Scribd
Upload
269 views2 pages

The Lotus Case Brief

Turkey asserted jurisdiction over a French citizen, the first officer of a ship that collided with a Turkish ship on the high seas. France challenged this as a violation of international law. The Permanent Court of International Justice ruled that no rule of international law prohibits a state from exercising criminal jurisdiction over foreign nationals for acts committed outside the state's territory. The court found Turkey could prosecute the French officer because the collision's effects were on a Turkish vessel, and both states could claim concurrent jurisdiction since no international law governs jurisdiction over collisions at sea.

Uploaded by

Rea Nie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
269 views2 pages

The Lotus Case Brief

Turkey asserted jurisdiction over a French citizen, the first officer of a ship that collided with a Turkish ship on the high seas. France challenged this as a violation of international law. The Permanent Court of International Justice ruled that no rule of international law prohibits a state from exercising criminal jurisdiction over foreign nationals for acts committed outside the state's territory. The court found Turkey could prosecute the French officer because the collision's effects were on a Turkish vessel, and both states could claim concurrent jurisdiction since no international law governs jurisdiction over collisions at sea.

Uploaded by

Rea Nie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Brief Fact Summary.

 Turkey’s (D) assertion of jurisdiction over a French citizen who


had been the first officer of a ship that collided with a Turkish ship on the high seas was
challenged by France (P) as a violation of international law.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A rule of international law, which prohibits a state from
exercising criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of the
state’s national jurisdiction, does not exist.

Facts. A collision occurred shortly before midnight on the 2nd of August 1926 between
the French (P) mail steamer Lotus and the Turkish (D) collier Boz-Kourt. The French
mail steamer was captained by a French citizen by the name Demons while the Turkish
collier Boz-Kourt was captained by Hassan Bey. The Turks lost eight men after their
ship cut into two and sank as a result of the collision.
Although the Lotus did all it could do within its power to help the ship wrecked persons,
it continued on its course to Constantinople, where it arrived on August 3. On the 5th of
August, Lieutenant Demons was asked by the Turkish (D) authority to go ashore to give
evidence. After Demons was examined, he was placed under arrest without informing
the French (P) Consul-General and Hassan Bey. Demons were convicted by the
Turkish (D) courts for negligence conduct in allowing the accident to occur.
This basis was contended by Demons on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction
over him. With this, both countries agreed to submit to the Permanent Court of
International Justice, the question of whether the exercise of Turkish (D) criminal
jurisdiction over Demons for an incident that occurred on the high seas contravened
international law.

Issue. Issue: Does a rule of international law which prohibits a state from exercising
criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of the state’s
national jurisdiction exist?

Held. (Per curiam) No. A rule of international law, which prohibits a state from
exercising criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of the
state’s national jurisdiction, does not exist. Failing the existence of a permissive rule to
the contrary is the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law on a state
and it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another state.
This does not imply that international law prohibits a state from exercising jurisdiction in
its own territory, in respect of any case that relates to acts that have taken place abroad
which it cannot rely on some permissive rule of international law. In this situation, it is
impossible to hold that there is a rule of international law that prohibits Turkey (D) from
prosecuting Demons because he was aboard a French ship. This stems from the fact
that the effects of the alleged offense occurred on a Turkish vessel.
Hence, both states here may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over this matter because
there is no rule of international law in regards to collision cases to the effect that criminal
proceedings are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state whose flag is flown.

Discussion. In 1975, France enacted a law regarding its criminal jurisdiction over aliens
because of this the situation surrounding this case. The law stipulates that aliens who
commit a crime outside the territory of the Republic may be prosecuted and judged
pursuant to French law, when the victim is of French nationality. This is contained in 102
Journal Du Droit International 962 (Clunet 1975). Several eminent scholars have
criticized the holding in this case for seeming to imply that international law permits all
that it does not forbid.

You might also like