Lotus Case
Uploaded by
ScribdTranslationsLotus Case
Uploaded by
ScribdTranslationsLotus Case
The Lotus Case is a paradigmatic case in the field of public international law, which
established a very important doctrine regarding international customary law and to the
jurisdiction of the States. Content [hide]
Case description
In 1926, Turkey proceeded to initiate a trial against a citizen of French nationality who
I was in command of a French vessel that collided with a Turkish ship in open water. As a result of the
Eight Turks died in the attack.
France protested, arguing that the Turkish authorities had no jurisdiction. The Permanent Court
of International Justice asked about the existence in international law of any
rule that prohibited Turkey from exercising its jurisdiction over facts that had
occurred outside its territory, resolving in favor of Turkey as the consequences of the
The illegal act had been felt on a Turkish vessel.
Decision
The jurisdiction
In this case, the Court indicated that states have full discretion to establish their
jurisdiction over any fact, even if it occurs abroad, as long as there is no
a specific rule that prohibits it:
[...] the first and main limitation that international law imposes on states is that, to
In the absence of a permissive rule to the contrary, a State cannot exercise its power in any way.
in the territory of another State. In this sense, jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it does not
it can be exercised by a State outside its territory, except by virtue of a permissive rule
derived from international custom or from a convention.
However, it does not follow from this that international law prohibits States from exercising
jurisdiction in its own territory with respect to any situation related to facts that
occur abroad. A contrary position could only be sustained if international law
imposed a general prohibition on the States to extend the application of their laws and the
jurisdiction of its courts over persons, property, and acts that are outside of its
territory and if as an exception to this general prohibition international law allowed for
the states do it only in certain cases. But, certainly, this is not what happens in the
international law, as it stands today [...]
The sovereignty of states
The Court in the Lotus case held that International Public Law regulates relations between
Independent states [...] Consequently, the legal norms that bind states are
based on the will of these. It cannot be presumed then that there are restrictions in the
independence of the States.
In the absence of a permissive rule against it, the restriction that international law imposes on the
States in the sense that they cannot exercise their power in any way in the territory of
another State is above all. However, it should be clarified that while the Law
International Public regulates the exercise of state power among States, this regulatory complex.
it is far from creating a general prohibition that States cannot extend the application of
its laws and those of its courts to persons, properties, and acts outside its territory.
LAGRAND BROTHERS
Brussels.- On June 27, 2001, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued a ruling.
history in the so-called LaGrand case. The ruling against the United States and in favor of
Germany set a judicial precedent of international scope that opened the way for other countries.
in the defense of the civil and human rights of its citizens abroad.
By an overwhelming majority, the ICJ ruled that the United States had breached its obligations.
internationally by depriving brothers Karl and Walter LaGrand of their legitimate right to a
consular consultation, a prerogative enshrined in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.
After his arrest and a process burdened by the violation of a long list of guarantees, the
The LaGrand brothers were sentenced to death and executed by the state of Arizona in 1999.
Two years later, the government of Germany stood before the ICJ with a 'binding and
"unappealable" that condemned the United States morally and judicially and forced it to allow the
review and reconsideration of similar cases.
In its ruling, the ICJ considered that the barriers imposed by procedural procedures of
Each country cannot invoke to prevent judicial review and possible remedies in
cases of serious violations of these rights, such as that of consular assistance, which benefits
every foreign citizen and which enshrines the Vienna Convention.
The LaGrand case was raised as "paradigmatic" in the defense of immigrants or of
foreign citizens who have been detained in the United States and sentenced to death since
the reinstatement of the death penalty in that country, more than a quarter of a century ago.
