State Jurisdiction under International Law

In this case, the UK approached the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to determine the extent of Norway’s territorial claims over the sea and to seek compensation for Norway's interference with UK fishing vessels. The UK argued that Norway’s territorial claims were against International Law.

The Court ruled that Norway’s claims to the waters were consistent with International Law concerning that portion of the sea.

In this case, Turkey took legal action against a French citizen who was the first officer of a ship that collided with a Turkish vessel on the high seas. France challenged this, claiming it was a violation of international law.

The Court ruled that Turkey had the authority to arrest the French officer under the Treaty of Lausanne. It also stated that if someone disputes the jurisdiction of a sovereign state, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.

International law operates on the principle that countries are free to act in any way that is not explicitly prohibited. This case is often cited as an example of legal positivism, emphasizing that a state must maintain control over its sovereignty.

The Court also noted that both France and Turkey had concurrent jurisdiction over incidents occurring on a French-flagged vessel on the high seas. However, many treaties have since established that only the flag state has jurisdiction in such cases.

In this case, Mubarak Ali, with dishonest intent, made false representations to the complainant in Bombay, claiming he had a ready supply of rice. Based on these representations, the complainant sent money, believing the rice would be delivered. Although Mubarak Ali was in Karachi at the time and never set foot in India during the commission of the offense, he argued that he couldn't be tried in Indian courts or held liable under the Indian Penal Code. He also claimed that the extradition process prevented his trial in India for a new offense.

The Court ruled that all the elements of the offense of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code took place in Bombay. Even though the offense was committed there and Mubarak Ali was not physically present in India during its commission, his conviction under the Indian Penal Code was upheld.

In this case, the defendant was charged with unlawful acts related to the importation of dangerous drugs into the UK. The defense argued that the defendants should not be tried in England because the offense occurred abroad.

The Court held that the defendants were foreigners involved in a conspiracy to import cannabis into the UK. The House of Lords stated that English courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed in England. Lord Wilberforce noted that while the case involved international elements—foreign suspects and an unlawful act committed abroad—if there is a breach of law, the offenders will be prosecuted in the country where the crime was committed.

In this case, two Americans claimed ownership and rights to the Schooner Exchange.

The Court ruled that public ships during wartime are exempt from obligations imposed due to friendly relations with another state. A nation’s jurisdiction within its sovereign territory is exclusive and supreme.

In 1979, when a pro-Soviet government called the Sandinista took power in Nicaragua, the U.S. was alarmed, as this was during the height of the Cold War.

In 1981, the Reagan administration decided to support rebel forces in Nicaragua known as the Contras, who were backed by U.S. citizens.

The CIA conducted extensive illegal and secret operations against the Nicaraguan military and air force, supplying arms, ammunition, and money, and frequently intercepting Nicaraguan citizens.

Nicaragua filed a case against the U.S., accusing it of violating the UN Charter.

The Court held that the U.S. contested the ICJ's jurisdiction over the case, but the ICJ proceeded based on the 1955 ceasefire agreement between Nicaragua and the U.S. The ICJ found that the U.S. had knowingly and deliberately violated the UN Charter, general principles of international law, and had clearly infringed upon Nicaragua's territorial sovereignty. In 1992, under immense pressure, Nicaragua withdrew the complaint and informally apologized to the U.S. government.

In this case, the applicant was a foreign national and a citizen of the Republic of South Africa. He had entered India using a passport issued by South Africa, which later expired. While awaiting the issuance of a new passport, legal proceedings were initiated against him by the authorities for violating the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act. The authorities claimed that although he was not an Indian citizen, he was a resident of India, conducting business without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Consequently, the authorities argued that he should be penalized for this violation. Due to the ongoing proceedings, his passport was seized by the authorities. The applicant contended that the seizure was illegal, void, and beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities, and he sought the return of his passport.

A commission of inquiry, led by Justice Shah, noted that the period during which the passport was seized could not be considered definite or certain, as it could potentially be extended indefinitely. This, the commission found, would make the validity of the order unreasonable. The validity of the applicant’s passport was confirmed by the Central Government, and the commission stated that the authorization period should not exceed six months from the date of the decision on the applicant’s representation.