Law of diplomatic relations
WEEK 1:
Applicable to states and international organizations.
Jurisdiction:
‘Jurisdiction’ is the term that describes the limits of the legal competence of a State or other
regulatory authority (Such as the EU) to make, apply and enforce rules of conduct upon
persons.
Principles: (not rules)
Territoriality
The state has sovereignty over its territory (+ territorial sea (12 miles) + air). It is taken for
granted that foreign visitors to a State are bound by the State’s criminal law in the same way
as everyone else in the State. Everyone in the territory is equally obliged to obey the law.
+ the State may claim a 12 mile contiguous zone, in which they can exercise jurisdiction in
relation to customs, fiscal, sanitary, immigration matters, exploitation of living and non-living
resources (fish and oil) and energy.
+ limited jurisdiction over the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that extends up to 200 miles.
- Subjective territorial jurisdiction: prescriptive jurisdiction over an incident that starts
inside the state’s territory but is completed in outside the state’s territory.
Example: Lockerbie case: is said to have been loaded aboard the aircraft in
Malta, before it entered the UK, deaths.
- Objective jurisdiction: prescriptive jurisdiction when the incident starts outside the
state’s territory, but is completed inside its territory.
Lotus case: it has said what the objective jurisdiction is. The case concerned a
collision on the high seas (beyond the territorial jurisdiction of every State.
Boat from French to Turkey with turkey’s flag which resulted in eight deaths.
When it arrives in Turkey, the proceedings started. France objected to the
proceedings on the ground that no State is entitled to extend its law to
foreign ships on the high seas and that Turkey was not entitled to prosecute
M Demons. The PCIJ (Permanent Court of International Justice) held that
Turkey was entitled to prosecute. Court says that a State’s enforcement
jurisdiction is in principle confined to the State’s territory. In this case is it not
an issue. Turkish authorities had not gone out on the high seas to arrest M
Demons, they had waited until the Lotus entered a Turkish port and so came
within Turkish territory and thus within Turkish enforcement jurisdiction.
-> objective jurisdiction became. Where it finishes, has jurisdiction.
vb. State A plants a bom in plane in State A, is exploiting in state B. B has jurisdiction.
Page 298 3. The ‘effects’ doctrine skipped.
Universality
Every state has jurisdiction. Only in extreem, war crimes, terrorism etc.
Particularly for crimes that are regarded offensive to the whole international community
such as piracy and war crimes.
Eichmann case: Mister Eichmann who flet to Argentina to hide. He got to trial for his
war crimes. Argentina did not object to pak de man en bring him to .... (country). ->
Universality jurisdiction came.
,It is not an obligation in so far.
Arrest Warrant Case
Because minister was still in office.
Nationality / personal
The state has sovereignty extends to its citizens (those that possess its nationality). States
have an undisputed right to extend the application of their laws to their citizens, wherever
they may be.
- Jus soli (soul, territory). To accord nationality to anyone born in the country/
territory. When it is in the territory.
- Jus sanguinis: via blood. To accord nationality to children one or both of whose
parents are themselves nationals of the State. The parents have NL pasports so the
kids of them will be Netherlands and NL has jurisdiction
- Neutralization: if you get or wants another passport, you need to give up your
passport.
- Nottebohm case: a German national gave up her German nationality to the
WOII. So he neutralized in Lichtenstein. The man works in Guatamala, but travels to German
or Lichtenstein. Lichtenstein acceptes the neutralization, but that Guatamala do not accept
this. Lichtenstein goes to the Court for advice.
Court: The closeness does not matter. If you have a passport of it, it is it.
Court: the national must prove a meaningful connection to the state in question. ????? blz
300
Protection
Exercising jurisdiction over aliens (non-nationals) who have committed an act abroad which
is deemed harmful to the security of the State.
State C has happened something and it affects State A’s citizens, so state A has jurisdiction
over the crime in State C. or something what really effects very much bad of your economics
(inflation is going so low).
Easily to abuse/ manipulated
Centered upon immigration and various economic offences.
Used is treaties providing for multiple jurisdictional grounds with regards to specific
offences.
Passive personality (controversial bases of prescriptive jurisdiction)
State can claim jurisdiction to try an individual for offences committed aboard that have
affected or will affect the nationals of the state in question. Korea is drug illegal. If someone
will go to NL and smoke weed, he or she can be proceduded.
1. It allows states, in limited cases, to claim jurisdiction to try a foreign national for
offenses committed abroad that affect its own citizens. This principle has been used
by the United States to prosecute terrorists and even to arrest (in 1989–90) the de
facto leader of Panama,
Cutting case: Mr. Cutting from US came to Mexico. Because you wrote
something bad of our citizens, I can prosecute you for that. The American
citizen whose name was Mr. Cutting. He made a public news against a
Mexican citizen about his characteristic in a newspapers of Texas. Some
copies of the newspapers went to Mexico and the citizens of Mexico saw that
and got aggrieved. The published news was an offence by the Mexican Penal
, Code under section 184. After few days Mr. Cutting when went to Mexico for
passing his vacation in Mexican, Mexican police arrest him.
Principle: ‘Any state can apply his jurisdiction beyond his territorial on the foreign citizen if
the act of foreign citizen is done, which was a violation of the rights or duties of that state.’
Overall opinion is that it has a dubious ground to make the claim under international law.
In the end Mexico dropped the case.
Last two can be manipulated and states can withdraw their claim for it.
- Jurisdiction to prescribe: country’s ability to make its law applicable to persons,
conduct, relations, or interests.
This is about what the limits are of the right of a State to impose legal characterizations upon
persons or events (that particular ceremony counts as a valid wedding or divorce).
- Jurisdiction to adjudicate: a country’s ability to subject persons or things to the
process of its courts or administrative tribunals. The U.S. legal categories of personal
jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction help delineate the scope of U.S. courts’
- Jurisdiction to enforce: a country’s ability to induce or compel compliance or to
punish noncompliance with its laws or regulations.
One basic principle: enforcement jurisdiction may not be exercised in the territory of any
other State without the consent of that State. = enforcement jurisdiction is in principle
limited to the territory of the State concerned. (excl. high seas, EEZ).
^ above are all jurisdiction to prescribe.
There are treaties that increases the jurisdiction in some cases. Page 303 skipped.
What is above, the treaties or the jurisdiction principles?
Two problems of the traditional approach to the bases of jurisdiction:
1. The difficulty of locating acts
The territorial principle presupposes that it is clear where an act is committed, but that is far
from always the case. For example: the case of the hijacking of an aircraft. If control over an
aircraft registered in State A is seized while the aircraft is in the airspace of State B, is the
hijack ‘committed’ when the aircraft lands in State C?
2. The difficulty of overlapping jurisdiction
If the applicable laws diverge, which is to prevail? Problem.
Solution: has to be found by increasing the sensitivity of States to the constraints imposed by
international law, and also to the fact that the interest of other States demand respect.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations: MARK IT
Binding to those who singed it. But some articles are also binding to other states.
VCDR does not define what diplomatic relations are.
Codification of customary international law on diplomatic relations. Reflects the existence of
customary law.
It states a view of participating States on the theorical basis of diplomatic privileges and
immunities.
Makes the relationship between VCDR and customary explicit – codification of customary
law.
WEEK 1:
Applicable to states and international organizations.
Jurisdiction:
‘Jurisdiction’ is the term that describes the limits of the legal competence of a State or other
regulatory authority (Such as the EU) to make, apply and enforce rules of conduct upon
persons.
Principles: (not rules)
Territoriality
The state has sovereignty over its territory (+ territorial sea (12 miles) + air). It is taken for
granted that foreign visitors to a State are bound by the State’s criminal law in the same way
as everyone else in the State. Everyone in the territory is equally obliged to obey the law.
+ the State may claim a 12 mile contiguous zone, in which they can exercise jurisdiction in
relation to customs, fiscal, sanitary, immigration matters, exploitation of living and non-living
resources (fish and oil) and energy.
+ limited jurisdiction over the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that extends up to 200 miles.
- Subjective territorial jurisdiction: prescriptive jurisdiction over an incident that starts
inside the state’s territory but is completed in outside the state’s territory.
Example: Lockerbie case: is said to have been loaded aboard the aircraft in
Malta, before it entered the UK, deaths.
- Objective jurisdiction: prescriptive jurisdiction when the incident starts outside the
state’s territory, but is completed inside its territory.
Lotus case: it has said what the objective jurisdiction is. The case concerned a
collision on the high seas (beyond the territorial jurisdiction of every State.
Boat from French to Turkey with turkey’s flag which resulted in eight deaths.
When it arrives in Turkey, the proceedings started. France objected to the
proceedings on the ground that no State is entitled to extend its law to
foreign ships on the high seas and that Turkey was not entitled to prosecute
M Demons. The PCIJ (Permanent Court of International Justice) held that
Turkey was entitled to prosecute. Court says that a State’s enforcement
jurisdiction is in principle confined to the State’s territory. In this case is it not
an issue. Turkish authorities had not gone out on the high seas to arrest M
Demons, they had waited until the Lotus entered a Turkish port and so came
within Turkish territory and thus within Turkish enforcement jurisdiction.
-> objective jurisdiction became. Where it finishes, has jurisdiction.
vb. State A plants a bom in plane in State A, is exploiting in state B. B has jurisdiction.
Page 298 3. The ‘effects’ doctrine skipped.
Universality
Every state has jurisdiction. Only in extreem, war crimes, terrorism etc.
Particularly for crimes that are regarded offensive to the whole international community
such as piracy and war crimes.
Eichmann case: Mister Eichmann who flet to Argentina to hide. He got to trial for his
war crimes. Argentina did not object to pak de man en bring him to .... (country). ->
Universality jurisdiction came.
,It is not an obligation in so far.
Arrest Warrant Case
Because minister was still in office.
Nationality / personal
The state has sovereignty extends to its citizens (those that possess its nationality). States
have an undisputed right to extend the application of their laws to their citizens, wherever
they may be.
- Jus soli (soul, territory). To accord nationality to anyone born in the country/
territory. When it is in the territory.
- Jus sanguinis: via blood. To accord nationality to children one or both of whose
parents are themselves nationals of the State. The parents have NL pasports so the
kids of them will be Netherlands and NL has jurisdiction
- Neutralization: if you get or wants another passport, you need to give up your
passport.
- Nottebohm case: a German national gave up her German nationality to the
WOII. So he neutralized in Lichtenstein. The man works in Guatamala, but travels to German
or Lichtenstein. Lichtenstein acceptes the neutralization, but that Guatamala do not accept
this. Lichtenstein goes to the Court for advice.
Court: The closeness does not matter. If you have a passport of it, it is it.
Court: the national must prove a meaningful connection to the state in question. ????? blz
300
Protection
Exercising jurisdiction over aliens (non-nationals) who have committed an act abroad which
is deemed harmful to the security of the State.
State C has happened something and it affects State A’s citizens, so state A has jurisdiction
over the crime in State C. or something what really effects very much bad of your economics
(inflation is going so low).
Easily to abuse/ manipulated
Centered upon immigration and various economic offences.
Used is treaties providing for multiple jurisdictional grounds with regards to specific
offences.
Passive personality (controversial bases of prescriptive jurisdiction)
State can claim jurisdiction to try an individual for offences committed aboard that have
affected or will affect the nationals of the state in question. Korea is drug illegal. If someone
will go to NL and smoke weed, he or she can be proceduded.
1. It allows states, in limited cases, to claim jurisdiction to try a foreign national for
offenses committed abroad that affect its own citizens. This principle has been used
by the United States to prosecute terrorists and even to arrest (in 1989–90) the de
facto leader of Panama,
Cutting case: Mr. Cutting from US came to Mexico. Because you wrote
something bad of our citizens, I can prosecute you for that. The American
citizen whose name was Mr. Cutting. He made a public news against a
Mexican citizen about his characteristic in a newspapers of Texas. Some
copies of the newspapers went to Mexico and the citizens of Mexico saw that
and got aggrieved. The published news was an offence by the Mexican Penal
, Code under section 184. After few days Mr. Cutting when went to Mexico for
passing his vacation in Mexican, Mexican police arrest him.
Principle: ‘Any state can apply his jurisdiction beyond his territorial on the foreign citizen if
the act of foreign citizen is done, which was a violation of the rights or duties of that state.’
Overall opinion is that it has a dubious ground to make the claim under international law.
In the end Mexico dropped the case.
Last two can be manipulated and states can withdraw their claim for it.
- Jurisdiction to prescribe: country’s ability to make its law applicable to persons,
conduct, relations, or interests.
This is about what the limits are of the right of a State to impose legal characterizations upon
persons or events (that particular ceremony counts as a valid wedding or divorce).
- Jurisdiction to adjudicate: a country’s ability to subject persons or things to the
process of its courts or administrative tribunals. The U.S. legal categories of personal
jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction help delineate the scope of U.S. courts’
- Jurisdiction to enforce: a country’s ability to induce or compel compliance or to
punish noncompliance with its laws or regulations.
One basic principle: enforcement jurisdiction may not be exercised in the territory of any
other State without the consent of that State. = enforcement jurisdiction is in principle
limited to the territory of the State concerned. (excl. high seas, EEZ).
^ above are all jurisdiction to prescribe.
There are treaties that increases the jurisdiction in some cases. Page 303 skipped.
What is above, the treaties or the jurisdiction principles?
Two problems of the traditional approach to the bases of jurisdiction:
1. The difficulty of locating acts
The territorial principle presupposes that it is clear where an act is committed, but that is far
from always the case. For example: the case of the hijacking of an aircraft. If control over an
aircraft registered in State A is seized while the aircraft is in the airspace of State B, is the
hijack ‘committed’ when the aircraft lands in State C?
2. The difficulty of overlapping jurisdiction
If the applicable laws diverge, which is to prevail? Problem.
Solution: has to be found by increasing the sensitivity of States to the constraints imposed by
international law, and also to the fact that the interest of other States demand respect.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations: MARK IT
Binding to those who singed it. But some articles are also binding to other states.
VCDR does not define what diplomatic relations are.
Codification of customary international law on diplomatic relations. Reflects the existence of
customary law.
It states a view of participating States on the theorical basis of diplomatic privileges and
immunities.
Makes the relationship between VCDR and customary explicit – codification of customary
law.
