in"irect effect of such offences& it 0ill suffice to
o%serve that this is in the main a Wuestion to %e "eci"e" on the merits of the 5articular caseJ /i"
the alle#e" offence reall 5ro"uce the effects im5ute" to it& namel the "eath of a num%er of
5ersons . since the loss of the shi5 an" of its car#o "o not come into the Wuestion . on %oar" the
shi5 run "o0nX Turke has 5ro"uce" no evi"ence in the form of a maritime enWuir or
other0ise& calculate" to esta%lish 5recisel 0here "eath occurre"U an" in vie0 of this uncertaint
as re#ar"s the esta%lishment of the facts& since it is onl the Turkish shi5 0hich& % a55lication of
a le#al fiction& is to %e re#ar"e" as Turkish territor& the Turkish contention is not ma"e out an"
0e ma 5ass to the consi"eration of the other as5ects of the case.
C12ED The case concerns a collision on the hi#h seas %et0een a Turkish shi5 an" a French shi5 as
a conseWuence of 0hich& after the arrival of the French shi5 in a Turkish 5ort& criminal
5rocee"in#s 0ere institute" a#ainst the French officer. The 7uris"iction of the Turkish Courts&
0hich is "is5ute" % France& seems to have %een %ase" on +rticle 4 of the Turkish Criminal
Co"e& 0hich eAten"s their 7uris"iction to cover certain acts committe" a%roa" % a forei#ner to
the in7ur of a Turk. C541D
C123D The 7uris"iction claime" % Turke is an eAtension of the fun"amental 5rinci5les of 5u%lic
international la0 0hich esta%lish the territorial sstem. Is such an eAtension a"missi%le in
collision casesX To "eci"e this 5oint 0e must consi"er (2! the #eneral situation 5revailin#
%et0een States as re#ar"s criminal 7uris"iction on lan"U (1! the same situation as re#ar"s the hi#h
seasU (:! the case of collision in 5articular.
C11RD In so "oin# our startin# 5oint is the territorial 5rinci5le 0hich is reco#ni-e" as formin# 5art
of 5ositive international la0. Some eAce5tions to this 5rinci5le are also reco#ni-e"& such as
7uris"iction over nationals for acts committe" a%roa". Is it 5ossi%le to hol" that an eAce5tion is
also ma"e as re#ar"s acts 0hich are committe" % forei#ners a%roa" an" % 0hich a national is
in7ure"X
C112D The criteria for the esta%lishment of a rule of 5ositive la0 have %een in"icate" a%ove. It is
necessar to eAamine conventions& 7u"icial "ecisions an" the teachin#s of 5u%licists. From this
eAamination& in the course of 0hich the voluminous "ata at the Court@s "is5osal have %een
consi"ere"& the "etails of 0hich& ho0ever& cannot %e set "o0n here& it follo0s that& as re#ar"s
inter.State relations on lan"& eAce5tions in res5ect of criminal la0 have not %een reco#ni-e"
#enerall or in a manner sufficient to esta%lish a "ero#ation from the territorial 5rinci5le 0hich is
stron#l u5hel" % im5ortant nations. This is 5rove" %& amon#st other thin#s& the fact that a
committee of eA5erts a55ointe" to co"if international la0 has set asi"e the Wuestion of the
eAtension of criminal 7uris"iction& as not %ein# for the moment rea" for solution.
C111D +s re#ar"s the relations 5revailin# %et0een States at sea& the situation is more or less the
same. International la0 reco#ni-es that a vessel is to %e re#ar"e" as a 5art of the territor an" as
su%7ect to the 7uris"iction eAercise" thereon. Cases of concurrent 7uris"iction are so rare that one
is le" to the conclusion that there is a ten"enc to0ar"s reco#nition of eAclusive 7uris"iction.
*ut& even as re#ar"s relations at sea& this situation cannot %e re#ar"e" as alrea" esta%lishe" an"
as thus constitutin# a 5rinci5le of international la0.
C11:D +s re#ar"s collision cases& the ma %e assimilate" either to relations on sea or to relations
on lan". HAclusive 7uris"iction over a shi5 is %ase" on the i"ea that a shi5 on the hi#h seas& 0hich
are& free to all an" are not su%7ect to the authorit of an 5articular C54:D nation& must retain its
eAclusivel national character. *ut in the case of a collision %et0een t0o vessels of "ifferent
nationalities& it mi#ht 5erha5s %e sai" that& as re#ar"s relations %et0een these t0o vessels& the
5rinci5le of eAclusive 7uris"iction at sea falls to the #roun" an" that a collision shoul" %e "ealt
0ith in accor"ance 0ith the 5rinci5les a55lin# to relations on lan"& since it is no lon#er a
Wuestion of a vessel at sea 5rocee"in# alone& the eAtraterritorial character of 0hich is "erive"
from this circumstance& %ut of t0o vessels in contact 7ust like t0o nations on lan".
C11<D The result& ho0ever is the same un"er 0hichever hea" the case of a collision %e classifie"&
since un"er neither is there as et an 5ositivel esta%lishe" international la0. ConseWuentl the
same is true as re#ar"s collision cases.
C11=D It follo0s that the eAce5tion to the territorial 5rinci5le 0hich must %e esta%lishe" to
5rovi"e a le#al sanction for the eAercise of 7uris"iction % Turke an" 0hich forms the su%7ect of
the 5resent "is5ute& "oes not eAist. It is im5ossi%le to hol" 0ith the 7u"#ment that& over an"
a%ove 5ositive international la0& there is a kin" of international la0 0hich amounts to thisJ that
the a%sence of a rule 5rohi%itin# an action suffices to ren"er that action 5ermissi%le& for not onl
is it in most cases ina"missi%le thus to "e"uce 5ermission from the a%sence of a 5rohi%ition& %ut
furthermore in the 5resent case one is confronte" 0ith the territorial 5rinci5le& 0hich is "efinitel
esta%lishe"& 0hilst the 5ossi%le eAce5tion to it B an" in 5articular the eAce5tion 0hich 0oul" %e
reWuire" to #ive Turke criminal 7uris"iction in this case B are not.
C114D It follo0s from the fore#oin# that Turke& % 5rosecutin# Lieutenant /emons& acte" in
contravention of the territorial 5rinci5le as esta%lishe" at the 5resent time.
C11>D It 0ill& ho0ever& %e 0ell to remem%er that international la0 is lia%le to continual variations
an" that there 0oul" seem to %e a ten"enc to0ar"s a relaAation in the strict a55lication of this
5rinci5le.
C11ED Thou#h therefore Turke@s action in this is not at 5resent time 7ustifie" in la0& on the other
han" it cannot %e re#ar"e" as a##ressive from a moral 5oint of vie0.
C113D * esta%lishin# munici5al le#islation containin#& amon#st other thin#s& +rticle 4 of the
Criminal Co"e& on 0hich she %ase" her action& Turke therefore has after all merel follo0e" a
ten"enc C54<D of mo"ern le#islation& to 0hich ten"enc& ho0ever& an im5ortant #rou5 of nations
are still o55ose".
C1:RD It must therefore %e conclu"e" that Turke . in this case . has acte" in contravention of the
5rinci5les of international la0. C54=D
/issentin# ,5inion % )r. )oore
C1:2D ,n the 5resent 7u"#ment as a 0hole& the vote& as a55ears % the 7u"#ment itself& stoo" siA
to siA& an"& the Court %ein# eWuall "ivi"e"& the Presi"ent #ave& un"er +rticle == of the Statute& a
castin# vote& thus causin# the 7u"#ment as it stan"s to 5revail. I 0as one of the "issentin# siA U
%ut I 0ish at the outset to state that m "issent 0as %ase" solel on the connection of the 5en"in#
case 0ith +rticle 4 of the Turkish Penal Co"e& 0hich I 0ill "iscuss in "ue course. In the
7u"#ment of the Court that there is no rule of international la0 % virtue of 0hich the 5enal
co#ni-ance of a collision at sea& resultin# in loss of life& %elon#s eAclusivel to the countr of the
shi5 % or % means of 0hich the 0ron# 0as "one& I concur& thus makin# for the 7u"#ment on
that Wuestion& as su%mitte" % the com5romis& a "efinitel ascertaine" ma7orit of seven to five.
*ut& as I have reache" m conclusions& %oth on the #eneral Wuestion an" on the 5oint on 0hich I
"issent& % a some0hat in"e5en"ent course of reasonin#& I "eem it to %e m "ut to "eliver a
se5arate o5inion.
C1:1D ?n"er the com5romis or s5ecial a#reement si#ne" at 8eneva on ,cto%er 21th& 2314&
France an" Turke have su%mitte" to the Permanent Court of International 7ustice the Wuestion of
"7u"icial 7uris"iction" (com5ytence 7u"iciaire! 0hich ha" arisen %et0een the t0o 8overnments as
to 0hether Turke ha"& contrar to +rticle 2= of the Convention of Lausanne of Jul 1<th& 231:&
res5ectin# her 7u"icial esta%lishment (yta%lissement! an" 7uris"iction& violate" the 5rinci5les of
international la0 . an"& if so& 0hat 5rinci5les . % institutin# a#ainst the officer of the 0atch of
the French steamer Lotus on her arrival at Constantino5le& as 0ell as a#ainst the comman"er of
the Turkish steamer *o-.6ourt& criminal 5rocee"in#s in 5ursuance of Turkish le#islation in
res5ect of a collision %et0een the t0o steamers outsi"e Turkish territorial 0aters& as the result of
0hich the *o-.6ourt 0as lost an" ei#ht Turkish sailors an" 5assen#ers on that vessel lost their
lives. Shoul" the ans0er %e in the C544D affirmative& the Court is aske" to "eci"e 0hat 5ecuniar
re5aration is "ue to ). /emons& the officer of the 0atch& Z5rovi"e"& accor"in# to the 5rinci5les
of international la0& re5aration shoul" %e ma"e in similar cases".
C1::D In 5resentin# the case to the Court& neither of the Parties furnishe" a co5& authenticate" or
other0ise& of the "ecision or "ecisions of the Turkish tri%unals or of the 5rocee"in#s& inclu"in#
the evi"ence& on 0hich such "ecision or "ecisions 0ere %ase". The Court is not aske" to revie0
the 5rocee"in#s of the Turkish tri%unals or to eAamine the Wuestion 0hether the 0ere in
conformit 0ith Turkish la0. It is a#ree" that the collision took 5lace a%out siA miles from Ca5e
Si#ri& or 5erha5s three miles outsi"e Turkish territorial 0aters& an" the Court is aske" to "eci"e
0hether& % reason of the fact that the 5lace of the collision 0as outsi"e such 0aters& Turke
violate" +rticle 2= of the Lausanne Convention an" the 5rinci5les of international la0 in
institutin# criminal 5rocee"in#s in 5ursuance of Turkish le#islation a#ainst the officer of the
0atch of the shi5 % 0hich the Turkish steamer 0as sunk an" lives of Turkish sailors an"
5assen#ers 0ere lost.
C1:<D I 0ill consi"er& first& the Wuestion of the meanin# an" effect of +rticle 2= of the Convention
of Lausanne.
I. CLausanne ConventionD
C1:=D +rticle 2= of the Lausanne Convention rea"s as follo0sJ
"Hn toutes mati}res& sous ryserve "e l@article 24& les Wuestions "e com5ytence 7u"iciaire seront&
"ans les ra55orts entre la TurWuie et les autres Puissances contractantes& ry#lyes conformyment
auA 5rinci5es "u "roit international."
CTranslation.D
"In all matters& un"er reserve of +rticle 24& Wuestions of 7u"icial com5etence shall& in the
relations %et0een Turke an" the other contractin# Po0ers& %e re#ulate" conforma%l to the
5rinci5les of international la0."
C1:4D +rticle 24 of the Convention& to the reservation of 0hich +rticle 2= is su%7ecte"& relates to
5ersonal status& an" has no %earin# u5on the Wuestion no0 %efore the Court. C54>D
C1:>D The Pream%le of the Lausanne Convention recites that the contractin# States "esire" to
re#ulate conforma%l to the mo"ern la0 of nations ("roit "es #ens mo"erne! the con"itions of the
esta%lishment of their res5ective citi-ens in the territories of the other& as 0ell as certain
Wuestions relative to 7u"icial com5etence (ainsi Wue certaines Wuestions relatives la com5ytence
7u"iciaire!.
C1:ED In the Case of the French 8overnment& an" in the oral ar#uments ma"e in %ehalf of that
8overnment %efore the Court& it has %een conten"e" that a limite" inter5retation shoul" %e #iven
to +rticle 2= of the Lausanne Convention as re#ar"s the 7uris"ictional ri#hts of Turke un"er
international la0& an" this contention has %een su55orte" % citations from the ne#otiations that
le" u5 to the conclusion of the Treat& %ut the 5assa#es cite" "o not in m o5inion have the effect
0hich it is sou#ht to ascri%e to them. In so sain# I am not to %e un"erstoo" as eA5ressin# an
o5inion on the Wuestion 0hether such evi"ence is a"missi%le for the 5ur5ose of thro0in# li#ht
u5on the inter5retation of treaties. The lan#ua#e of +rticle 2= is sim5le an" 5lain an" "oes not
stan" in nee" of inter5retation from an source outsi"e the terms of the Treat itself. 'hen
+rticle 2= s5eaks of "the 5rinci5les of international la0"& it means the 5rinci5les of international
la0 as the eAist %et0een in"e5en"ent an" soverei#n States. It evi"entl 0as inten"e" to
reco#ni-e the ri#ht of Turke to eAercise her 7u"icial 7uris"iction as an in"e5en"ent an"
soverei#n State& eAce5t so far as the eAercise of national 7uris"iction is limite" % the mutual
o%li#ations of States un"er the la0 of (ations.
II. CKiolation of the Princi5les of International La0D
C1:3D I 0ill neAt consi"er the %roa" Wuestion su%mitte" un"er the com5romis as to 0hether
Turke violate" the 5rinci5les of international la0 % institutin# criminal 5rocee"in#s in the
5resent case& an" it is o%vious that& un"er the inter5retation I have #iven to +rticle 2= of the
Lausanne Convention& this Wuestion in effect is& 0hether an in"e5en"ent State is for%i""en %
international la0 to institute criminal 5rocee"in#s a#ainst the officer of a shi5 of another
nationalit in res5ect of a collision on the hi#h seas& % 0hich one of its o0n shi5s 0as sunk an"
lives of 5ersons on %oar" 0ere lost. C54ED
C1<RD The French 8overnment maintains the affirmative in the case %efore the Court. In the
ori#inal 5rotest 5resente" % the French Char#y at +n#ora on +u#ust 22th& 2314& a#ainst the
criminal 5rosecution of ). /emons& the #roun" 0as taken that& the collision havin# occurre"
"outsi"e the territorial 0aters an" 7uris"iction of Turke& the Turkish authorities have no
com5etence to con"uct an 5enal 5rosecution 0hatever a#ainst the 5ersonnel of a French shi5
eAclusivel 7usticia%le for 0hat takes 5lace on the hi#h seas (5our faits survenus en haute mer!
% the French Courts". The 5rotest& therefore& "eclares that ). /emons 0as "0ron#full
arreste"& an" that he shoul" %e %rou#ht %efore the com5etent French court for an 5rocee"in#s
that mi#ht eventuall %e taken a#ainst him".
C1<2D To the %roa" "enial thus ma"e of the ri#ht of an in"e5en"ent State& % means of criminal
5rocee"in#s a#ainst 5ersons voluntaril 0ithin its territor& to 5rotect its shi5s an" the lives of
those on %oar" outsi"e territorial 0aters& a#ainst criminal acts committe" an" consummate" on
such shi5s % the 5ersonnel of a shi5 of another nationalit& I am una%le to #ive m assent& an" in
5rocee"in# to "iscuss the Wuestion& I 0ill refer to certain elementar 5rinci5les.
C1<1D 2. It is an a"mitte" 5rinci5le of international la0 that a nation 5ossesses an" eAercises
0ithin its o0n territor an a%solute an" eAclusive 7uris"iction& an" that an eAce5tion to this ri#ht
must %e trace" to the consent of the nation& either eA5ress or im5lie" (Schooner HAchan#e v.
)cFa""on (2E21!& > Cranch 224& 2:4!. The %enefit of this 5rinci5le eWuall enures to all
in"e5en"ent an" soverei#n States& an" is atten"e" 0ith a corres5on"in# res5onsi%ilit for 0hat
takes 5lace 0ithin the national territor.
C1<:D 1. It is an eWuall a"mitte" 5rinci5le that& as munici5al courts& the creatures of munici5al
la0& "erive their 7uris"iction from that la0& offences committe" in the territorial 7uris"iction of a
nation ma %e trie" an" 5unishe" there accor"in# to the "efinitions an" 5enalties of its munici5al
la0& 0hich& eAce5t so far as it ma %e sho0n to %e contrar to international la0& is acce5te" %
international la0 as the la0 5ro5erl #overnin# the case. (;e5ort of )r. *aar"& Secretar of
State& to the Presi"ent& case of +ntonio Pelletier& Januar 1Rth& 2EE>& Forei#n ;elations of the
?nite" States& 2EE>& 5. 4R4& an" the numerous authorities there cite"U C543D 'il"enhus@ Case&
21R& ?.S. 2.! This 5rinci5le is not contrar& %ut is correlative& to the 5rinci5le lai" "o0n in
numerous "ecisions of munici5al courts& that international la0 is to %e consi"ere" as formin#
5art of the la0 of the lan"& that it is as such to %e 7u"iciall a"ministere" in all cases to 0hich it is
a55lica%le& an" that munici5al enactments ou#ht not to %e so construe" as to violate international
an other construction is 5ossi%le (Chief 7ustice )arshall& )urra v. Schooner Charmin# *etse
(2ER<!& 1 Cranch& 4<& 22EU Sir 'illiam Scott& Le Louis (2E2>!& 1 /o"son& 12R& 1:3!.
C1<<D :. The 5rinci5le of a%solute an" eAclusive 7uris"iction 0ithin the national territor a55lies
to forei#ners as 0ell as to citi-ens or inha%itants of the countr& an" the forei#ner can claim no
eAem5tion from the eAercise of such 7uris"iction& eAce5t so far as he ma %e a%le to sho0 eitherJ
(2! that he is& % reason of some s5ecial immunit& not su%7ect to the o5eration of the local la0&
or (1! that the local la0 is not in conformit 0ith international la0. (o 5resum5tion of immunit
arises from the fact that the 5erson accuse" is a forei#ner.
C1<=D <. In conformit 0ith the 5rinci5le of the eWualit of in"e5en"ent States& all nations have
an eWual ri#ht to the uninterru5te" use of the una55ro5riate" 5arts of the ocean for their
navi#ation& an" no State is authori-e" to interfere 0ith the navi#ation of other States on the hi#h
seas in the time of 5eace eAce5t in the case of 5irac % la0 of nations or in eAtraor"inar cases
of self."efence (Le Louis (2E2>!& 1 /o"son& 12R& 1<:.1<<!.
C1<4D =. It is universall a"mitte" that a shi5 on the hi#h seas is& for 7uris"ictional 5ur5oses& to %e
consi"ere" as a 5art of the territor of the countr to 0hich it %elon#sU an" there is nothin# in the
la0 or in the reason of the thin# to sho0 that& in the case of in7ur to life an" 5ro5ert on %oar" a
shi5 on the hi#h seas& the o5eration of this 5rinci5le "iffers from its o5eration on lan".
C1<>D The o5eration of the 5rinci5le of a%solute an" eAclusive 7uris"iction on lan" "oes not
5reclu"e the 5unishment % a State of an act committe" 0ithin its territor % a 5erson at the
time cor5oreall 5resent in another State. It ma %e sai" that there "oes not eAist to."a a la0.
#overne" state in the 7uris5ru"ence of 0hich C5>RD such a ri#ht of 5unishment is not reco#ni-e".
France& % her o0n Co"e& asserts in #eneral an" in"efinite terms the ri#ht to 5unish forei#ners
0ho& outsi"e France& commit offences a#ainst the "safet" of the French State. This claim mi#ht
rea"il %e foun" to #o in 5ractice far %eon" the 7uris"ictional limits of the claim of a countr to
5unish crimes 5er5etrate" or consummate" on %oar" its shi5s on the hi#h seas % 5ersons not
cor5oreall on %oar" such shi5s. )oreover& it is evi"ent that& if the latter claim is not a"mitte"&
the 5rinci5le of territorialit& 0hen a55lie" to shi5s on the hi#h seas& must enure solel to the
%enefit of the shi5 % or % means of 0hich the crime is committe"& an" that& if the Court shoul"
sanction this vie0& it not onl 0oul" #ive to the 5rinci5le of territorialit a one.si"e" a55lication&
%ut 0oul" im5ose u5on its o5eration at sea a limitation to 0hich it is not su%7ect on lan".
C1<ED There is nothin# to sho0 that nations have ever taken such a vie0. ,n the contrar& in the
case of 0hat is kno0n as 5irac % la0 of nations& there has %een conce"e" a universal
7uris"iction& un"er 0hich the 5erson char#e" 0ith the offence ma %e trie" an" 5unishe" % an
nation into 0hose 7uris"iction he ma come. I sa "5irac % la0 of nations"& %ecause the
munici5al la0s of man States "enominate an" 5unish as "5irac" numerous acts 0hich "o not
constitute 5irac % la0 of nations& an" 0hich therefore are not of universal co#ni-ance& so as to
%e 5unisha%le % all nations.
C1<3D Pirac % la0 of nations& in its 7uris"ictional as5ects& is sui #eneris. Thou#h statutes ma
5rovi"e for its 5unishment& it is an offence a#ainst the la0 of nations U an" as the scene of the
5irate@s o5erations is the hi#h seas& 0hich it is not the ri#ht or "ut of an nation to 5olice& he is
"enie" the 5rotection of the fla# 0hich he ma carr& an" is treate" as an outla0& as the enem of
all mankin" B hostis humani #eneris . 0hom an nation ma in the interest of all ca5ture an"
5unish. 'heaton "efines 5irac % la0 of nations as mur"er or ro%%er committe" on the hi#h
seas % 5ersons actin# in "efiance of all la0& an" ackno0le"#in# o%e"ience to no fla#
0hatsoever ('heaton@s Hlements& /ana@s e".& 23: et seW.!. /ana& 23:& (ote E:& commentin# on
this "efinition& remarks that& 0hile the attem5te" "efinitions of 5irac are unsatisfactor& some
%ein# C5>2D too 0i"e an" some too narro0& the offence cannot %e ma"e to em%race "all acts of
5lun"er an" violence .... sim5l %ecause "one on the hi#h seas"& since as ever crime ma %e
committe" at sea 5irac "mi#ht thus %e eAten"e" to the 0hole criminal co"e". $all sas that all
acts of 5irac % la0 of nations have one thin# in common& namel& that "the are "one un"er
con"itions 0hich& ren"er it im5ossi%le or unfair to hol" an State res5onsi%le for their
commission"U that a 5irate "either %elon#s to no State or or#ani-e" 5olitical societ& or % the
nature of his act he has sho0n his intention an" his 5o0er to re7ect the authorit of that to 0hich
he is 5ro5erl su%7ect"U that& as the ""istinctive mark" of 5irac is Zin"e5en"ence or re7ection of
State or other eWuivalent authorit"& it is not confine" to ""e5re"ations or acts of violence "one
animo furan"iY& %ut that a satisfactor "efinition "must eA5ressl eAclu"e all acts % 0hich the
authorit of the State or other 5olitical societ is not o5enl or % im5lication re5u"iate"". ($all&
International La0& Eth e". (231<!& 5ara#ra5h E2& . :2R.:22.!
C1=RD It is im5ortant to %ear in min" the fore#oin# o5inions of eminent authorities as to the
essential nature of 5irac % la0 of nations& es5eciall for the reason that nations have sho0n the
stron#est re5u#nance to eAten"in# the sco5e of the offence& %ecause it carrie" 0ith it not onl the
5rinci5le of universal 7uris"iction %ut also the ri#ht of visit an" search on the hi#h seas in time of
5eace. For the 5ur5ose of 5rotectin# shi5s on the hi#h seas& 0e must therefore look to a
reasona%le an" eWual inter5retation an" a55lication of the 5rinci5le of the territorialit of shi5s.
C1=2D +s affectin# this 5rinci5le& the case of John +n"erson has %een cite" an" "iscusse" in the
5resent 5rocee"in#s. It a55ears that +n"erson& an or"inar seaman on the +merican %ark C.,.
'hitmore& in 2E>R& kille" the first officer 0hile the vessel 0as at sea on a voa#e from (e0
ork to Calcutta. ,n the arrival of the %ark at Calcutta& the +merican Consul.8eneral sou#ht to
have the cul5rit "etaine"& 0ith a vie0 to his return to the ?nite" States for trial& %ut the local
authorities claime" 7uris"iction of the crime on the #roun" that +n"erson 0as in fact a *ritish
su%7ect. 'hen a"vise" C5>1D of these facts& the Secretar of State of the ?nite" States& in or"er
that the case mi#ht not& as he sai"& %e a"mitte" "as a 5rece"ent"& instructe" the Le#ation of the
?nite" States at Lon"on to call attention to 0hat he "eclare" to %e the "universall reco#ni-e""
5rinci5le that& as merchant vessels on the hi#h seas 0ere un"er the 7uris"iction of the nation to
0hich the %elon#e"& their national tri%unals ha" "eAclusive 7uris"iction" of common crimes on
%oar" such vessels on the hi#h seas& an" to re5resent that the "nationalit of the accuse"" coul"
"have no more to "o 0ith the Wuestion of 7uris"iction" than if the crime ha" %een committe"
"0ithin the #eo#ra5hical territorial limits" of the nation 0hose la0s 0ere violate". In the "raftin#
of these statements& or 5erha5s rather in the si#nin# of them& the fact evi"entl 0as overlooke"
that all nations to some eAtent 5unish their o0n citi-ens for crimes committe" 0ithin the
#eo#ra5hical limits of other States& an" that the ?nite" States itself a"mits an" eAercises this
ri#htU an" it is not stran#e that the *ritish 8overnment& in its re5l& calle" attention to this fact. It
turne" out& ho0ever& that the colonial authorities at Calcutta& in hol"in# that the $i#h Court of
that 5lace ha" 7uris"iction of the case& misinter5rete" the Im5erial Statute un"er 0hich the
essae" to act& 0ith the result that the *ritish 8overnment& on the stren#th of an o5inion of the
La0 ,fficers of the Cro0n that the trial 0as a nullit& eA5resse" re#ret that the eAtra"ition of the
offen"er shoul" have %een im5ro5erl refuse" an" state" that there 0as no "esi#n "to Wuestion
the 7uris"iction of the ?nite" States in this or an similar case". (Forei#n ;elations of the ?nite"
States& 2E>3& 55. <:=& <:4 U 2EER& 5. <E2& Wuote" in )oore& /i#est of International La0& I& 3:1.
3:=. See also Forei#n ;elations& 2EE>& 55. >=<& >>R& >>3.! It is evi"ent that this case merel
sho0s that a "iversit of nationalit& as %et0een the offen"er an" the 5lace of the offence& ma
#ive rise to a concurrent 7uris"iction. This is full reco#ni-e" in international la0& an" "oes not
materiall affect the Wuestion %efore the Court.
C1=1D In consi"erin# the case %efore the Court& it shoul" %e o%serve" that the Wuestion of the
5ro5er 7uris"iction of the offence of mur"er& or manslau#hter& 0here the in7ur is inflicte" in one
5lace or countr& an" the victim "ies in another 5lace or countr& has %een much C5>:D "iscusse"&
an" that "ifferent vie0s of it have %een taken at "ifferent times& even in the same countr. In
Hn#lan" it 0as once hel" that 0here a %lo0 0as struck in one count an" "eath ensue" in
another count& the criminal coul" not %e trie" in either. This im5otent result 0as "ue to the
metho" of 5roce"ure& un"er 0hich the #ran" 7ur coul" kno0 onl 0hat took 5lace in its o0n
countU an" in or"er to reme" the "efect the Statute of 1 an" : H"0. KI& c. 1<& +./. 2=<3& 0as
5asse"& to ena%le the criminal to %e trie" in either count. 'hether& in the case of "ifferent
countries& 0here the %lo0 is struck in one an" the "eath occurs in the other& %oth or either can tr
the 5erson accuse" of mur"er or manslau#hter& as the case ma %e& has %een "eci"e" "ifferentl
in "ifferent 7uris"ictions& the "ecision "e5en"in# u5on the vie0 taken % the court of the relation
of the "eath to the infliction of the in7ur. *ut it a55ears to %e no0 universall a"mitte" that&
0here a crime is committe" in the territorial 7uris"iction of one State as the "irect result of the act
of a 5erson at the time cor5oreall 5resent in another State& international la0& % reason of the
5rinci5le of constructive 5resence of the offen"er at the 5lace 0here his act took effect& "oes not
for%i" the 5rosecution of the offen"er % the former State& shoul" he come 0ithin its territorial
7uris"iction.
C1=:D This Wuestion& as a55lie" to shi5s of "ifferent nationalit on the o5en sea& 0as much
"iscusse" in 2E>> % the 7u"#es in the case of The {ueen v. 6en& L.;. 1 HAch. /iv. 4:&
commonl calle" the case of the Franconia U %ut& %efore "iscussin# this case an" other 7u"icial
"ecisions %earin# on the Wuestion at issue& I 0ill make one o%servation on the 5osition an" effect
of the "ecisions of munici5al or national courts in international 7uris5ru"ence. The Statute of the
Court (+rticle :E!& after 5rovi"in# that the Court shall a55l (2! international conventions&
0hether #eneral or s5ecial& esta%lishin# rules eA5ressl reco#ni-e" % the States in controvers&
(1! international custom& as evi"ence of a #eneral 5ractice acce5te" as la0 an" (:! the #eneral
5rinci5les of la0 reco#ni-e" % civili-e" nations& further 5rovi"es that the Court shall a55l (<!
"7u"icial "ecisions an" the teachin#s of the most hi#hl Wualifie" 5u%licists of the C5><D various
nations"& as a "su%si"iar means for the "etermination of rules of la0". These "irections merel
conform to the 0ell.settle" rule that international tri%unals& 0hether 5ermanent or tem5orar&
sittin# in 7u"#ment %et0een in"e5en"ent States& are not to treat the 7u"#ments of the courts of
one State on Wuestions of international la0 as %in"in# on other States& %ut& 0hile #ivin# to such
7u"#ments the 0ei#ht "ue to 7u"icial eA5ressions of the vie0 taken in the 5articular countr& are
to follo0 them as authorit onl so far as the ma %e foun" to %e in harmon 0ith international
la0& the la0 common to all countries.
C1=<D In the case of the Franconia& the ca5tain of a 8erman steamer %earin# that name 0as
convicte" in an Hn#lish criminal court of manslau#hter for ne#li#entl sinkin# the *ritish shi5
Strathcl"e in the o5en sea& %ut 0ithin the three.mile %elt& 0ith the conseWuent "eath %
"ro0nin# of a num%er of 5ersons on %oar" the latter shi5. The case 0as then carrie" %efore the
Court for Cro0n Cases ;eserve". In this Court various Wuestions 0ere "iscusse"& %ut onl t0o
nee" here %e mentione". ,ne& 0hich ma %e calle" the main Wuestion& 0as 0hether the offence&
committe" 0ithin the three.mile %elt& coul" %e 5unishe" un"er *ritish La0 as it then stoo"U an"
to this Wuestion the Court& consistin# of thirteen 7u"#es& #ave& % a %are ma7orit of seven to siA&
a ne#ative ans0er. * this conclusion& it must %e a"mitte" that the lon# esta%lishe" 5rinci5le&
0ith 0hich the #reat names of $olt& $ar"0icke an" )ansfiel" 0ere associate"& that international
la0& in its full eAtent& 0as 5art of the la0 of Hn#lan" (TriWuet v. *ath (2>4<!& : *urro0s& 2<>EU
Hm5eror of +ustria v. /a an" 6ossuth (2E42!& 1 8iffar"& 41E!& suffere" a tem5orar ecli5se&
0hile the rules of munici5al la0 #overnin# criminal 7uris"iction receive" an evi"entl technical
a55lication. The sense of sur5rise& an" in"ee" of a55rehension& 0ith 0hich the 7u"#ment 0as
receive" % the %ar an" the 5u%lic& 0as eA5resse" % Lor" Cairns& then hol"in# the hi#h office of
Lor" Chancellor& 0ho& in 5resentin# in the $ouse of Lor"s the %ill % the enactment of 0hich&
un"er the title of the "Territorial 'aters Juris"iction +ct& 2E>E"& the la0 as 5reviousl
un"erstoo" 0as reesta%lishe"& "eclare" that& 0hile the Wuestion "at first si#ht" a55eare" to %e an"
no "ou%t 0as a Wuestion of la0& C5>=D "he rather thou#ht that it 0as a Wuestion of that 0hich ha"
%een "escri%e" as the first la0 of nature . the la0 of self.5reservation"U an"& 0hile remarkin#
that& %ut for the case of the Franconia& it 0oul" "har"l have %een necessar to "etain their
lor"shi5s % offerin# an o%servations"& sai" that it 0oul" have %een "fortunate for the
vin"ication of the la0" if the fact ha" %een %rou#ht to the attention of the Court that % a 0arrant
5u%lishe" in 2E<E& un"er the Customs ;e#ulations +ct of that ear& the limits of the Port of
/over 0ere "eclare" to eAten" three miles out to sea& thus coverin# the 0aters in 0hich the
Strathcl"e 0as sunk. Lor" Sel%orne& a former Lor" Chancellor& su55ortin# the vie0 of Lor"
Cairns& state" that& until he rea" the 7u"#ment in Wuestion& "he ha" not su55ose" that there 0as
an "ou%t amon# la0ers" as to the eAistence of the ri#ht of soverei#nt over territorial 0aters
($ansar"& Parl. /e%ates& Kol. 1:>& :r" series& 55. 24R2.2424!. In"ee"& on a careful stu" of the
case& it is "ifficult to avoi" the conclusion that the vote of the ma7orit 0as in no small measure
"etermine" % a 5o0erful& %ut com5osite an" some0hat torrential o5inion of ei#ht 5a#es
"elivere" % Sir +leAan"er Cock%urn& then Chief Justice of the 6in#@s *ench& the "istur%in#
effects of 0hich it 0as necessar to remove in or"er that the ma7estic stream of the common la0&
unite" 0ith international la0& mi#ht resume its even an" accustome" flo0. This 0as "one % the
+ct of Parliament a%ove mentione" 0hich "eclare" that the "ri#htful 7uris"iction" of $er )a7est
not onl eAten"e" %ut ha" "al0as eAten"e"" over her coastal 0aters& an" ma"e *ritish criminal
la0 a55lica%le to all offences committe" on the o5en sea 0ithin a marine lea#ue of the coast
measure" from lo0.0ater mark.
C1==D The ne#ative ans0er of the ma7orit to the ri#ht of 7uris"iction over territorial 0aters le" to
the "iscussion& su%si"iaril& of the Wuestion 0hether& even thou#h *ritish la0 as such "i" not
o5erate on forei#n shi5s 0ithin the three.mile %elt& the *ritish Courts mi#ht not u5hol" the
conviction on the #roun" that the offence 0as to %e consi"ere" as havin# %een committe" on a
*ritish shi5 an" therefore 0ithin *ritish 7uris"iction. +n eAamination of the o5inions of the
7u"#es on this 5oint& so far as the "efinitel eA5resse" an& 0ill sho0 that a mere count of han"s
0oul" %e alto#ether mislea"in#& an" that& takin# to#ether C5>4D their reasons an" their
conclusions& if certain 5rinci5les of la0& no0 "efinitel esta%lishe" in Hn#lan"& ha" then %een
a55lie"& the conclusions 0oul" have %een "ifferent.
C1=4D ,n the 5oint su%si"iaril "iscusse"& Sir ;o%ert Phillimore took the vie0 that& as the
collision 0as cause" % "efen"ant@s "ne#li#ence"& the act % 0hich "eath 0as cause" "0as not
his act& nor 0as it a conseWuence imme"iate or "irect of his act"& an" that& as he "never left the
"eck of his o0n shi5"& or sent "an missile from it to the other shi5& neither in 0ill nor in "ee""
coul" he %e it Zconsi"ere" to have %een on %oar" the *ritish vessel". $a" the offence %een
0ilfull committe" on the *ritish shi5& the lan#ua#e an" reasonin# of the learne" 7u"#e lea" to
the conclusion that he 0oul" have vote" to sustain the conviction. Lin"le& J.& 0hile citin# the
case of ?nite" States v. /avis& 1 Sumner& <E1& in 0hich& in a case of manslau#hter& )r. Justice
Stor& of the Su5reme Court of the ?nite" States& hel" that the offence 0as committe" on %oar"
the shi5 on 0hich the fatal act took effect& sai" he 0as Znot satisfie" on this 5ointY %ut 5referre"
to rest his 7u"#ment on the "%roa"er #roun"" of 7uris"iction over territorial 0aters an" the
lia%ilit to 5unishment un"er Hn#lish la0 of "all 5ersons& 0hether Hn#lish or forei#n& 0ho
recklessl navi#ate those 0aters an" there% cause others to lose their lives".
C1=>D /enman& J.& citin# as "#oo" sense an" soun" la0"& Coom%esVs case& 2 Lea Cr. C. :EE&
hol"in# that a 5erson stan"in# on shore an" shootin# another in the sea 0ho "ie" on %oar" a shi5
0as 0ithin the 7uris"iction of the +"miralt& "eclare" that he sa0 no "istinction in 5rinci5le
%et0een a fatal act committe" "eli%eratel an" one committe" recklesslU that the "efen"ant in so
"irectin# his shi5 "as to cause her %o0 to 5enetrate the Strathcl"e" an" make a hole throu#h
0hich the 0ater rushe" in& committe" a "ne#li#ent act "one 0ithin *ritish 7uris"iction"U an" that
he felt %oun" to make the 5oint clear& %ecause it 0as "of vast im5ortance to the securit of
*ritish seamen an" of 5ersons of all nations sailin# on *ritish shi5s& an" therefore entitle" to the
5rotection of our la0s& throu#hout the 0orl"". Lor" Coleri"#e& Chief Justice of the Common
C5>>D Pleas& "eclare" himself to %e "thou#h 0ith some "ou%t"& of the same o5inion. ,n the
stren#th of ;e#. v. +rmstron#&2: CoA Cr. C. 2E<& the case 0oul"& he sai"& %e clear& if the offence
ha" %een mur"erU %ut he thou#ht that "the same rule shoul" a55l in manslau#hter 0hich a55lies
in mur"er"& an" that& on this 5oint& "the conviction 0as ri#ht an" shoul" %e affirme"". 8rove& J.&
havin# arrive" at the conclusion that as the offence& "althou#h committe" % a forei#ner in a
forei#n shi5"& 0as "committe" "ehors the vessel u5on a *ritish su%7ect in the {ueen@s 5eace&
0ithin the three.mile %elt"& the Hn#lish Court ha" 7uris"iction& sai" it 0as unnecessar for him to
#ive an o5inion on the Wuestion 0hether the offence 0as "committe" on %oar" of a *ritish shi5".
+m5hlett& J.& 0ho also sustaine" the conviction on the #roun" of 7uris"iction over the three.mile
%elt& sai" that he coul" "fin" no authorit" for hol"in# that a State coul" "5unish a forei#ner 0ho
at the time of the commission of the offence 0as not 0ithin the territor an" conseWuentl not
o0in# it an alle#iance"& an" that he therefore ha"& "0ith some "ou%t"& come to the conclusion
that "a forei#ner 0ho committe" the offence 0hile he 0as "e facto outsi"e the Hn#lish territor"&
coul" not "%e ma"e amena%le to *ritish la0". *rett& J. +.& thou#ht that& as %et0een the t0o shi5s&
the offence "0as not committe" on %oar" of either"& an" that "there 0as no 7uris"iction therefore
#iven in res5ect of a com5lete offence committe" locall 0ithin the *ritish shi5". *ram0ell& J.&
took the 5urel aWueous vie0 that as the "eath& resultin# from a 0ron#ful act on a Prussian shi5&
"0as in the 0ater"& it coul" not %e sai" to have taken 5lace on a *ritish shi5. 6ell& C. *.&
"eclarin# that "not one sin#le instance" coul" %e foun" "in the histor of the 0orl" from the
%e#innin# of time" of the eAercise % a nation of "criminal 7uris"iction over the shi5s of other
nations.... 5assin# throu#h the hi#h seas (0ithout castin# anchor or sto55in#! %et0een one
forei#n 5ort an" another"& hel" that the ri#ht to arrest an" tr the "efen"ant in Hn#lan" coul"& in
his o5inion& no more eAist than the ri#ht to sei-e an" tr in Hn#lan" an forei#ner for an act "one
in his o0n countr .... 0hich act ma ha55en to constitute a criminal offence % the la0 of
Hn#lan"". ,n the other han"& Sir +leAan"er Cock%um& in 0hose 7u"#ment Pollock& *.& an" Fiel"&
J.& concurre"& %roa"l takin# the #roun"& as *ram0ell& J.& ha" "one& that& unless the "efen"ant&
0hen the offence 0as committe"& "0as on *ritish territor or on %oar" of a *ritish shi5& he coul"
not %e 5ro5erl %rou#ht to C5>ED trial un"er Hn#lish la0& in the a%sence of eA5ress le#islation"&
hel" that the conviction coul" not %e sustaine". $e also Wuestione" the ri#ht of the *ritish
8overnment& un"er international la0& to enact such le#islation in res5ect of the o5en sea even
0ithin the three.mile %elt. (evertheless& he "eclare" that& "if the "efen"ant ha" 5ur5osel run
into the Strathcl"e"& he shoul"& on the 5rinci5le lai" "o0n in Coom%es@ case& "have %een
5re5are" to hol" that the killin# of the "ecease" 0as his act 0here the "eath took 5lace& an"
conseWuentl that.... the offence.... ha" %een committe" on %oar" a *ritish shi5". 'hether this
a55lie" to "the runnin# "o0n of another shi5 throu#h ne#li#ence" 0as& he sai"& "a ver "ifferent
thin#& an" ma& in"ee"& a"mit of serious "ou%t". *ut he foun" a #reater "ifficult in the fact that
the "efen"ant& at the time of the occurrence& 0as cor5oreall& not on an Hn#lish shi5& %ut on a
forei#n shi5& an" that a 5erson 0ho in one 7uris"iction %e#ins a continuous act 0hich eAten"s
into another 7uris"iction "cannot himself %e at the time in %oth". Protection an" "alle#iance"
%ein#& as he sai"& "correlative"& he thou#ht that a forei#ner coul" %e ma"e amena%le to *ritish
7uris"iction onl for acts "one 0hen he 0as cor5oreall "0ithin the area over 0hich the authorit
of *ritish la0 eAten"s". $e therefore con"emne" an" re7ecte"& as "remarka%le for much loose
reasonin# an" i"le talk a%out the la0 of nature"& the "ecision in the lea"in# +merican case of
+"ams v. The Peo5le& 2 Comstock ((. .! 2>:& in 0hich a citi-en of the State of ,hio 0ho&
throu#h the instrumentalit of an innocent a#ent& o%taine" mone % false 5retences in the State
of (e0 ork& 0as hel" to have committe" the offence in the latter State& an"& %ein# foun" there&
0as arreste"& trie" an" 5unishe". )r. Justice Lush "a#ree" entirel" in the conclusions an" "in
the main 0ith the reasons" of the Lor" Chief Justice& %ut "isassociate" himself from the
eA5ressions of "ou%t as to the ri#ht of Parliament& 0ithout violatin# international la0& to le#islate
as it mi#ht think fit for territorial 0aters. *ut none of the learne" 7u"#es Wuestione"& on the
contrar the stron#l em5hasi-e"& the full an" eWual a55lica%ilit of the 5rinci5le of national
7uris"iction to all shi5s on the hi#h seas& in "eterminin# the 5lace& 0here an offence is
committe". C5>3D
C1=ED The 5rinci5le lai" "o0n in +"ams v. The Peo5le is no0 "efinitel reco#ni-e" an"
esta%lishe" in Hn#lish la0. The first ste5 in this "irection 0as taken in 2EE< in the case of a
5erson 0ho& % means of false 5retences& containe" in letters 0ritten an" sent % him from
Southam5ton in Hn#lan" to certain 5ersons carrin# on %usiness in 8erman& ha" % that means
in"uce" 5ersons carrin# on %usiness in 8erman to 5art 0ith certain #oo"s& some of 0hich 0ere
"elivere" to the 5risoner@s or"er at 5laces in 8erman an" some at 5laces in Hn#lan". It 0as
conten"e" on the 5art of the 5risoner (2! that the crime 0as committe" in Hn#lan" % 5ostin# the
letters there an" (1! that& as the 5ream%le of the eAtra"ition treat %et0een 8reat *ritain an"
8erman referre" to "fu#itives from 7usticeY the 5risoner coul" not %e sai" to %e a fu#itive from
8erman& as he ha" committe" the crime in Hn#lan" an" ha" not %een in 8erman. The Court&
ho0ever& hel" unanimousl& althou#h 0ith some "ou%t on the 5art of one of the 7u"#es on the
secon" 5oint& that the crime 0as committe" in 8erman an" that the 5risoner 0as a fu#itive from
7ustice 0ithin the "efinition of that term #iven in Section 14 of the HAtra"ition +ct of 2E>R an" in
the treat (;e#. v. (illins& 2EE<& =:& L. J. 2=>!. This "ecision& 5erha5s % reason of its local
novelt& 0as the su%7ect of some a"verse criticism (Clarke& on HAtra"ition& :r" e"ition& 5. 11=!&
%ut it 0as reaffirme" an" follo0e" onl four ears a#o in another case in 0hich the 5risoner 0as
char#e" 0ith o%tainin# #oo"s % false 5retences in S0it-erlan"& the 5retences havin# %een ma"e
in S0it-erlan" % a 5artner at the 5rocuration of the 5risoner in Hn#lan". The 5risoner 0as not
5hsicall in S0it-erlan" at the time 0hen the 5retences 0ere ma"e& nor ha" he %een there since.
$e 0as arreste" in Hn#lan". The case "eci"e" % Lor" $e0art& Lor" Chief Justice& an" Justices
+vor an" Sanke. The Lor" Chief Justice& after eA5ressin# the o5inion that the 0or"s of the
treat an" the statute 0ere C5ERD ZeWuall satisfie" 0hether the man ha" 5hsicall %een 5resent
in that other countr or not& if he committe" the crime there"& sai"J "I "o not "iffer in the smallest
"e#ree from the "ecision in ;e#. v. (illins." )r. 7ustice +vor sai"J "I think 0e are %oun" %
;e#. v .(illins& %ut in an case I am 5re5are" to follo0 it& not0ithstan"in# the criticism to 0hich
it has %een su%7ecte"." )r. Justice Sanke took the same vie0& sain#J "I think 0e are %oun" %
that "ecision& an" moreover& in m vie0 it is correct."
C1=3D $a" the 5rinci5le lai" "o0n in +"ams v. The Peo5le an" since esta%lishe" in Hn#lan" %
;e#. v. (illins an" ;. v. 8o"fre %een esta%lishe" there 5rior to 2E>>& it is to %e inferre" that
there 0oul" have %een in the case of The {ueen v. 6en a su%stantial ma7orit in favour of the
7uris"iction in the case of "eath resultin# from a 0ilful collision an" 5ro%a%l also in that of
"eath resultin# from a collision cause" % criminal ne#li#ence. In connection 0ith the "ou%ts
eA5resse" % some of the 7u"#es in The {ueen v. 6en as to 0hether a shi5 coul" 5ro5erl %e
re#ar"e" as an instrumentalit for the commission of an offence& it 0ill %e o%serve" that the
Territorial 'aters Juris"iction +ct& in "efinin# an "offence" % a "5erson"& eA5ressl inclu"es an
act "committe" on %oar" or % means of a forei#n shi5"& an" "efines an "offence" as meanin# "an
act& ne#lect or "efault of such a "escri5tion as 0oul"& if committe" 0ithin the %o" of a count in
Hn#lan"& %e 5unisha%le on in"ictment accor"in# to the la0 of Hn#lan" for the time %ein# in
force".
C14RD That this 5rinci5le em%races& not onl acts "one "irectl % means of the shi5 itself& %ut
also acts "one % means of %oats %elon#in# to the shi5& 0as "efinitel hel" % the *ritish
8overnment in the 0ell.kno0n case of the *ritish Colum%lan schooner +raunah& sei-e" % the
;ussian authorities in 2EEE outsi"e territorial 0aters for the unlicense" takin# of seals 0ithin
such 0aters. The schooner 0as sei-e"& 5ro%a%l siA or more miles from the nearest lan"& % a
steamer %elon#in# to the +laska Commercial Com5an& an +merican Cor5oration& %ut flin# the
;ussian fla# an" havin# on %oar" the su5erinten"ent of the Comman"er Islan"s& an" 0as taken&
0ith her officers an" cre0& to Petro5auC5E2Dlovski& 0here she 0as con"emne" on the #roun"
that& even if she 0as not herself 0ithin ;ussian territorial 0aters& she 0as takin# seals there %
means of her %oats& 0hich 0ere foun" fishin# in such 0aters. Lor" Salis%ur& then Secretar for
Forei#n +ffairs& after consultin# the La0 ,fficers of the Cro0n& instructe" the *ritish
+m%assa"or at St. Peters%ur# that $er )a7est@s 8overnment 0ere "of the o5inion that& even if
the +raunah at the time of the sei-ure 0as herself outsi"e the three.mile limit& the fact that she
0as % means of her %oats carrin# on fishin# 0ithin ;ussian 0aters 0ithout the 5rescri%e"
license 0arrante" her sei-ure an" confiscation accor"in# to the 5rovisions of the munici5al la0
re#ulatin# the use of those 0aters"& an" that the "i" not& as at 5resent a"vise"& "5ro5ose to
a""ress an further re5resentation to the ;ussian 8overnment in re#ar" to this case". (State
Pa5ers& vol. 31 55. 2R<:.2R=3!. This 5rece"ent 0as follo0e" In su%seWuent cases of a similar
kin". (Parl. Pa5er& ;ussia& (o. :& 2E3:.!
C142D ;ecurrin# to the 7uris"ictional limitation sou#ht to %e %ase" on the "istinction %et0een
mur"er an" manslau#hter& I 0ill cite a lea"in# an" 5ertinent "ecision 0hich& althou#h #iven
nearl siAt ears a#o& has not %een internationall conteste". I refer to the case of
Common0ealth v. )acloon et al.& 2R2 )ass.& 2& "eci"e" % the Su5reme Ju"icial Court of
)assachusetts in 2E43. In this case the "efen"ants& one a citi-en of the State of )aine an" the
other a *ritish su%7ect& 0ere convicte" in the Su5erior Court of Suffolk Count& )assachusetts&
of the manslau#hter of a man 0ho "ie" in that count& in conseWuence of in7uries inflicte" on him
% the "efen"ants in a *ritish merchant shi5 on the hi#h seas. The "efen"ants 0ere trie" an"
convicte" un"er a )assachusetts Statute 0hich 5rovi"e" that "if a mortal 0oun" is #iven& or
other violence or in7ur inflicte"& or 5oison a"ministere" on the hi#h seas& or on lan" either
0ithin or 0ithout the limits of this State& % means 0hereof "eath ensues in an count thereof&
such offence ma %e 5rosecute" an" 5unishe" in the count 0here the "eath ha55ens". (8en.
Stats.& c. 2>2& 5ar. 23! The "ecision of the Su5reme Ju"icial Court 0as "elivere" % 8ra& J.&
later a Justice of the Su5reme Court of the ?nite" States& 0ho& s5eakin# for the Court& state" that
the 5rinci5al Wuestion in the case 0as "that of 7uris"iction& 0hich touches the soverei#n 5o0er of
the Common0ealth to %rin# C5E1D to 7ustice the mur"erers of those 0ho "ie 0ithin its %or"ers". It
0as not& he sai"& 5reten"e" that a forei#ner coul" %e 5unishe" in )assachusetts for an act "one
% him else0hereU %ut the Court hel" that& 0here a mortal %lo0 0as #iven outsi"e an" "eath
ensue" 0ithin the State& the offen"er committe" a crime there. $e further sai"J "Criminal
homici"e consists in the unla0ful takin# % one human %ein# of the life of another in such a
manner that he "ies 0ithin a ear an" a "a from the time of the #ivin# of the mortal 0oun". If
committe" 0ith malice& eA5ress or im5lie" % la0& it is mur"erU if 0ithout malice& it is
manslau#hter .... The unla0ful intent 0ith 0hich the 0oun" is ma"e or the 5oison a"ministere"
atten"s an" Wualifies the act until its final result. (o re5entance or chan#e of 5ur5ose& after
inflictin# the in7ur or settin# in motion the force % means of 0hich it is inflicte"& 0ill eAcuse
the criminal. If his unla0ful act is the efficient cause of the mortal in7ur& his 5ersonal 5resence
at the time of its %e#innin#& its continuance& or its result is not essential."
C141D In realit. the vie0 that national 7uris"iction& in the case of a forei#ner not cor5oreall
5resent& "e5en"s on the 0ill of the criminal to commit his act 0ithin the 5articular 7uris"iction is
o55ose" to authorit an" is o%solete an" o%viousl fallacious& in the case of manslau#hter as 0ell
as in other cases. In the case of criminal homici"e& the element of 0ill affects the Wuestion of the
"e#ree of the offence an" the 5enalt to %e im5ose" rather than the Wuestion of the 5lace 0here
the offence is to %e consi"ere" as havin# %een committe". )anslau#hter& as has %een 0ell sai"&
ma come 0ithin a hair@s %rea"th of mur"erU it ma %e a nice an" "ifficult Wuestion to "eci"e&
"e5en"in# u5on the 5resence or a%sence of Zmalice 5re5enseY& on consi"erations of recklessness&
or of ne#li#ence& #ross or sli#ht& all of 0hich affect the Wualit of the act& %ut not the 5lace of its
consummation. It is a notorious fact that& at common la0& a "efen"ant in"icte" for a certain
offence ma %e convicte" of a co#nate offence of a less a##ravate" nature& if the 0or"s of the
in"ictment are 0i"e enou#h to cover the latter& so that.& on an in"ictment for mur"er& a "efen"ant
ma %e convicte" of manslau#hter. ($als%ur@s La0s of Hn#lan" (23R3! Kol. 3& 5. 3>2& citin#
)ackalle@s case (2422!& 3 Coke@s ;e5orts& 4= a.& 4> %.! C5E:D +n" et& on the theor that
7uris"iction "e5en"s u5on the 0ill of the criminal as to the 5lace at 0hich his act is to take effect&
rather than u5on the "irect result of his criminal activit& a 5erson 0ho& firin# across a %oun"ar&
kille" his victim 0oul"& thou#h vali"l in"icte" for mur"er in the 5lace 0here the shot took
effect& %e entitle" to his "ischar#e on 7uris"ictional #roun"s if the 7ur shoul" fin" that the killin#
0as ne#li#ent. Such a theor 0oul" lea" to other astonishin# conseWuences. For instance& a
5erson 0ho 5lace" an infernal machine in the 5ocket or in the automo%ile of a 5erson 0hom he
inten"e" to in7ure 0oul" %e eAem5t from 5unishment in the 5lace 0here the in7ur occurre" if his
victim shoul"& %efore the eA5losion took 5lace& uneA5ecte"l cross an international %oun"ar.
The fact ma %e mentione" that the master of the +raunah alle#e"& in eAcul5ation of the shi5&
that the small %oats unintentionall "rifte" into ;ussian territorial 0aters in a fo#. It ma %e that
the *ritish 8overnment "i" not %elieve him& %ut& ha" his assertion %een cre"ite"& it is most
im5ro%a%le that that 8overnment 0oul" have a"vance" the contention that the schooner 0as
eAem5t from sei-ure %ecause her %oats 0ere fishin# in ;ussian 0aters ne#li#entl.
C14:D The case of the Costa ;ica Packet& so stron#l ur#e" in su55ort of the claim of eAclusive
7uris"iction of the countr to 0hich an offen"in# shi5 %elon#s& 0ill u5on eAamination %e foun"
to %e valueless as an authorit for that contention. The Costa ;ica Packet& a *ritish 0haler&
%elon#in# to S"ne& (e0 South 'ales& si#hte" on Januar 1<th& 2EEE& 0hen 5erha5s :R miles
from the nearest lan"& 0hat at first a55eare" to %e a lo#& %ut 0as after0ar"s foun" to %e a small
0ater.lo##e" "erelict 5rau0 (native )alaan %oat! of a%out a ton@s %ur"en. T0o %oats 0ere 5ut
off& 0hich& fin"in# #oo"s a%oar" the 5rau0& to0e" it alon#si"e the shi5& an" there 0ere then
transferre" from the 5rau0 to the "eck of the Costa ;ica Packet 2R cases of #in& : cases of
%ran"& an" a can of kerosene oil. The 5rau0 0as then cast loose& %ein# of no value. The #in an"
%ran" 0ere "ama#e" % sea 0aterU %ut the shi5@s cre0& % in"ul#in# in the a"miAture& soon
%ecame "runk an" #ot to fi#htin#& an" the s5irits 0ere % or"er of the ca5tain thro0n over%oar"&
eAce5t a small Wuantit 0hich the cre0 secrete". /urin# the neAt four C5E<D ears the shi5 from
time to time visite" /utch Hast In"ian 5ortsU %ut in (ovem%er& 2E32& at Ternate& 0here the shi5
ha" 5ut in for 5rovisions& the ca5tain 0as arreste" an" sent to )acassar& 2RRR miles a0a& on a
char#e of theft& in havin# sei-e" the 5rau0 an" maliciousl a55ro5riate" the #oo"s in it. The
0arrant char#e" that the alle#e" criminal act 0as committe" not more than three miles from
lan"& %ut the evi"ence sho0e" that it 0as at least fifteen or t0ent. The ca5tain 0as hel" in
5rison at )acassar until (ovem%er 1Eth& 2E32& 0hen he 0as release" throu#h the intercession of
the #overnor of the Straits Settlements. The *ritish 8overnment 5referre" a "i5lomatic claim for
"ama#es& an"& after a 5rolon#e" "iscussion& the t0o 8overnments si#ne" on )a 24th& iE3=& a
convention of ar%itration % 0hich the a#ree" to invite the #overnment of a thir" Po0er to
select the ar%itrator. The selection eventuall fell to the ;ussian 8overnment& 0hich name" as
ar%itrator ). F. "e )artens& counsellor to the ;ussian Forei#n ,ffice. In his a0ar"& "ate"
Fe%ruar 2:th (1=th!& 2E3>& ). "e )artens& after recitin# that the 5rau0& 0hen taken 5ossession
of& not onl 0as "floatin# "erelict at sea" %ut 0as "incontroverti%l outsi"e the territorial 0aters
of the /utch In"ies"U that "the a55ro5riation of the car#o of the aforesai" 5rau0 .... havin# taken
5lace on the hi#h seas& 0as onl 7usticia%le % the Hn#lish tri%unals& an" in no0ise % the /utch
tri%unals"U that "even the i"entit of the a%ove.mentione" "erelict" 0ith the 5rau0 claime" % a
/utch su%7ect 0as "no0ise 5rove""& an" that all the evi"ence 0ent to 5rove "the a%sence of an
real cause for arrestin#" the ca5tain of the Costa ;ica Packet& allo0e" "ama#es for his arrest an"
"etention& an" for the conseWuent losses of the shi5@s o0ners& officers an" cre0. In his recitals the
ar%itrator also state" that "the ri#ht of soverei#nt of the State over territorial 0aters is
"etermine" % the ran#e of cannon measure" from lo0.0ater mark"& an" that "on the hi#h seas
even merchant vessels constitute "etache"& 5ortions of the territor of the State 0hose fla# the
%ear& an"& conseWuentl& are onl 7usticia%le % their res5ective national authorities for acts
committe" on the hi#h seas". +s to the first recital& it ma %e o%serve" that the ar%itrator@s
statement re#ar"in# the eAtent of territorial 0aters& if it meant the ran#e of cannon in 2E3>& 0as
not in conformit 0ith international la0 as then or as no0 eAistin#. The secon" recital ma %e
acce5te" as affirmin# the #eneral@5rinci5le of the Wuasi.territorial 7uris"iction of C5E=D nations
over their shi5s at seaU %ut it is also to %e taken in connection 0ith the ar%itrator@s other recital
that the 5rau0& 0hen foun"& 0as ""erelict". The 0or" ""erelict"& in maritime la0& means "a %oat
or vessel foun" entirel "eserte" or a%an"one" on the sea& 0ithout ho5e or intention of recover
or return % the master or cre0& 0hether resultin# from 0reck& acci"ent& necessit& or voluntar
a%an"onment". (*lack@s La0 /ictionar& 1n" e".& 232R& s. v. "/erelict". See& to the same effect&
*ouvier@s La0 /ictionar an" the cases there cite"& an" the ,Afor" /ictionar.!
C14<D 'ithout re#ar" to an Wuestion as to the 5ro5er "is5osition of #oo"s foun" "erelict at sea&
an" the ri#ht of the o0ner to claim them on 5ament of salva#e (The 6in# v. Pro5erl /erelic
(2E1=!& 2 $a##ar"@s +"m. :E:!& it mi#ht not %e unreasona%le to maintain that& on the facts as the
ar%itrator "eclare" them to %e& the 5rinci5le of territorialit an" national 7uris"iction coul" no
more %e invoke" for the 5rotection of the "erelict 5rau0 than it coul" have %een for the floatin#
lo# 0hich the 5rau0 0as at first su55ose" to %eU %ut& in or"er to "etermine the 0ei#ht to %e #iven
to 0hat the ar%itrator sai" as to the o5eration of the 5rinci5le of territorialit at sea it is not
necessar to "eci"e that Wuestion. The 5rau0 either 0as to %e treate" as a su%7ect for the
a55lication of the 5rinci5le of national 7uris"iction& or it 0as not to %e so treate". If the ar%itrator
consi"ere" the 5rinci5le to %e a55lica%le& he violate" it in hol"in# that the 5ersons& no matter
from 0hat Wuarter the came& 0ho %oar"e" the 5rau0& took 5ossession of her an" transferre" her
car#o to the shi5& "i" not in so "oin# 5lace themselves un"er the "ominion of /utch la0s& an" his
rulin# on this 5oint cannot %e acce5te" as la0. If& on the other han"& he "i" not consi"er the
5rinci5le of territorialit to %e a55lica%le to the 5rau0& there 0as no room for 7uris"ictional
com5etition& an" his "ecision has no %earin# on the Wuestion no0 %efore the Court. C5E4D
C14=D I 0ill neAt consi"er three cases "iscusse" in the "ocuments %efore the Court an" mentione"
in its 7u"#ment. The first is that of the collision %et0een the shi5s +n#e.Schiaffino an" 8iron"e&
in 23R<& trie" % the French courts in +l#iers. The collision took 5lace > miles off the +l#erian
coast& an" the 8iron"e 0as sunk 0ith loss of life. The Correctional Court at *ne& % 0hich the
t0o ca5tains& one of 0hom 0as of Italian ori#in& 0ere 7ointl trie" for involuntar homici"e&
overrule" an eAce5tion to the 7uris"iction of the Court %ase" on the #roun" that the collision
occurre" outsi"e territorial 0aters an" this "ecision 0as affirme" on a55eal % the Cour "@+l#er.
In the Turkish )ymoire& the case is cite" as relatin# to shi5s of "ifferent nationalit& one French&
the other forei#nU %ut in a letter from the 5rocureur #ynyral near the Cour "@+l#er of )a 4th&
231>& a""resse" to the +#ent of the French 8overnment& it is state" that %oth shi5s 0ere French.
The case therefore nee" not %e further consi"ere" in this 5lace. (See Turkish )ymoire& 55. 2=.
2>& 11.1:& citin# Clunet& Journal "u /roit international 5rivy& vol. :4 (23R3!& 5. >:= U French
Contre. )ymoire& 55. 2:& 2=& <1.!
C144D The secon" case is that of the shi5s ,rti#ia an" ,ncle.Jose5h& one Italian an" the other
French& 0hich colli"e" on the hi#h seas in 2EER. The Rncle.Jose5h 0as sunk& 0ith much loss of
life. The survivers from the ,ncle.Jose5h& inclu"in# the ca5tain& 0ere taken on the ,rti#ia to
Le#horn& 0here the t0o ca5tains 0ere 7ointl 5rosecute" for 0ant of skill an" failure to o%serve
the rules of navi#ation. The Court at Le#horn& fin"in# that the collision 0as "ue to the fault of
the ca5tain of the French shi5& con"emne" him to four monthsV im5risonment& t0o months@
sus5ension of rank& an" 5ament of "ama#es. This "ecision 0as affirme" on a55eal % the Court
of Florence in 2EE1. Su%seWuentl& ho0ever& the French Court of +iA "ecline" to enforce the
7u"#ment in France on the #roun" that& the offence havin# %een committe" on the hi#h seas& the
ca5tain of the Rncle.Jose5h 0as not 7usticia%le % the tri%unal at Le#horn& an" that& %esi"es& the
article of the Italian Co"e on 0hich the 5rosecution 0as %ase" 0as eAclusivel a55lica%le to
Italian shi5s an" sailors. It "oes not a55ear that the case #ave rise to "i5lomatic corres5on"ence.
(See Turkish )ymoire& 55. 24.2>& citin# Clunet& 2EE=& 5. 1E>U French )ymoire& citin# Clunet&
C5E>D 2EE=& 5. 1E4& an" Sire& 2EE>& 1& 12>U French Contre. )ymoire& 55. 24& 12& :E.!
C14>D In the thir" case& a ten"er& in to0 of the 8erman steamer Hk%atana& on the ni#ht of
/ecem%er 2<th.2=th& 2321& ran into the *el#ian li#htshi5 'est.$in"er& moore" on the hi#h seas
a%out 23 miles from the *el#ian coast. The 'est.$in"er 0as sunk& an" her cre0 of ten men
5erishe". The Correctional Court at *ru#es entertaine" a criminal 5rosecution of the ca5tain of
the 8erman shi5& on the char#e of havin# ne#li#entl cause" the "eath of the cre0 of the 'est.
$in"er. The case "oes not a55ear to have #iven rise to an "i5lomatic re5resentations. The +#ent
of the French 8overnment& ho0ever& las em5hasis u5on the fact that the *el#ian court in its
7u"#ment refers to the li#htshi5 as havin# %een installe" % the *el#ian State in the interest of the
safet of navi#ation& 0ith "ue notice a%roa"& an" as havin# %een entitle"& %oth as an eAtension of
*el#ian territor an" as a shi5 en#a#e" in the 5u%lic service of the State& to s5ecial 5rotection
an" immunities. For this reason the +#ent of the French 8overnment maintains that the case 0as
not alto#ether com5ara%le 0ith that of a *el#ian commercial vessel from the 5oint of vie0 of the
com5etence of the *el#ian 8overnment to "eal 0ith facts affectin# it. (See Turkish )ymoire& 55.
2E.12& citin# Clunet& 2321& 5. 2:1EU French Contre. )ymoire& 55. 2>.12& 0ith a""itional
citations.! *ut 0hile it is un"ou%te"l true that 5u%lic shi5s en7o& not onl at sea %ut also in
forei#n 5orts& 7uris"ictional immunities to 0hich a merchant vessel is not entitle"& it is necessar
to 5oint out that those immunities are not consi"ere" as conferrin# on such shi5s& or on the
countries to 0hich the %elon#& 7uris"iction over the vessels& 5u%lic or 5rivate& of other nations
on the hi#h seas.
C14ED In the "iscussion of Wuestions similar to that no0 %efore the Court& consi"erations of
convenience have %een invoke" on the one si"e an" on the other. This 0as so in the case of The
{ueen v. 6en& 0here those 0ho 0ere a#ainst sustainin# the conviction stron#l ur#e" the
inconveniences that mi#ht ensue from hol"in# the entire %o" of Hn#lish 5enal la0 to %e
a55lica%le to forei#n shi5s in territorial 0atersU an" the force of the ar#ument 0as reco#ni-e" in
the clause of the Territorial 'aters Juris"iction +ct& reWuirin#& in the case of a forei#n 5risoner a
certificate % a Princi5al C5EED Secretar of State that in his o5inion the trial of the 5risoner is
eA5e"ient. Immense Wuantities of shi55in#& %oun" from one forei#n 5ort to another& "ail 5ass&
on their re#ular course& throu#h& the territorial 0aters of thir" StatesU an" et international la0
5ermits such thir" States to enforce their munici5al la0 u5on such shi55in#. ,n the other han"&
in the case of man countries 0ith lon# coast lines& a vast tonna#e in the coast0ise tra"e "ail
5asses& in re#ular course& in an" out of the three.mile %elt U an" is it to %e sai" that& save in the
eAtreme an" eAce5tional case of 5irac % la0 of nations& international la0 for%i"s the countr&
to 0hich this coast0ise shi55in# %elon#s& to take co#ni-ance of criminal acts "one in or u5on it
% or from forei#n shi5s& 0hen it is tem5oraril outsi"e territorial 0aters& shoul" the offen"ers
after0ar"s voluntaril come 0ithin such 0atersX + collision ma result from chance& from
ne#li#ence& or from a 0ilful act. * the rules of navi#ation a shi5 is reWuire" to avoi" a collision
if it can "o so& even thou#h the other shi5 is faultil navi#ate" U an" a navi#atin# officer 0ho&
from an#er or other cause& violate" this rule& 0oul"& I assume& %e char#ea%le 0ith somethin#
more than ne#li#ence. The im5ortance of such consi"erations is not lessene" % the increase in
the num%er an" si-e of the shi5s an" the vast increase in the num%er of 5ersons "ail trans5orte"
at sea. (or is the a"vanta#e of a trial near the scene of a "isaster& 0ith 0itnesses on %oth si"es
availa%le& over a 5rocee"in# in a "istant 5lace& 5erha5s 0ith the 0itnesses on onl one si"e
5resent& to %e overlooke". )ore than a hun"re" ears a#o a #reat 7u"#e& of unsur5asse"
eA5erience in +"miralt cases& commente" u5on the "#reat "iscor"ance of evi"ence" freWuentl
eAistin# in such cases as to the 5erson at fault& an" u5on the fact that the testimon of the
0itnesses 0as Za5t to %e "iscoloure" % their feelin#s an" the interest 0hich the take in the
success of the cause". (Sir 'illiam Scott& case of the 'oo"ro5 Sims (2E2=!& 1 /o"son& E:.!
C143D It is 0ell settle" that a State is %oun" to use "ue "ili#ence to 5revent the commission 0ithin
its "ominions of criminal acts a#ainst another nation or its 5eo5le (?nite" States v. +r7ona C5E3D
(2EE>!& 21R ?. S. <>3!& an" if the 5rinci5le of territorial 7uris"iction& as it eAists in res5ect of
shi5s on the hi#h seas& has a s5ecial an" one.si"e" o5eration in favour of the nation to 0hich the
offen"in# shi5 %elon#s& one mi#ht eA5ect to fin" a corres5on"in# s5ecial lia%ilit. *ut this is not
the case. In the ne#otiation of the Treat conclu"e" %et0een the ?nite" States an" 8reat *ritain
on Fe%ruar 13th& 2E31& for the ar%itration of the fur.seal Wuestion& the ?nite" States 5ro5ose" to
em5o0er the ar%itrators to a0ar" com5ensation not onl to *ritish su%7ects 0hose vessels shoul"
%e foun" to have %een un0arranta%l sei-e"& %ut also to the ?nite" States& for an in7uries
resultin# to the ?nite" States& or its lessees of the seal islan"s& % reason of the killin# of seals in
*ehrin# Sea& outsi"e territorial 0aters& "% 5ersons actin# un"er the 5rotection of the *ritish
fla#"& if such killin# shoul" "%e foun" to have %een an infraction of the ri#hts of the ?nite"
States". (*lue *ook& "?nite" States& (o. : (2E31!"& >1.! To this 5ro5osal the *ritish 8overnment
o%7ecte" on the #roun" that it a55eare" "to im5l an a"mission on their 5art of a "octrine
res5ectin# the lia%ilit of #overnments for the acts of their nationals or other 5ersons sailin#
un"er their fla# on the hi#h seas& 0hich is not 0arrante" % international la0& an" to 0hich the
cannot su%scri%e". The claim 0as not 5resse"& the "iscussion of it en"in# 0ith the insertion in the
treat of a sti5ulation to the effect that& the Parties havin# %een una%le to a#ree on the 5oint&
either Part mi#ht su%mit to the tri%unal "an Wuestion of fact involve" in sai" claims& an" ask
for a fin"in# thereon& the Wuestion of the lia%ilit of either 8overnment u5on the fact foun" to %e
the su%7ect of further ne#otiationY.
III. CTurkish Penal Co"eD
C1>RD I no0 come to +rticle 4 of the Turkish Penal Co"e. The 7u"#ment of the Court eA5resses
no o5inion on the Wuestion 0hether the 5rovisions of that article are in conformit 0ith the rules
of interC53RDnational la0. This a%stention a55ears to %e %ase" (2! u5on the fact that the article is
not mentione" in the com5romis& an" (1! on the vie0 that an error in the choice of the le#al
5rovision a55lica%le to the case 0as essentiall a matter of internal la0 0hich coul" affect
international la0 onl so far as a conventional rule or the 5ossi%ilit of a "enial of 7ustice shoul"
enter into account.
C1>2D The com5romis asks the Court to fin" 0hether Turke violate" international la0 "%
institutin# .... 7oint criminal 5rocee"in#s in 5ursuance of Turkish le#islation" (en vertu "e la
Iy#islation turWue! a#ainst the 0atch officer of the Lotus. (o "ou%t this ma %e so inter5rete" as
to mean that the Court is aske" solel to sa 0hether Turke 0as 5reclu"e" from takin# an
criminal 5rocee"in#s 0hatever a#ainst the officer. *ut the com5romis s5eaks of 5rocee"in#s
un"er Turkish le#islation& an"& althou#h the Court has not %een furnishe" 0ith a co5 of the
actual 5rocee"in#s& +rticle 4 is& as an inte#ral 5art of them& %efore the Court in the "ocuments
su%mitte" % the Parties& an" forms the su%7ect of much of their ar#uments. This %ein# so& I am
una%le to concur in the vie0 that the Wuestion of the international vali"it of the article is not
%efore the Court un"er the terms of the com5romtis.
C1>1D +rticle 4 rea"s as follo0sJ
CTranslation.D
"+n forei#ner 0ho& a5art from the cases contem5late" % +rticle <& commits an offence a%roa"
to the 5re7u"ice of Turke or of a Turkish su%7ect& for 0hich offence Turkish la0 5rescri%es a
5enalt involvin# loss of free"om for a minimum 5erio" of not less than one ear& shall %e
5unishe" in accor"ance 0ith the Turkish Penal Co"e 5rovi"e" that he is arreste" in Turke. The
5enalt shall ho0ever %e re"uce" % one thir" an" instea" of the "eath 5enalt t0ent ears of
5enal servitu"e shall %e a0ar"e".
"(evertheless& in such cases& the 5rosecution 0ill onl %e institute" at the reWuest of the )inister
of Justice or on the com5laint of the in7ure" Part.
"If the offence committe" in7ures another forei#ner& the #uilt 5erson shall %e 5unishe" at the
reWuest of the )inister of Justice& in accor"ance 0ith the 5rovisions set out in the first 5ara#ra5h
of this article& 5rovi"e" ho0ever thatJ C532D
"(2! the article in Wuestion is one for 0hich Turkish la0 5rescri%es a 5enalt involvin# loss of
free"om for a minimum 5erio" of three earsU
"(1! there is no eAtra"ition treat& or that eAtra"ition has not %een acce5te" either % the
#overnment of the localit 0here the #uilt 5erson has committe" the offence or % the
#overnment of his o0n countr."
C1>:D The Court& not %ein# em5o0ere" % the com5romis to inWuire into the re#ularit of the
5rocee"in#s un"er Turkish la0& or into the Wuestion of the a55lica%ilit of the terms of +rticle 4
to the facts in the case& must take the article an" its 7uris"ictional claim sim5l as the stan". The
su%stance of the 7uris"ictional claim is that Turke has a ri#ht to tr an" 5unish forei#ners for
acts committe" in forei#n countries not onl a#ainst Turke herself& %ut also a#ainst Turks&
shoul" such forei#ners after0ar"s %e foun" in Turkish territor. In sain# that Turke makes this
claim& I inten" nothin# invi"ious. The same claim is ma"e % a num%er of other countries& an" it
is from the co"es of these countries that +rticle4 0as taken. *ut& 0ithout re#ar" to the source
from 0hich the claim 0as "erive"& I cannot esca5e the conclusion that it is contrar to 0ell.
settle" 5rinci5les of international la0.
C1><D 'ithout enterin# at this time into an ela%orate eA5osition of the reasons on 0hich this
conclusion is %ase"& I 0ill Wuote from $all& an eminent authorit on international la0& the
follo0in# 5assa#eJ
"The munici5al la0 of the lar#er num%er of Huro5ean countries ena%les the tri%unals of the State
to take co#ni-ance of crimes committe" % forei#ners in forei#n 7uris"iction. Sometimes their
com5etence is limite" to cases in 0hich the crime has %een "irecte" a#ainst the safet or hi#h
5rero#atives of the State inflictin# the 5unishment& %ut it is sometimes eAten"e" over a #reater or
less num%er of crimes "irecte" a#ainst in"ivi"uals ... 'hether la0s of this nature are #oo"
internationallU 0hether& in other 0or"s& the can %e enforce" a"versel to a State 0hich ma
choose to o%7ect to their eAercise& a55ears& to sa the least& to %e eminentl "ou%tful. It is in"ee"
"ifficult to see on 0hat the can %e su55orte". It 0oul" seem that their theoretical 7ustification&
as a#ainst an o%7ectin# countr& if an is alle#e" at all& must %e that the eAclusive C531D territorial
7uris"iction of a State #ives com5lete control over all forei#ners& not 5rotecte" % s5ecial
immunities& 0hile the remain on its soil. *ut to assert that this ri#ht of 7uris"iction covers acts
"one %efore the arrival of the forei#n su%7ects in the countr is in realit to set u5 a claim to
concurrent 7uris"iction 0ith other States as to acts "one 0ithin them& an" so to "estro the ver
5rinci5le of eAclusive territorial 7uris"iction to 0hich the alle#e" ri#ht must a55eal for su55ort."
($all& International La0& Eth e"ition (231<!& 5ara#ra5h 41& 55. 142& 14:& citin# 'estlake (Peace&
142.14:!& +55en"ices (2& 5ara#ra5h 2<>!& Fauchille& 5ara#ra5hs 14<& 14>.!
C1>=D It 0ill %e o%serve" that $all foun"s his "isa55roval of the claim mainl on its assertion %
one nation of a ri#ht of concurrent 7uris"iction over the territor of other nations. This claim is
"efen"e" % its a"vocates& an" has accor"in#l %een "efen"e" %efore the Court& on 0hat is calle"
the "5rotective" 5rinci5leU an" the countries % 0hich the claim has %een es5ouse" are sai" to
have a"o5te" the "sstem of 5rotection".
C1>4D 'hat& 0e ma ask& is this sstemX In su%stance& it means that the citi-en of one countr&
0hen he visits another countr& takes 0ith him for his "5rotection" the la0 of his o0n countr
an" su%7ects those 0ith 0hom he comes into contact to the o5eration of that la0. In this 0a an
inha%itant of a #reat commercial cit& in 0hich forei#ners con#re#ate& ma in the course of an
hour unconsciousl fall un"er the o5eration of a num%er of forei#n criminal co"es. This is % no
means a fanciful su55ositionU it is merel an illustration of 0hat is "ail occurrin#& if the
"5rotective" 5rinci5le is a"missi%le. It is evi"ent that this claim is at variance not onl 0ith the
5rinci5le of the eAclusive 7uris"iction of a State over its o0n territor& %ut also 0ith the eWuall
0ell.settle" 5rinci5le that a 5erson visitin# a forei#n countr& far from ra"iatin# for his 5rotection
the 7uris"iction of his o0n countr& falls un"er the "ominion of the local la0 an"& eAce5t so far as
his #overnment ma "i5lomaticall intervene in case of a "enial of 7ustice& must look to that la0
for his 5rotection.
C1>>D (o one "is5utes the ri#ht of a State to su%7ect its citi-ens a%roa" to the o5erations of its
o0n 5enal la0s& if it sees fit to "o so. This concerns sim5l the citi-en an" his o0n #overnment&
an" no other C53:D #overnment can 5ro5erl interfere. *ut the case is fun"amentall "ifferent
0here a countr claims either that its 5enal la0s a55l to other countries an" to 0hat takes 5lace
0holl 0ithin such countries or& if it "oes not claim this& that it ma 5unish forei#ners for alle#e"
violations& even in their o0n countr& of la0s to 0hich the 0ere not su%7ect.
C1>ED In the "iscussions of the 5resent case& 5rominence has %een #iven to the case of the e"itor
Cuttin#& a citi-en of the ?nite" States& 0hose release 0as "eman"e" 0hen he 0as 5rosecute" in
)eAico& un"er a statute 5recisel similar in terms to +rticle 4 of the Turkish Penal Co"e& for a
li%el 5u%lishe" in the ?nite" States to the "etriment of a )eAican. It has %een intimate" that this
case 0as "5olitical"& %ut an eAamination of the 5u%lic recor" (Forei#n ;elations of the ?nite"
States& 2EE>& 5. >=2 U i"em&2EEE& 22& 55. 222<& 22ER! sho0s that it 0as "iscusse" % %oth
8overnments on 5urel le#al #roun"s& althou#h in the "ecision an a55eal& % 0hich the 5risoner
0as "ischar#e" from custo"& his release 0as 7ustifie" on #roun"s of 5u%lic interest. In its
re5resentations to the )eAican 8overnment& the 8overnment of the ?nite" States& 0hile
maintainin# that forei#ners coul" not %e "5rotecte" in the ?nite" States % their national la0s"&
an" that the )eAican courts mi#ht not& 0ithout violatin# international la0& "tr a citi-en of the
?nite" States for an offence committe" an" consummate" in his o0n countr& merel %ecause
the 5erson offen"e" ha55ene" to %e a )eAican"& 5ointe" out that it no0here a55eare" that the
alle#e" li%el "0as ever circulate" in )eAico so as to constitute the crime of "efamation un"er the
)eAican la0Y& or "that an co5ies 0ere actuall foun" .... in )eAico". The ?nite" States thus
carefull limite" its 5rotest to offences "committe" an" consummate"" 0ithin its territor U an"&
in conformit 0ith this vie0& it 0as a#ree" in the eAtra"ition treat %et0een the t0o countries of
Fe%ruar 11n"& 2EE3& that eAce5t in the case of "em%e--lement or criminal malversation of
5u%lic fun"s committe" 0ithin the 7uris"iction of either Part % 5u%lic officers or "e5ositaries"&
neither Part 0oul" "assume 7uris"iction in the 5unishment of crimes committe" eAclusivel
0ithin the territor of the other". ()oore& /i#est of International La0& 22& 55. 1::& 1<1.! C53<D
C1>3D For the reasons 0hich I have state"& I am of o5inion that the criminal 5rocee"in#s in the
case no0 %efore the Court& so far as the reste" on +rticle 4 of the Turkish Penal Co"e& 0ere in
conflict 0ith the follo0in# 5rinci5les of international la0J
(2! that the 7uris"iction of a State over the national territor is eAclusiveU
(1! that forei#ners visitin# a countr are su%7ect to the local la0& an" must look to the courts of
that countr for their 7u"icial 5rotectionU
(:! that a State cannot ri#htfull assume to 5unish forei#ners for alle#e" infractions of la0s to
0hich the 0ere not& at the time of the alle#e" offence& in an 0ise su%7ect.
(Si#ne"!
*. )oore. C53=D
/issentin# ,5inion % ). +ltamira
CTranslationD
C1ERD I re#ret that I am una%le& to a#ree 0ith the fore#oin# 7u"#ment. I therefore consi"er it m
"ut %oth to the Court an" to m conscience to state the reasons 0hich 5revent me from
su%scri%in# not onl to the o5erative 5art %ut also to several of the #roun"s on 0hich it is %ase".
I. CPrinci5les of International La0D
C1E2D It is certain that amon#st the most 0i"el reco#ni-e" 5rinci5les of international la0 are the
5rinci5les that the 7uris"iction of a State is territorial in character an" that in res5ect of its
nationals a State has 5referential& if not sole 7uris"iction. It is also certain that& arisin# out of the
ver natural com%ination of these t0o 5rinci5les& 5ersistent an" 0ell kno0n efforts have %een
ma"e to eAten" their fiel" of a55lication %eon" the 5urel #eo#ra5hical conce5tion of territorial
limits& % causin# them as it 0ere to accom5an& as a 5rotectin# sha"o0& the 5ersons of a State@s
nationals on their travels& in so far as has %een 5ossi%le un"er the material con"itions of
international intercourse.
C1E1D Therefore& eAce5tions to these 5rinci5les& in so far as the allo0 a forei#n 7uris"iction to %e
eAercise" over the citi-ens of a #iven State& have onl %een reco#ni-e" in eAtreme cases 0here it
has %een a%solutel necessar or inevita%le. This a55lies for instance to the case of a #eneral
nee" of mankin" or of a common "an#er (the slave tra"e& 5irac& etc.!& an" also to the 0ant of
conformit 0ith the territorial 5rinci5le itself 0hich 0oul" ensue 0ere the 7uris"iction of other
States not allo0e" to o5erate in the case of forei#ners 0ho havin# entere" the territor of such
States in or"er to resi"e there for a certain 5erio" an" carr on their occu5ations there commit
acts %rin#in# them 0ithin the arm of the la0. *ut "irectl one of these fun"amental reasons fails
to a55l& the 5rinci5le of the territorial 7uris"iction of the countr of ori#in recovers its force.
That is 0h I shoul" have much "ifficult in reco#ni-in# as 0ell foun"e" an attem5t for instance
on the 5art of a court& on the %asis of a munici5al la0& to eAercise 7uris"iction over a forei#ner&
0ho resi"e" C534D on %oar" a vessel flin# the fla# of his o0n countr an" "i" not lan" 0ith the
intention of remainin# ashore& an" that for an alle#e" offence committe" outsi"e the territor of
the countr 0hich claime" to eAercise 7uris"iction over him. Such an eAtension of the eAce5tions
hitherto acce5te" in res5ect of the 5rinci5le of territorial an" national 7uris"iction a55ears to me
to %e alto#ether un0arrante".
C1E:D There can %e no "ou%t that eAce5tions of this nature must necessaril %e eAce5tions
reco#ni-e" % international la0& that is to sa& the must have their ori#in in relations %et0een
soverei#n States& either in the form of a treat or of international custom. It is not 0ithout interest
to o%serve here that a custom must % its nature %e 5ositive in character an" that conseWuentl it
is im5ossi%le to classif as a custom the fact that in a certain res5ect there is a total a%sence of
the recurrence of more or less numerous 5rece"ents 0hich are #enerall re#ar"e" as necessar to
esta%lish a custom. The rule 0hich it is "esire" to "iscover must %e 5ositivel su55orte" % the
acts 0hich have occurre"& an"& of course& as re#ar"s international la0 these acts must also %e
international in character.
C1E<D It follo0s that the munici5al le#islation of "ifferent countries& as it "oes not % its nature
%elon# to the "omain of international la0& is not ca5a%le of creatin# an international custom& still
less a la0. ,f course it ma touch an" in fact "oes in several res5ects touch u5on le#al Wuestions
0hich affect or ma affect other States or forei#n su%7ects& an" thus it encroaches u5on a "omain
0hich is 5racticall s5eakin# international. *ut it cannot sim5l on this #roun" %e hel" to
5ossess a character 5lacin# it on the same 5lane as conventions or international customs.
C1E=D It ma ho0ever %e of consi"era%le value in sho0in# 0hat in actual fact is the o5inion of
States as concerns certain international Wuestions in re#ar" to 0hich States have not et
committe" themselves % means of a convention 5rohi%itin# them from enactin# a munici5al la0
in conflict 0ith the o%li#ation assume"& or in re#ar" to 0hich no custom reco#ni-e" % States has
so far %een %uilt u5. It is onl in this 0a that it is le#itimate to use munici5al le#islation an" to
a55l it for the 5ur5oses of a Wuestion like that un"er consi"eration. It is of no value for an other
5ur5ose in connection 0ith international la0& . unless it has %een "ul ascertaine" that #eneral
a#reement 5revails& . %ecause it onl eA5resses the 0ish or C53>D intention of one State in the
form of a munici5al rule re5resentin# the o5inion of a #reater or smaller ma7orit of the 5olitical
communit constitutin# a nation. For these reasons it is of 5articular interest to ascertain
0hether& . in cases 0here it has %een sou#ht& contrar to a #eneral 5rinci5le of international la0
not esta%lishe" % convention or custom& to im5ose such le#islation in concrete form u5on other
States&. the attem5t& 0hether sim5l inten"e" or actuall carrie" out& has encountere" consent or
5rotest on the 5art of the consensus of o5inion in the countr affecte". Leavin# asi"e all
"ifficulties of this kin" 0hich are so #eneral in character as to %e too remote from the cate#or of
Wuestions to 0hich the collision case un"er consi"eration %elon#s an" 0hich 0oul" therefore %e
of little value as a %asis for the solution of the 5articular Wuestion %efore us& I 0ill %e#in %
sain# that& 0ithin the limits of the 5rece"ents consi"ere" % the Parties& 0hat I fin" in #eneral is
either that there has %een 5rotest a#ainst the eAercise of an 7uris"iction other than that of the
nation of the 5erson alle#e" to %e res5onsi%le or of the fla# un"er 0hich he sails& or else that this
5rinci5le of the fla# has %een a55lie".
C1E4D +n analsis of these 5rece"ents 5ro"uces the follo0in# resultJ
I. Cases 0here #overnments as such have 5roteste"
2. Cuttin#@s case. . 1. Lyon IIII.
II. Cases 0here the 5rotest has %een ma"e % the local courts or authorities of the State of the
5erson convicte".
2. ,rti#ia. ,ncle.Jose5h. . 1.$am%ur#.
III. Cases 0here a State& throu#h either its #overnment or a tri%unal& has reco#ni-e" in the
5articular case the 5rior claim of the 7uris"iction of the fla# of another State.
2. Costa ;ica Packet. . 1. Franconia. . :. Cryole. . <. The *or"eauA 7u"#ment. . =. The Santia#o
"e Chile 7u"#ment. . 4. The 7u"#ment of the Court of +55eal of Turin (23R:!.
C1E>D In s5ite of the "ifferences in character 0hich these ten cases re5resent from other 5oints of
vie0& it 0ill %e foun" that the all a#ree in that the invoke& or reco#ni-e (0hich is the same
thin#!& the 5rior or eAclusive claim of the la0 of the fla# as re#ar"s certain acts "one on %oar" a
shi5. It is onl for this reason that the are cite" here U an" the ver "iversit of the Wuestions of
7uris"iction C53ED 0hich the concern onl serves to affirm the im5ortance of the 5rinci5le 0hich
unites them. There are certainl cases 0ith a contrar ten"enc such as the *ru#es or 'est.
$in"er case& %ut of all those cite" the ma7orit are certainl in favour of the 5rinci5le in"icate"
a%ove.
C1EED It must also %e a"mitte" that there are onl t0o cases 0here #overnments themselves have
5roteste"U %ut I "o not see that it is necessar& for the 5ur5oses of the 5resent Wuestion& that
#overnments shoul" al0as %e the mouth5iece for the eA5ression of a le#al o5inion 5revailin# in
a countr. The small num%er of 5rotests % #overnments can in m o5inion %e easil eA5laine".
It is "ue firstl to the infreWuenc of the occasions on 0hich encroachments u5on 7uris"iction
have actuall occurre"& 7u"#in# from the cases kno0n an" cite" % the Parties. It is "ue a%ove all
to the freWuenc 0ith 0hich #overnments (an" es5eciall those of some countries! have sho0n
themselves insensi%le to the in7ur sustaine" % their su%7ects as a result of occurrences a%roa".
+lmost ever countr has a lon# an" unha55 eA5erience in this connection. Hither from
in"olence or from anAiet to avoi" "i5lomatic com5lications or for other reasons& 5olitical rather
than le#al& #overnments often refrain from o5enl 5rotectin# their su%7ects an" onl make u5
their min"s to "o so 0hen thin#s have "evelo5e" into a 5u%lic scan"al& or 0hen the in7ure"
5ersons have ma"e #reat an" 5ersistent efforts to attract the attention of 5olitical circles in their
countr. Failin# such intervention % #overnments& sometimes munici5al courts have intervene"
an" certainl no one 0ill refuse to reco#ni-e these as officiall re5resentin# the le#al o5inion of
their countr.
C1E3D +#ain& some of the cases cite" un"er (o. III& thou#h in a form other than that of a 5rotest
for 0hich there 0as no occasion& have the same essential si#nificance as those set out un"er (o.
I.
C13RD In vie0 of the fore#oin#& I have a ver stron# hesitation to a"mit& as a matter of course& an"
as su%7ect to no "ou%t& eAce5tions to the territorial 5rinci5le (in the a55lication of that 5rinci5le
to the 5resent case!& eAce5tions 0hich it is sou#ht& sim5l % the 0ill of one State& to eAten"
%eon" the limits of those hitherto eA5ressl a#ree" to in conventions& or tacitl esta%lishe" %
means of the recurrence of certain clearl "efine" an" un"is5ute" cases in the ma7orit of
sstems of munici5al la0. C533D
C132D In re#ar" to criminal la0 in #eneral& it is eas to o%serve that in munici5al la0& 0ith the
eAce5tion of that of a ver small num%er of States& 7uris"iction over forei#ners for offences
committe" a%roa" has al0as %een ver limite"J It has either (2! %een confine" to certain
cate#ories of offences U or (1! %een limite"& 0hen the sco5e of the eAce5tion has %een 0i"er& %
s5ecial con"itions un"er 0hich 7uris"iction must %e eAercise" an" 0hich ver much limit its
effects. It is %ut sel"om that& on this h5othesis& 7uris"iction over forei#ners in res5ect of
offences committe" a%roa" is claime" in #eneral terms 0ithout even formal limits or 0ith limits
such as that re5resente" % a minimum 5enalt& 0hich onl ver remotel corres5on" to the
Wuestion of 7uris"iction arisin# un"er international la0.
C131D +s re#ar"s the cate#ories of "is5utes contem5late" % the eAce5tions an" to 0hich I
allu"e" 7ust no0& it ma rea"il %e o%serve" that for the most 5art these com5rise offences
a#ainst the State itself. +#ain& it seems to me that even 0hen an eAce5tion to the territorial
5rinci5le has %een eAten"e" to cover offences a#ainst in"ivi"uals % a55lication of the 5rinci5le
of the 5rotection of nationals (0hich is the 5rinci5le 0hich is most likel to come into conflict
0ith the territorial 5rinci5le!& the munici5al le#islation in Wuestion has %een visi%l "esi#ne" to
cover offences 5ro5erl so.calle" . i.e. those in 0hich evil intent an" 5erversit constitute the
outstan"in# characteristic . an" es5eciall more serious offences constitutin# crimes (as re#ar"s
offences of violence!& as 0ell as certain offences of a financial character in 0hich the
circumstances characteristic of the cate#or of offences 5ro"ucin# their effects at a "istance
("ylits "istance! are 5resent. I cannot %elieve that the le#islations of 0hich I am no0 s5eakin#
have ever %een reall inten"e" to a55l to ever kin" of offence& even the smallest an" most
unintentional.
C13:D I full reali-e that a limit as re#ar"s the seriousness of offences has %een fiAe" in the case
of some of the most a"vance" le#islations& % means of statin# the minimum 5enalt a55lica%le
to the offences contem5late". *ut it is ver rare to fin" in such le#islations at the same time a
limit fiAin# the lo0est 5enalt a55lica%le an" a com5lete a%sence of con"itions of form& such as
"efault of eAtra"ition or nee" for a s5ecial or"er from the $ea" of the State C52RRD or other
similar con"itions. In other 0or"s& even in the case of the most far.reachin# le#islations as
re#ar"s the eAtension of 7uris"iction to forei#ners for offences committe" a%roa"& the States
concerne" have not venture" in most cases sim5l to formulate their claim 0ithout limitin# its
sco5e in an 0a.
C13<D I have 5re5are" a ta%le of the munici5al le#islation of a num%er of countries 0hich& su%7ect
to the eAistence of unnotice" errors& 0oul" %e as follo0sJ
I. Le#islation in #eneral terms of 0i"e sco5e.
C13=D 2. Ital. . 1. Turke. . :. China. . <. )eAico. It is to %e notice" that the terms use" in these
four cases are not eWuall strin#ent. +5art from other "ifferences 0hich mi#ht %e mentione"&
there are "ifferences as re#ar"s the minimum 5enalt necessar to %rin# 7uris"iction into 5la.
C134D To the four cases a%ove mentione" mi#ht 5erha5s %e a""e" the le#islation of *ra-il an"
?ru#ua& su%7ect to certain Wuestions of inter5retation raise" % the terms use"& 0hich there is no
o%7ect in "iscussin# for the moment. The 8erman "raft ,f 232:& like the la0s of the four
countries a%ove mentione"& em5los #eneral terms of 0i"e sco5e.
II. Le#islation "efinin# the cate#ories of offences in the case of 0hich 7uris"iction is to %e
eAercise" over forei#ners for offences a#ainst in"ivi"uals committe" a%roa".
C13>D 2. +r#entine& +rticle 1=. The 0or"in# a55ears com5rehensive& %ut in realit there is a ver
"efinite limitation. . 1. *el#ium. . :. Ja5an.
III. Le#islation makin# the 5ossi%ilit of Prosecution "e5en"ent on certain con"itions 0hich
limit its a55lication.
C13ED (a! The offence to %e one f or 0hich eAtra"ition ma %e "eman"e"J 2. S0it-erlan". . 1.
S0e"en ("raft!. . :. The Lima Pro5osals.
C133D (%! The 5rosecution of the offence in Wuestion to %e or"ere" % the $ea" of the State or %
la0J 2. Finlan". . 1. (or0a. . :. S0e"en (la0 in force!. . <. 8erman (as re#ar"s
contraventions!. . :. +ustria ("raft!. C52R2D
C:RRD (c! HAtra"ition to have %een aske" for %ut refuse" (that is to sa& it must have %een
5ossi%le!J *ul#aria (the minimum 5enalt un"er *ul#arian le#islation is im5risonment!.
IK. Le#islation ver va#ue in its terms.
C:R2D 8erman ("raft 5ro5osal!U 4 contains the a55arentl con"itional 5hrase "ma %e
5rosecute"".
K. Le#islation not conferrin# 7uris"iction over offences a#ainst In"ivi"uals.
C:R1D 2. 8erman (as re#ar"s crimes an" offences as o55ose" to sim5le contraventions!. . 1.
?nite" States. .:. S5ain. . <. France. . =. 8reat *ritain . 4. (etherlan"s. . Para#ua. . E.
/ominican ;e5u%lic. B 3. Siam
C:R:D To these /enmark mi#ht %e a""e"& su%7ect to the inter5retation of the 5hrase "5ort of
re#ister" (5ort "@attache! in :. +lso H#5t& su%7ect to the inter5retation of ;ule <. I have not
inclu"e" in this list the le#islation of Soviet ;ussia or )onaco or the Polish "raft 5ro5osals
%ecause the classification of these in one of the a%ove five #rou5s is& in m o5inion& ver much
o5en to "ou%t an" %ecause 0ith information availa%le to us it 0oul" %e rash to come to an
conclusion concernin# them.
x x x
C:R<D The eAam5les consi"ere" . %oth those %elon#in# to international la0 an" those 0hich&
0hilst %ein# "erive" from munici5al la0& relate to situations concernin# forei#ners an" acts
committe" a%roa" . ten" to sho0 the eAistence of a 5re"ominent conce5tion an" intention in this
fiel" of criminal la0 0hich concerns cases of an international character. This conce5tion an"
intention are un"ou%te"l o55ose" to sim5l allo0in# the a55lication of munici5al la0 0hich& %
claimin# too 0i"e a sco5e& comes in conflict 0ith the territorial 5rinci5le 0hich 5rotects the
ri#hts of the citi-ens of each State& an" seeks to #o much further than the eAce5tions hel" to %e
acce5ta%le % the ma7orit of States.
C:R=D ,f course& ever soverei#n State ma % virtue of its soverei#nt le#islate as it 0ishes
0ithin the limits of its o0n territor U %ut C52R1D it cannot& accor"in# to soun" 5rinci5les of la0&
in so "oin# im5ose its la0s u5on forei#ners in ever case an" 0ithout makin# an "istinction
%et0een the various 5ossi%le circumstances as re#ar"s the 5lace 0here the offence has %een
committe"& the nature an" seriousness of the offence& the s5ecial con"itions un"er 0hich a
forei#ner ma ha55en at a #iven moment to %e 0ithin reach of the authorities of a forei#n
countr on the territor of 0hich the offence of 0hich he has %een accuse" 0as not committe"&
an" other con"itions %esi"es.
II. CFree"om to Im5ose La0sD
C:R4D *ut even a"mittin# h5otheticall the a%sence of a 5rinci5le of international la0 eA5ress or
im5lie"& 0hich 0oul" have %een infrin#e" % the manner in 0hich the Turkish authorities acte"
as re#ar"s Lieutenant /emons& I am una%le to "iscover an #roun"s for alterin# m vie0. +n"
the follo0in# is the reason.
C:R>D The contention of those 0ho hel" the contrar vie0 . 0hich 0e are no0 #oin# to eAamine
B ma& if I am not mistaken& %e summari-e" as follo0s J Since no 5rinci5le eAists esta%lishin#
the eAclusive criminal 7uris"iction of the la0 of the fla# in cases of collision u5on the hi#h seas&
0e are face" 0ith t0o concurrent 7uris"ictions. ConseWuentl& each of these 7uris"ictions ma
take effect 0ithin the limits of its natural s5here of o5eration . namel 0ithin its o0n territorial
area . u5on forei#ners 0ho are there an" ma also therefore a55l to them such munici5al la0 as
each State ma have a"o5te" % virtue of that free"om 0hich no other 5rinci5le of international
la0 5revents them from eAercisin# in this res5ect.
C:RED It is not irrelevant to remark in 5assin# that all or almost all 5rinci5les of international la0
have the common characteristic of not %ein# invaria%l eAclusive in character. There is no more
reason for mentionin# or consi"erin# this characteristic in reasonin# in relation to the 5rinci5le of
territorialit or of the fla# than in relation to the 5rinci5le of 5rotection. If one acce5ts& as is
necessar& the eAce5tions to the first t0o& it must also %e a"mitte" that the thir"& like all such
5rinci5les& must have eAce5tions an" must un"er#o restrictions in its com5etition 0ith the others.
ConseWuentl the fact that& #enerall s5eakin#& a 5rinci5le is not eAclusive in character "oes not
involve the conseWuence that it can never %e so 0hen confronte" % another 5rinci5le& an" still
less in relation to a munici5al la0. C52R:D
C:R3D *ut& to return to the eAce5tion 0hich has %een su##este" to the 5rinci5le of the fla# . 0hich
is onl another as5ect of the 5rinci5le of territorialit . the Wuestion must %e 5ut 0hether it can
come into 5la in the case no0 %efore the Court in the 0a in"icate" a%ove accor"in# to the
vie0 I am "iscussin#. I "o not think so. In m& o5inion& the free"om 0hich& accor"in# to the
ar#ument 5ut for0ar"& ever State en7os to im5ose its o0n la0s relatin# to 7uris"iction u5on
forei#ners is an" must %e su%7ect to limitations. In the case of com5etin# claims to 7uris"iction
such as those in Wuestion (accor"in# to those 0ho reco#ni-e the eAistence of such com5etition!&
this free"om is con"itione" % the eAistence of the eA5ress or tacit consent of other States an"
5articularl of the forei#n State "irectl intereste". +s soon as these States 5rotest& the a%ove.
mentione" free"om ceases to eAist& an"& su%7ect to the result of the investi#ation of the "is5ute
0hich has so arisen& an acts 0hich 0ere "one in 5ursuance of such free"om lose the le#al %asis
0hich the mi#ht other0ise have 5ossesse". It is im5ossi%le to create an international custom& or
to 5resume the eAistence of an rule in favour of the unlimite" free"om of each le#islation as
re#ar"s forei#ners& an" %in"in# on all other States& eAce5t 0ithin the same limits an" su%7ect to
the same con"itions as an other international rule or custom. The necessit for consent is 7ust as
much a fun"amental 5rinci5le of international la0& 0hich is entirel %ase" on the 0ill of States&
as the 5rinci5le of the 5rotection of nationals or of the free"om to le#islate internall.
ConseWuentl& the consent of the intereste" State must %e reWuisite in ever case %elon#in# to the
cate#or I am ro0 consi"erin# an" a fortioti& its eA5ress "issent must %e taken into account. If& as
in the 5resent case& the latter alternative takes 5lace& the com5etition in the claims to 7uris"iction
cannot le#itimatel have the effect of favourin# a claim 0hich has %een 5roteste" a#ainst an"
0hich& moreover& 0oul" not %e in harmon 0ith the 5re5on"eratin# o5inion of most States in
re#ar" to the kin" of cases contem5late" accor"in# to 0hat has %een sho0n a%ove. To acce5t the
contrar vie0 0oul"& in m o5inion& %e to ne#lect one of the fun"amental con"itions of the
international communit an" 0oul" result in o5enin# the "oor to continual conflicts 0hich mi#ht
involve most un"esira%le conseWuences.
C:2RD Such a result %ein#& in m o5inion& ina"missi%le from the 5oint of vie0 of international
la0 an" of its essential aims 0hich are the C52R<D esta%lishment of reci5rocal #oo" relations
%et0een States& the causes 0hich 0oul" 5ro"uce that result cannot %e sanctione". +n "ecision
lea"in# to the esta%lishment of a sstem of unrestricte" free"om in States 0hich 0oul" lea" to
the conseWuences I have 7ust outline"& 0oul" therefore %e ver serious. Hven 0here a ver
circumscri%e" an" 5articular case 0as concerne"& there 0oul"& in such a conclusion& %e a risk of
#ivin# rise almost inevita%l to "an#erous constructions an" a55lications. In s5ite of all the
5rovisoes that mi#ht %e a""e"& it 0oul" %e ver "ifficult& I think& in vie0 of the shiftin# #roun"
u5on 0hich the case rests& to 5revent the "ecision %ein# construe" in a manner #oin# %eon" its
un"erlin# intention.
C:22D For all these reasons& I am le" to conclu"e that a State 0hich& un"er the circumstances of
the Lotus case& acts so as to im5ose& % virtue of the 5rinci5le of the a"mitte" free"om in internal
le#islation& an" in "isre#ar" of the 5rinci5le 0here% consent is reWuisite& further eAce5tions to
another 5rinci5le& in this 5articular case the 5rinci5le of territorialit& 0ill have acte" in
contravention of international la0.
III. C$uman ;i#htsD
C:21D ,utsi"e the 5articular s5here of this la0& %ut still 0ithin the s5here of human ri#hts (the
la0 of (ature!& I fin" other #roun"s for %ein# una%le to acce5t the sanctionin# of the rule of
a%solute free"om. These #roun"s are "erive" from 0hat& in m o5inion& constitutes the %asis of
the 0hole social le#al sstemJ res5ect for the ri#hts of the in"ivi"ual. This res5ect takes
5rece"ence of everthin# else. If it is a%sent& everthin# else falls to the #roun" an" ceases to
have an 7uristic foun"ation. (o0& it is un"ou%te"l true that a failure to res5ect such ri#hts takes
5lace in man cases throu#h the fact of constraint %ein# im5ose" u5on a man& 5articularl if he is
not a criminal& to su%mit to the effects of la0s 0hich are not those of the communit to 0hich he
%elon#s& of la0s 0hich he "oes not kno0 an" 0hich are a55lie" in his case % entirel forei#n
7u"#es % 0hom he cannot make himself un"erstoo"& eAce5t& in the most favoura%le con"itions&
throu#h a thir" 5erson& %ecause he "oes not kno0 their lan#ua#e& their le#al mentalit& the forms
of 5roce"ure the em5lo& etc. C52R=D
C:2:D In all 5erio"s of histor& men have consi"ere" the a55lication of their o0n la0s an" of their
o0n national 5roce"ure an" the su%mission of their 7u"icial affairs to 7u"#es s5eakin# their o0n
lan#ua#e an" havin# their o0n nationalit& to %e 7ust as im5ortant a 5le"#e of their ri#hts as is in
Wuite another res5ect the "ue a55reciation of the 5articular circumstances surroun"in# the facts
un"er consi"eration& 0hich ver often lea" to the miti#ation of the 5unishment 5rescri%e" in
5rinci5le. Those 0ho %elon# to nations in 0hich more than one lan#ua#e is s5oken an" in 0hich
more than one le#al sstem is reco#ni-e" as vali" % the courts& are 0ell a0are of the #reat
0ei#ht 0hich is sometimes attache" to the fact that the are amena%le to one court rather than to
another. ,n man occasions this su%7ect has %een amon#st the most 5ressin# claims of the
various re#ions an" #rou5s of the com5leA 5o5ulation of the countries to 0hich I refer.
C:2<D It #oes 0ithout sain# that I "o not mean to allu"e& as I have alrea" sai"& to cases in 0hich
an in"ivi"ual has voluntaril chan#e" his resi"ence in or"er to #o to a countr other than his o0n
0ith the intention of remainin# there for a more or less 5rotracte" 5erio"& in full kno0le"#e of
the fact that this action 0ill have the effect of su%7ectin# a #reat num%er of his actions to a ne0
la0. (or& a#ain& "o I refer to the cases com5rise" 0ithin the clearl reco#ni-e" eAce5tions to the
5rinci5le of territorialit& 0hich are 0ell foun"e" u5on the reWuirements of 5u%lic or"er an"
7ustice. *ut I am una%le conscientiousl to acce5t or to len" m su55ort to an action lea"in# to
the acce5tance of a constraint of the kin" "escri%e" a little earlier& an" in 0hich Lieutenant
/emons@ case is inclu"e". +n" "o not let us for#et that the Wuestion %efore us is not that of the
5unishment of an offence 0hich a collision mi#ht result in& %ut that of the com5etence of the
Turkish tri%unal to hear the case& that is to sa& a Wuestion relatin# to 7uris"iction. 'e have not to
solve the 5ro%lem of the necessit at la0 for a more or less severe 5unishment of the material
results of an involuntar collision& nor the "ifference in this res5ect %et0een the offence&
consi"ere" su%7ectivel& an" its conseWuences as re#ar"s other 5ersons or other thin#s& %ut 5urel
a 5ro%lem of "eterminin# 7uris"iction in accor"ance 0ith the fun"amental 5rinci5les of
international la0.
C:2=D In the same or"er of thou#ht %ut from another 5oint of vie0& I fin" eWuall menacin# to the
ri#hts of man the claim to a55l C52R4D the same rules as mi#ht %e fair in the case of most true
offences& to an involuntar offence even if its in7urious effects 0ent so far as to cause the "eath
of a man. The incom5ati%ilit of such a55lication 0ith the ri#hts to 0hich I have 7ust referre" is
still #reater 0hen the alle#e" act arises from a mistake& 0hich& as is freWuentl the case in
collisions& has not 5erha5s %een committe" % a sin#le 5erson on %oar" one of the vessels& %ut %
"ifferent 5ersons on %oar" %oth shi5s in collision. 'hat I am una%le to acce5t in this case is the
a55lication of 7uris"ictional ri#hts 0hich 0oul" result in the 7uris"ictional constraint 0hich I
have "escri%e". In m vie0 international la0 in or"er to %e real la0 must not %e in contra"iction
0ith the fun"amental 5rinci5les of le#al or"er& one of 0hich necessaril is the ri#hts of man
taken as a 0hole. I am convince" that ever time that a result of this nature is reache"& one is
face" 0ith somethin# 0antin# in re#ularit& 0hich shoul" %e re7ecte".
IK. C/evelo5ment of a Customar ;uleD
C:24D *efore conclu"in#& I shoul" like to %rin# for0ar" some consi"erations 0hich "eal 0ith a
ver im5ortant matter as re#ar"s the functions of the Court. I am convince" that the 5ro%lem of
the eAce5tions to the 5rinci5le of territorialit in re#ar" to criminal 7uris"iction in collision cases
as it stan"s at 5resent . 5articularl in re#ar" to collisions 0ith no criminal intent . offers a
sufficient num%er of elements to ena%le one to conclu"e that to act in the manner in 0hich the
Turkish authorities have "one in the Lotus case is contrar to the intention un"erlin# the
eAce5tions to this 5rinci5le 0hich have %een a#ree" to& or 0hich the ma7orit of States 0oul"
a55arentl %e rea" to a#ree to. *ut even if the Wuestion 0ere raise" of the necessit for a
"efinitel s5ecific custom an" of the sta#e of "evelo5ment reache" % the custom 0hich mi#ht
%e consi"ere" necessar in the 5resent connection& I 0oul" 5oint out that the con"itions
5articular to the #eneral 5rocess of the "evelo5ment of a customar rule must %e %orne in min".
,ften in this 5rocess there are moments in time in 0hich the rule& im5licitl "iscerni%le& has not
as et taken sha5e in the ees of the 0orl"& %ut is so forci%l su##este" % 5rece"ents that it
0oul" %e ren"erin# #oo" service to the cause of 7ustice an" la0 to assist its C52R>D a55earance in
a form in 0hich it 0ill have all the force ri#htl %elon#in# to rules of 5ositive la0 a55ertainin# to
that cate#or.
C:2>D Perha5s the 5resent case offers such a moment an"& at the same time& an o55ortunit 0hich
it 0oul" %e re#retta%le to lose. *ut I "o not think it is necessar to la stress on this si"e of the
Wuestion& in vie0 of the conclusion at 0hich I have arrive" on the 5articular #roun"s on 0hich
the Wuestion su%mitte" to the Court is %ase". I 0ill confine mself to 5ointin# it out as a metho"
0hich in m o5inion mi#ht lea" % another 5ath to the same result 0hich has in"uce" me to
"issent from the 7u"#ment #iven % the Court. C52RED
+nneA.
/ocuments Su%mitte" to the Court % the Parties in the Course of the Procee"in#s.
C+nneAes to the Case file" on %ehalf of the French 8overnment.D
+nneA
2. S5ecial +#reement si#ne" at 8eneva on ,cto%er 21th& 2314.
1. HAtract from the Peace Treat si#ne" at Lausanne on Jul 1<th& 231:.
:. HAtract from the Convention res5ectin# con"itions of resi"ence an" %usiness an" 7uris"iction&
si#ne" at Lausanne on Jul 1<th& 231:.
<. Letter from the French Char#y "@affaires to $.H. Te0fik ;ouch" *e& )inister for Forei#n
+ffairs& "ate" +u#ust 22th& 2314.
=. Letter from the French Char#y "@affaires to $.H. Te0fik ;ouch" *e& )inister for Forei#n
+ffairs& "ate" +u#ust 2Eth& 2314.
4. (ote from the French )inister for Forei#n +ffairs to the Turkish Hm%ass& "ate" +u#ust 1=th&
2314.
>. Letter from the French Char#y "@affaires to $.H. Te0fik ;ouch" *e& )inister for Forei#n
+ffairs& "ate" +u#ust 1Eth& 2314.
E. Letter from the Turkish ?n"er.Secretar of State for Forei#n +ffairs to the French Char#y
"@affaires& "ate" Se5tem%er 1n"& 2314.
3. Letter from the French Char#y "@affaires to $.H. (ousret *e& /ele#ate of the )inistr for
Forei#n +ffairs& "ate" Se5tem%er 4th& 2314.
2R. (ote from the Turkish Hm%ass at Paris& "ate" Se5tem%er 2<th& 2314.
22. (ote from the Turkish Hm%ass at Paris& "ate" Se5tem%er 24th& 2314.
21. +rticle 4 of the Turkish Criminal Co"e.
+nneAes to the Counter.Case file" on %ehalf of the French 8overnment.
+nneA
2:. Letter from the Procureur #ynyral of the Court of +55eal of +l#iers to ). *as"evant& Le#al
+"viser to the )inistr for Forei#n +ffairs at Paris& "ate" )a 4th& 231>.
2<. HAtract from a 7u"#ment #iven % the Tri%unal correctionnel of *ne (+l#iers!& )a 4th&
231>.
2=. Letter from the French )inister of Pu%lic 'orks to the /irecteur "e I@Inscri5tion maritime at
)arseilles& "ate" ,cto%er 12st& 2314.
Le#al ,5inions referre" to in the Counter.Case file" % the 8overnment of the Turkish ;e5u%lic.
+nneA
2. ,5inion of Prof. 8. /iena& of the ;oal ?niversit of Pavia& )em%er of the Institute of
International La0& Kice.Presi"ent of the Lea#ue of (ations Committee of HA5erts for the
Co"ification of International La0
1. ,5inion of Prof. P. Fe"o--i& of the ;oal ?niversit of 8enoa& )em%er of the Institute of
International La0.
:. ,5inion of Prof. +. )ercier& Former /ean of the Facult of Lausanne& )em%er of the Institute
of International La0.

You might also like