Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

36 results

Page 1 of 2

  • 6 - Jurisdiction
  • from Part I - The Foundations of Public International Law
    • By
  • Cecily Rose, Niels Blokker, Daniëlla Dam-de Jong, Simone van den Driest, Robert Heinsch, Erik Koppe, Nico Schrijver
  • Book: An Introduction to Public International Law
  • Published online: 17 February 2022
  • Print publication: 03 March 2022, pp 101-119
  • View extract

    Summary

    Each state enjoys full sovereignty over its territory and therefore has, in principle, full jurisdiction over events and persons within its territory. The term “jurisdiction” is often associated with the power of a court to hear a case, but judicial or adjudicative jurisdiction is just one of three manifestations of jurisdiction. The exercise of jurisdiction is also manifested in the authority of states to prescribe rules (legislative or prescriptive jurisdiction) and the power of states to enforce rules (enforcement jurisdiction). Although the power of states to exercise jurisdiction follows from the principle of sovereignty, this power is not unlimited. Each state has to respect the personality and sovereign equality of other states, and overstepping this boundary entails a violation of public international law. This limitation is most pertinent when a state exercises jurisdiction outside its own territory, for example when it enforces domestic legislation outside of its territory or when it extends the application of its domestic laws to people, property, or events outside its own territory. This chapter discusses the scope of the jurisdiction of states when states exercise enforcement, prescriptive, and adjudicative jurisdiction in relation to persons, property, and acts outside their own territory.

An Introduction to Public International Law
  • An Introduction to Public International Law
  • Cecily Rose, Niels Blokker, Daniëlla Dam-de Jong, Simone van den Driest, Robert Heinsch, Erik Koppe, Nico Schrijver
  • Published online: 17 February 2022
  • Print publication: 03 March 2022
  • View description
    Written for students working in a range of disciplines, this textbook provides an accessible, balanced, and nuanced introduction to the field of public international law. It explains the basic concepts and legal frameworks of public international law while acknowledging the field's inherent complexities and controversies. Featuring numerous carefully chosen and clearly explained examples, it demonstrates how the law applies in practice, and public international law's pervasive influence on world affairs, both past and present. Aiming not to over-emphasize any particular domestic jurisprudence or research interest, this textbook offers a global overview of public international law that will be highly valuable to any student new to the study of this very significant field.
  • Hague Case Law – Latest Developments1
  • Erik V. Koppe
  • Journal: Netherlands International Law Review / Volume 60 / Issue 2 / August 2013
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 September 2013, pp. 337-339
  • Print publication: August 2013
  • View extract

    On 16 April 2013, the International Court of Justice (the Court) rendered its judgment in the dispute between Burkina Faso and Niger concerning a frontier dispute over a section of their common boundary. The jurisdiction of the Court was based on a Special Agreement concluded between Burkina Faso and Niger in 2009 and submitted to the Court by joint notification on 12 May 2010. Upon the request of the parties, the Court determined the course of a particular section of their common boundary and decided that it would nominate three experts at a later point in time by means of an Order to assist the Parties as necessary in the demarcation of their frontier in the area in dispute. The Court did not uphold the request of Burkina Faso to adjudge and declare that its frontier with Niger in two demarcated sectors would follow a course which corresponds to the course recorded in 2009 by a joint mission which surveyed the work of a joint technical commission. According to the Court, these requests fell outside the scope of its jurisdiction – as defined by the Special Agreement – and exceeded the limits of its judicial function.

    On 27 March 2013, Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) rendered its judgment in the case against Mićo Stanišic and Župljanin. Mićo Stanišić is the former Minister of the Interior of Republika Srpska; Župljanin is the former Chief of the Regional Security Services Centre of Banja Luka, and (between May and July 1992) was a member of the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region of Krajina. They were both prosecuted for war crimes (murder, torture) and crimes against humanity (extermination and persecution through acts of killing, torture, cruel treatment and inhuman acts, unlawful detention, establishing and perpetuation of inhuman living conditions, forcible transfer and deportation, the plundering of property, wanton destruction of towns and villages, including destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion and other cultural buildings, and the imposition and maintenance of restrictive and discriminatory measures) committed in a large number of municipalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 involving thousands of victims and at least 1,735 individually named murder victims.

Page 1 of 2