France v. Turkey (Lotus Case), 1927 P.C.I.J. (Ser.A) No.

10
Citation. Permanent Court of Intl Justice, P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (1927)
Brief Fact Summary. Turkeys (D) assertion of jurisdiction over a French citizen who had been the first officer of a ship that collided with a Turkish ship on the high seas was challenged
by France (P) as a violation of international law.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A rule of international law, which prohibits a state from exercising criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of the states national
jurisdiction, does not exist.
Facts. A collision occurred shortly before midnight on the 2nd of August 1926 between the French (P) mail steamer Lotus and the Turkish (D) collier Boz-Kourt. The French mail
steamer was captained by a French citizen by the name Demons while the Turkish collier Boz-Kourt was captained by Hassan Bey. The Turks lost eight men after their ship cut into two
and sank as a result of the collision.
Although the Lotus did all it could do within its power to help the ship wrecked persons, it continued on its course to Constantinople, where it arrived on August 3. On the 5th of August,
Lieutenant Demons was asked by the Turkish (D) authority to go ashore to give evidence. After Demons was examined, he was placed under arrest without informing the French (P)
Consul-General and Hassan Bey. Demons were convicted by the Turkish (D) courts for negligence conduct in allowing the accident to occur.
This basis was contended by Demons on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over him. With this, both countries agreed to submit to the Permanent Court of International
Justice, the question of whether the exercise of Turkish (D) criminal jurisdiction over Demons for an incident that occurred on the high seas contravened international law.
Issue. Issue: Does a rule of international law which prohibits a state from exercising criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of the states national
jurisdiction exist?
Held. (Per curiam) No. A rule of international law, which prohibits a state from exercising criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of the states national
jurisdiction, does not exist. Failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary is the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law on a state and it may not exercise its
power in any form in the territory of another state.
This does not imply that international law prohibits a state from exercising jurisdiction in its own territory, in respect of any case that relates to acts that have taken place abroad which it
cannot rely on some permissive rule of international law. In this situation, it is impossible to hold that there is a rule of international law that prohibits Turkey (D) from prosecuting
Demons because he was aboard a French ship. This stems from the fact that the effects of the alleged offense occurred on a Turkish vessel.
Hence, both states here may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over this matter because there is no rule of international law in regards to collision cases to the effect that criminal
proceedings are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state whose flag is flown.
Discussion. In 1975, France enacted a law regarding its criminal jurisdiction over aliens because of this the situation surrounding this case. The law stipulates that aliens who commit a
crime outside the territory of the Republic may be prosecuted and judged pursuant to French law, when the victim is of French nationality. This is contained in 102 Journal Du Droit
International 962 (Clunet 1975). Several eminent scholars have criticized the holding in this case for seeming to imply that international law permits all that it does not forbid.

US v. Canada (Trail Smelter Arbitration), 1938,1941) RIAA iii

Citation. Arbitral Trib., 3 U.N. Rep. Intl Arb. Awards 1905 (1941)
Brief Fact Summary. The United States (P) sought damages from Canada by suing them to court and also prayed for an injunction for air pollution in the state of Washington, by the
Trail Smelter, a Canadian corporation which is domiciled in Canada (D).

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The duty to protect other states against harmful acts by individuals from within its jurisdiction at all times is the responsibility of a state.

Facts. The Tail Smelter located in British Columbia since 1906, was owned and operated by a Canadian corporation. The resultant effect of from the sulfur dioxide from Trail Smelter
resulted in the damage of the state of Washington between 1925 and 1937. This led to the United States (P) suit against the Canada (D) with an injunction against further air pollution by
Trail Smelter.

Issue. Is it the responsibility of the State to protect to protect other states against harmful acts by individuals from within its jurisdiction at all times?

Held. Yes. It is the responsibility of the State to protect other states against harmful act by individuals from within its jurisdiction at all times. No state has the right to use or permit the
use of the territory in a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein as stipulated under the United States (P) laws and the
principles of international law.
By looking at the facts contained in this case, the arbitration held that Canada (D) is responsible in international law for the conduct of the Trail Smelter Company. Hence, the onus lies
on the Canadian government (D) to see to it that Trail Smelters conduct should be in line with the obligations of Canada (D) as it has been confirmed by International law. The Trail
Smelter Company will therefore be required from causing any damage through fumes as long as the present conditions of air pollution exist in Washington.
So, in pursuant of the Article III of the convention existing between the two nations, the indemnity for damages should be determined by both governments. Finally, a regime or measure
of control shall be applied to the operations of the smelter since it is probable in the opinion of the tribunal that damage may occur in the future from the operations of the smelter unless
they are curtailed.

Discussion. Responsibility for pollution of the sea or the existence of a duty to desist from polluting the sea has never been laid at the feet of any country by any international tribunal.
Although regulation of pollution is just commencing, it must ensure that there is equilibrium against freedom of the seas guaranteed under general and long established rules of
international law.

Blackmier v. United States, 284 U.S. 421 (1932)

Brief Fact Summary. For his failure to respond to subpoenas served upon him in France which required his appearance in the United States, Blackmer (D) was found to be in contempt
of court.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. There must be due process for the exercise of judicial jurisdiction in personam.

Facts. Blackmer (D), a U.S. (P) citizen who was residing in France, was served subpoenas to appear in court as a witness in a criminal trial in the U.S. Contempt proceedings were
initiated against Blackmer (D) when he failed to respond to the subpoenas and he was found guilty and fined. Blackmer (D) appealed on the ground that the federal statute was
unconstitutional.

Issue. Must there be due process for the exercise of judicial jurisdiction in personam?

Held. (Hughes, C.J). Yes. There must be due process for the exercise of judicial jurisdiction in personam. The court may adjudge the witness guity of contempt if the witness fails to
comply with the court order. Congress acted pursuant to its authority in enacting the statute and it could prescribe a penalty to enforce it. Affirmed.

Discussion. The statute was not found to be unconstitutional by the Court. Blackmer (D) alleged that there was inadequate notice, but since he still retained his U.S. citizenship, he was
still subject to the U.S. authorities.

Liechtenstein v. Guatemala (Nottebohm Case), 1955 I.C.J. 4

Brief Fact Summary. A month after the start of World War II, Nottebohn (P), a German citizen who had lived in Guatemala (D) for 34 years, applied for Liechtenstein (P) citizenship.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Nationality may be disregarded by other states where it is clear that it was a mere device since the nationality conferred on a party is normally only the
concerns of that nation

Facts. Nottebohn (P), a German by birth, lived in Guatemala (D) for 34 years, retaining his German citizenship and family and business ties with it. He however applied for Liechtenstein
(P) citizenship a month after the outbreak of World War II. Nottebohm (P) had no ties with Liechtenstein but intended to remain in Guatemala. The naturalization application was
approved by Liechtenstein and impliedly waived its three-year. After this approval, Nottebohm (P) travelled to Liechtenstein and upon his return to Guatemala (D), he was refused entry
because he was deemed to be a German citizen. His Liechtenstein citizenship was not honored. Liechtenstein (P) thereby filed a suit before the International Court to compel
Guatemala (D) to recognize him as one of its national. Guatemala (D) challenged the validity of Nottebohms (P) citizenship, the right of Liechtenstein (P) to bring the action and alleged
its belief that Nottebohm (P) remained a German national.

Issue. Must nationality be disregarded by other states where it is clear that it was a mere device since the nationality conferred on a party is normally the concerns of that nation?

Held. NO. issues relating to citizenship are solely the concern of the granting nation. This is the general rule. But it does not mean that other states will automatically accept the
conferring states designation unless it has acted in conformity with the general aim of forging a genuine bond between it and its national aim. In this case, there was no relationship
between Liechtenstein (P) and Nottebohm (P). the change of nationality was merely a subterfuge mandated by the war. Under this circumstance, Guatemala (D) was not forced to
recognize it. Dismissed.

Discussion. A state putting forth a claim must establish a locus standi for that purpose. Without interruption and continuously from the time of the injury to the making of an award been
a national of the state making the claim and must not have been a national of the state against whom the claim has been filed. International law 347 (8th Ed. 1955) Vol.1.

Filartiga v. Pena- Irala, 630 F.2d. 876. (1980)

United States v. Fawaz Yunis, 681 F. Supp. 8961 (1988)