State Jurisdiction Turkey and the other contracting Powers, be decided in accordance with
Lotus Case (Turkey v. France) the principles of international law."
PCIJ
Turkish Gov’t prosecuted M. Demons (French) after a collision between their
vessels in the high seas. France contends that Turkey has acted in violation
of int’l law. PCIJ rules ifo of Turkey, because there is no principle of int’l law of
prohibition against States from prosecuting acts done outside their jurisdiction.
DOCTRINE
Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a
State is that-failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary-it may not
exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.
FACTS
1. This case was brought via special Agreement of the Parties to submit to
the PCIJ the question of jurisdiction that has arise between them.
2. August 2, 1926, about midnight, a collision occurred between French mail
steamer and Turkish collier Boz-Kourt 5 to 6 nautical miles from Cape
Sigri. The Turkish vessel was cut in two, sank and * Turkish nationals who
were aboard perished.
a. Lotus save whom it can- 10 persons from the sank ship and
continues to sail to Constantinople. They arrived the next day.
b. At the time of the collision, on watch on the Lotus was Liet. M.
Demons first officer of the ship, on Boz-Kourt Captain Hassan
Bey.
c. Upon arrival, investigation was immediately made by Turkish
police.
d. Aug 5 M. Demons was invited to be investigated, long enough to
delay the vessel. He was later arrested pending trial w/o previous
notice to the French consul-general. Both men were intended to
be charged with manslaughter.
e. Aug 28 the case was heard
f. Sept 15 both men were sentenced and fined. M. Demons 80 days
in prison and 20 pounds.
3. International law alleged to be violated by Turkey: Convention of Lausanne
respecting conditions of residence and business and jurisdiction.
4. France prays for indemnity to M. Demons and the Republic
5. Tukey prays that its jurisdiction be acknowledged.
6. France argues: acts on the high seas on board a merchant ship are subject
to the law of the flag the vessel flies
ISSUE with RULING
1. Application of Connvention of Lausanne which provides: "Subject to the
provisions of Article 16, all questions of jurisdiction shall, as between
a. France: “principle of int’l law” should be interpreted in light of
the preparatory work, that Turkey wanted to extend its
jurisdiction to crimes committed in a territory of a third state.
This was not accepted by France, Italy and the British Gov’t
b. PCIJ: the provision is clear no need to refer to preparatory
work, "principles of international law" otherwise than as
meaning the principles which are in force between al1
independent nations and which therefore apply equally to all
the contracting Parties.
2. whether there are any rules of international law which may have been
violated by the prosecution in pursuance of Turkish law of Lieutenant
Demons- NO
a. France: the Turkish Courts, in order to have jurisdiction,
should be able to point to some title to jurisdiction recognized
by international law in favour of Turkey.
b. Turkey: Article 15 allows Turkey jurisdiction whenever such
jurisdiction does not come in conflict with a principle of int’l
law.
c. PCIJ: TURKEY WINS. Now the first and foremost
restriction imposed by international law upon a State is
that-failing the existence of a permissive rule to the
contrary-it may not exercise its power in any form in the
territory of another State. In this sense 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.
i. It does not, however, follow that international law
prohibits a State from exercising jurisdiction in its
own territory, in respect of any case which relates
to acts which have taken place abroad, and in
which it cannot rely on some permissive rule of
international law.
1. Such a view would only be tenable if
international law contained a general
prohibition to States to extend the application
of their laws and the jurisdiction of their courts
to persons, property and acts 'outside their
territory, and if, as an exception to this
general prohibition, it allowed States to do so
in certain specific cases.
2. But this is certainly not the case under
international law as it stands at present. Far
from laying down a general prohibition to the
effect that States may not extend the
 application of their laws and the jurisdiction of
their courts to persons, property and acts
outside their territory, it leaves them in this
respect a wide measure of discretion which is
only limited in certain cases by prohibitive
rules; as regards other cases, every State
remains free to adopt the principles which it
regards other cases, every State remains
free to adopt the principles which it regards
as best and most suitable.
d. In these circumstances, all that can be required of a State is
that it should not overstep the limits which international law
places upon its jurisdiction ; within these limits, its title to
exercise jurisdiction rests in its sovereignty.
e. It follows from the foregoing that the contention of the French
Government to the effect that Turkey must in each case be
able to cite a rule of international law authorizing her to
exercise jurisdiction, is opposed to the generally accepted
international law to which Article 15 of the Convention of
Lausanne refers. Having regard to the terms of Article 15 and
to the construction which the Court has just placed upon it,
this contention would apply in regard to civil as well as to
criminal cases, and would be applicable on conditions of
absolute reciprocity as between Turkey and the other
contracting Parties ; in practice, it would therefore in many
cases result in paralyzing the action of the courts, owing to the
impossibility of citing a universally accepted rule on which to
support the exercise of their jurisdiction.