Case Summary
| Citation | Lotus Case (France v. Turkey), PCIJ, 1927 |
| Keywords | Sources of International Law, customs, opinio juris, lotus and boz Kourtney ship |
| Facts | The French ship S.S. Lotus had collided on the high sea with the Turkish vessel Boz Kourt, killing thereby eight Turkish nationals. When the Lotus arrived in Turkish waters, criminal proceedings were instituted in the Turkish courts against the captain of Lotus along with the captain of Boz Kourt for manslaughter and sentenced. The French Government protested against the Turkish action, and by an agreement between the parties, the dispute was submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice. France raised two main contentions: (i) international law does not allow a State to take proceedings with regard to offences committed by foreigners abroad simply by reason of the nationality of the victim, and (ii) international law recognizes the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag State over events occurring on board a ship on the high seas. |
| Issues | Does international law allow a State to take proceedings with regard to offences committed by foreigners abroad simply by reason of the nationality of the victim? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | ➢ The Court, while rejecting the French contention that on the question of criminal jurisdiction in cases of collision on the high seas, only the flag State is competent to exercise jurisdiction, referred to several municipal decisions and found no uniformity on the matter. ➢ The international tribunals also quite often resort to municipal laws to ascertain whether a customary rule of international law has evolved by concurrent and cumulative State practice. ➢ There is no restriction on the exercise of jurisdiction by any State unless that restriction can be shown by the most conclusive evidence to exist as a principle of international law. ➢ Jurisdiction is certainly territorial, it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention. ➢ It held that “the offence produced its effects on the Turkish vessel and consequently in a place assimilated to Turkish territory in which the application of Turkish criminal law cannot be challenged, even in regard to offences committed there by foreigners”. ➢ The French government, although able to show that jurisdiction normally followed the flag, was unable to establish that international law recognises the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag State over incidents occurring on the high seas. |
| Judgement | Court observed that if “a guilty act committed on the high seas produces its effects on a vessel flying another flag or in foreign territory, the same principles must be applied as if the territories of two different States were concerned, and the conclusion must therefore be drawn that there is no rule of international law prohibiting the State to which the ship on which the effects of the offence have taken place belongs, from regarding the offence as having been committed in its territory and prosecuting, accordingly, the delinquent” |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
