An Insight on Importance of Jurisdiction under Public International Law Swastika International Law Sun, Jul 30, 2023, at ,11:11 AM The ability to handle legal issues with some implication is known as jurisdiction. In public international law, the terms jurisdiction and sovereignty are related. When a state acquires jurisdiction across something, it gains sovereign independency. States too transfer their independency to the nations in which they hold a legal stake.There are two ways to access the jurisdictional issue under public international law. Either one permits States to use jurisdiction as they see fit, absent a prohibitive law to the contrary, or one forbids States from doing so, without a permissive rule to the contrary. The PCIJ used the first system in the Lotus case from 1927. some States and some doctrines outright follow the second. According to this hypothesis, States are not allowed to use their authority unless they can swear on permissive principles such the territoriality, personality, protection, and universality principles. Which doctrine has the upper hand is not actually evident.One of the key requirements for a place to be referred to as a state is that it have a part of its territory that is distinctly outlined. Without a clear state territory, there cannot be a state. State territory is the region or surface on which a state tends to exercise its own independent authority or supreme power. The basic components of a state territory are the surface beneath the undersoil, the land space, the internal water place, the national aviation space, and the territorial waters overhead the area. State territory is definitely a subject of international law because it indicates and confirms the exercise of supreme authority under international law.STATES AND THEIR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: It comprises of territory, land, territory sea, internal water, national vessel and national aircrafts. When it comes to the application of the law and the conduct of crime, the state's territory moreover includes crimes that are committed outside of its borders and instantly influence it. This is referred to as territorial jurisdiction. In the case law “Liechtenstein v. Guatemala I.C.J. 1955, I.C.J., 4 (1955) where Nottebohn, a German applied for Liechtenstein citizenship after the outbreak of World War II. The application was accepted and he traveled to Liechtenstein and during his comeback to Guatemala he was not allowed to enter as he was deemed to be a German citizen. Liechtenstein filed a suit in front the court on Guatemala to acknowledge him as a citizen. According to the Court, giving citizenship is mainly the obligation of the country doing so. However, Liechtenstein and Nottebohn are unconnected in this instance. This resulted from the conflict that separate them into two nations. The lawsuit was accordingly rejected because the court determined that Nottebohn wasn't compelled by Guatemala to recognize him as a citizen. In the case law “UK v. Norway”, As Norway interfered with the UK's fishing vessel, the UK asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to settle how far its territorial claim elongated out to sea and to award compensation. The UK too asserted that Norway's claim to such a degree was unlawful under international law. According to the Court, Norway's claim to the waters was in accordance with international law as it related to that part of the nautical space.CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Where the Court's authority to address a situation where a individual is accused of an offence is described is under criminal jurisdiction. Laws like constitutional law and public international law use criminal jurisdiction often. Only the person who is being sued may do so in one of three specific circumstances to adjust ties between States, or between one State and another; To adjust the interplay of Domestic Courts and Federal Courts; Only the State in which the offence was committed; No other State. A codified law should also be a part of that State's legal system In the case law of “France v. Turkey (SS Lotus Case)”, Turkey made a declaration in this case regarding the French national who was the ship's first officer and was involved in a collision with a Turkish ship on the high seas. France contested it on the grounds that it broke international law. According to the Court, the Treaty of Lausanne gives Turkey the right to holdup the French officer. additionally, it was established that the complainant would have the burden of evidence if someone contested a sovereign state's authority. The court further stated that proceedings engaging French-flagged ships in international waters fell under the concurrent jurisdiction of France and Turkey. These have been overruled by numerous treaties, which provide that only the flag State has jurisdiction. There are fundamentally three types of Criminal Jurisdiction, namely Territorial Jurisdiction, Nationality Jurisdiction and Universality Jurisdiction. Territorial Jurisdiction: This comprises the region inside which a court has jurisdiction. We can use the situation where offenses committed outside of the city borders are not subject to the jurisdiction of the municipal courts. Let's use a case study to better grasp this. In the case law of “Mubarak Ali Ahmad v. The State of Bombay”, In Bombay, the plaintiff was given a deceptive impression by the Pakistani national Mubarak Ali who did so with malicious intentions. Since the offence was committed while the offender was in Karachi, it cannot be proven in Indian courts that he committed the offence or that he is liable for punishment under the Indian Penal Code. In conformation with the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881, the appellant surrenders to the Indian Authorities. There is no such clause in this Act that forbids arrest in India for a brand-new offense. He was right to be convinced. According to Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the Pakistani national who filed the appeal was found guilty of business fraud. Nationality Jurisdiction: This principle enables a nation to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over its citizens who have been charged with crimes in other States. It is typically only used in the UK to prosecute outside British nationals who have committed betrayal, murder, or bigamy. As a result, common law nations have never objected to other States' extensive use of the nationality basis to decide their jurisdiction over criminal cases. University Jurisdiction: According to the universality principle, a State can assert jurisdiction over specific crimes committed by anyone from anyplace in the world, irrespective of their location, nationality, or particular state interest. International law imposes penalties for crimes committed against the global community. Every State has jurisdiction over the human-committed outside crimes, according to the universality principle. In the case of “The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon”, Two Americans made their claims of ownership and entitlement to the Schooner Exchange in this example. The Court ruled that whatever obligations imposed because of cordial affairs with another State do not apply to national ships during a war. The authority of a nation over its sovereign territory is independent and exclusive. PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE: It falls under a distinct class of criminal jurisdiction as well, but we will discuss this idea individually. According to the protective principle, a sovereign State may pass legislation that makes any act or action that takes place outside its borders and has an influence on it unlawful. According to this theory, a country can execute laws that address offenses that intervene with governmental operations or place the country's security under pressure.Article 51 of the UN Charter, nations have the right to oppose themselves against armed attacks. A situation engaging self-defense is: In the case of “Abdul Kader Mahomed Jhaveri v. Union of India”, The petitioner in this instance was a outside national who also happened to be a South African citizen. The passport that the Republic of South Africa had issued for him and on which he had travelled to India had since expired. He once more requested that the Republic of South Africa issue him a new passport that was still valid. The authority, the respondent, filed a lawsuit against him for violating the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act on the grounds that he is a resident of India rather than an Indian citizen. His commercial operations are conducted in India. but had done so without the Reserve Bank's consent. Additionally, it was argued that the petitioner ought to be punished for breaking the rule. The respondent has confiscated the passport because legal action is still pending. The petitioner claimed that the seizure was unlawful and that no authority had authorized it. In order to return the passport, the respondent should be told to do so. According to the committee of investigation led by Justice Shah, the length of the passport's seizure cannot be said to be set in stone and may carry on indefinitely. This would undoubtedly render the authenticity of an order unreasonable, because the Central Government has already affirmed the petitioner's passport's validity. The validity period will not last longer than six months from the potential decision date regarding the petitioner's representation.CROSS FRONTIER JURISDICTION: The Court may recognize jurisdiction in this case over any behavior that occurs outside of its purview. When taking any legal action to address problems engaging several parties, those additional parties will also be considered, likewise in unlike jurisdictions where the dispute resolution process may be decently started and where judgments based on the results will be made.MULTIPLE JURIDICTIONAL GROUNDS: Let’s interpret this jurisdiction with a convention named Tokyo Convention, 1963. Another name for it is the convention on offenses. The Tokyo Convention may be relevant to criminal offenses and acts that risk the safety of passengers or property on board commercial aircraft when the aircraft is in flight or engaged in international air navigation. CONFLICTS THAT ARISES IN JURISDICTION: The State's jurisdiction runs concurrently with the jurisdiction of another State. The jurisdiction of more than two States may be used against one individual or one matter. Even the State with territorial jurisdiction is not entitled to make claims against the States with detention of the accused. IMMUNITIES FROM JURISDICTION: Sovereign Immunity: It refers to the legal statutes and concepts that define the requirements for a State to inform its sovereign immunity against the authority of another State. The principles of independence and equality of sovereign States are the foundation of customary international law, which is where this immunity originates. Diplomatic Immunity: The laws that apply here are among international law's most well-known and undisputed principles. This supports the maintenance and management of the connections between the States. The receiving State's criminal laws do not apply to diplomatic agents. Consular Immunity: The consular officer acts as a representative of the receiving State in a related manner to a diplomatic agent. Not given the same level of immunity as a diplomatic agent from legal action. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the fact that they are parties to various treaties and conventions, multilateral agreements, and centralized agreements, sovereign states play a leading role in the world. The states need to be amicable with one another in order to prevent unnecessary confusion and wars over their boundaries and territory. All sovereign states are obligated in some way to stand by the rules established by the respective provisions of international laws in order to maintain peace between them. This is made permissible by the international laws and the concept of state and territorial jurisdiction.REFERENCES: https://unijuris.sites.uu.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2014/12/The-Concept-of-Jurisdiction-in-International-Law.pdf https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-law/Jurisdiction https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3648-theory-of-extraterritoriality-of-states-and-jurisdiction-in-international-law.html