International Law | Jurisdiction of States explained | Lex Animata by Hesham Elrafei
States jurisdiction in international law : concept, types and examples.
By Hesham Elrafei
/ heshamelrafei
State jurisdiction, reflects the international law general principles ,
of state sovereignty, equality of states , and non-interference in other states domestic affairs, and it means that a government and its courts , have general power to exercise authority, over all persons and things, within its territorial boundaries ,
however, there must be a link , between the individual , the offence
and the state court exercising jurisdiction over that person.
while it's primarily territorial, jurisdiction of states may be based on
other grounds, like national security , and citizenship of the victim or the offender, however , the enforcement of such jurisdiction, is restricted by territorial factors.
State jurisdiction, reflects the international law general principles ,
of state sovereignty,
equality of states ,
and non-interference in other states domestic affairs.
and it means that a government and its courts ,
have general power to exercise authority,
over all persons and things,
within its territorial boundaries ,
in relation to civil and criminal matters.
however, there must be a link ,
between the individual ,
the offence ,
and the state court exercising jurisdiction over that person.
while it's primarily territorial, jurisdiction of states may be based on
other grounds,
like national security ,
and citizenship of the victim or the offender,
however , the enforcement of such jurisdiction, is restricted by territorial factors
the first base of jurisdiction, is the territorial principle , and it means that the local court power, is geographically restricted, within the borders of that state.
However, As one offence may take place in more than one single country, the territorial jurisdiction is divided into 2 categories, subjective and objective.
the subjective principle, is exercised by the state in which the offence is started , while the objective principle, is exercised by the state in which the offence is completed.
For example, a fraud can be committed by someone in ireland,
against another in england. or a shooting incident , can take place on the borders of two countries,
on the other hand, the state power is not absolute within its territory , as certain persons, like diplomats. are immune, from the local courts jurisdiction, the nationality of the parties, is the second ground for state jurisdiction, as a state can exercise its jurisdiction, beyond its territory ( boundaries ) , regardless where the person is located, subject that the offender or the victim ( the passive personality ) is a national of the claimant country.
The 3rd ground is the protective or security principle, and it allows a State , to exercise jurisdiction over foreigners, outside its territory , regardless of their citizenship , when there is a threat to its national security.
And lastly, the universality principle , is the fourth ground for state jurisdiction, and it allows any state , to punish certain international offences abroad , like piracy, slavery , torture , crimes against humanity and genocide, whether committed by or against foreign nationals.
Пікірлер: 65
Great Work! Thank you from Armenia
Lovely work. Keep doing so.
Great work, so helpful
great work, thank you so much.
wonderful work!
There's a little irony that those who are the greatest perpatrators of slavery and genocide are the ones regulating it. Love the little funney music, it gave me cushy feelings.
@lexanimata
3 жыл бұрын
thanks for your feedback and im glad you liked the video
kindly explain the difference between jurisdiction and admissibility in the ICC statute. Include the concept of complementarity, thank you
Wow. I am very proud of you. Very important and useful knowledge. Greetings from Brazil.
@lexanimata
8 жыл бұрын
many thanks for your feedback I'm glad u liked the video
Great video!
Thank You Very Much for this valuable video. It helped to clarify lot of things.
@lexanimata
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks I'm glad you liked the video 😊
these are great! Please make more!
@lexanimata
8 жыл бұрын
+陳允中 thanks!
@wcccc111
8 жыл бұрын
+LEX ANIMATA I'm studying international law. Is there any books or material that you recommend?
@lexanimata
8 жыл бұрын
+陳允中 Sure, i will recommend the nutshell and nutcases series issued by westlaw, in particular professor Rebecca Wallace books
Wonderful...
@lexanimata
8 жыл бұрын
+Sudheer. KJ thank u so much!
LOVELYYYYYYYYYY!!!
well done
Very helpful fr competitive exams 🤗
@lexanimata
Жыл бұрын
Thanks 🙏🏽
Please do a video on de facto vs de jure jurisdiction ;)
I am really curious about the ground of the third basis of jurisdiction "national security". Can you explain from where it comes?
@lexanimata
8 жыл бұрын
+Jean-Rémi DE MAISTRE thanks for your comment, the protective or security jurisdiction is basically related to the state need to protect its own governmental functions, so the State can exercise jurisdiction over non nationalis abroad in case they engage in any illegat act like counterfeiting of passport or currency and terrorism acts as well ( a pre emptive self defence is a good example as well ) , as you can see an overlap exists between the various types of jurisdiction but the protective one is the most flexible one as no link between the person and the state is required
@lexanimata
8 жыл бұрын
+Jean-Rémi DE MAISTRE a good example came to my mind, the recent court ruling by an american court ordering iran to pay 10 billion usd for 9/11 victims, even though iran has no connection with the attack ( www.rt.com/usa/335174-iran-damages-september-911-victims/ )
@El1rion
8 жыл бұрын
+LEX ANIMATA I understand your position. It goes in the same way than what you call "Imperial Customary Law" :) For my point of view I do not agree that such a national security jurisdiction has a basis in international law. The pre-emptive self defence for instance is just an american theory and has never received an approbation in international law. On contrary, we can find a lot of protestations from other States which preclude the appearance of a new customary rule. Considering the american ruling, I saw it, it is crazy haha. I think it is contrary to international law and will probably be overruled.
@El1rion
8 жыл бұрын
+LEX ANIMATA Apart from this disagreement, I think your project (that I follow since it start) is very interesting. If you pass by Paris, it would be a pleasure to meet you and discuss about it!
@lexanimata
8 жыл бұрын
+Jean-Rémi DE MAISTRE indeed, the imperial customary law is bit controversial, i am actually influenced by professor Anthony D'amato, its also interesting how American jurisprudence looks differently at international law comparing to their counterpart in the UK and France. Glad you are following the chanel and i hope we work on one video together and looking forward to meet you in Abu Dhabi as well !
So is subjective and objective territoriality related to the concepts of active and passive nationality?
@SiddharthSinghLaw
4 жыл бұрын
Hope this video can get you an answer. kzread.info/dash/bejne/anZ-xauzYdbAZM4.html
Lovely, wonderful work!
@lexanimata
8 жыл бұрын
+Ana Von thanks!
Very helpful videos ☺️ i have a question regarding universality jurisdiction... when there is violation of human right on a US citizen in US, can another country have jurisdiction even if it is not its citizen whose human rights are being violated?
@lexanimata
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks, the answer is yes and no, yes because in general some countries now extend their jurisdiction to punish crimes not related to them like Belgium in trying African policians, and no because the USA is super power and won't permit this to happen, you can Google " the Hague invasion act" to get a better understanding of how the USA is dealing with international law
@yadhavmuthoora5569
2 жыл бұрын
@@lexanimata thank you very much sir ☺️
good sir
Money laundering like... what the World Bank, the International Monetary fund has been actively engaged in since their inception? AH yes, those crimes. I'm glad the criminals got to create a body of law to prevent their crime.
@urgencepc4563
3 жыл бұрын
I mean I may be a cynical asshole but the Federal Reserve OUTLAWED having GOLD in the United STates by HOARDING IT ALL so they could be the ones writing the law and sucking the wealth out of the countries. Land = law. Gold is portable land. Period. Criminals who make their crime outlawed to keep the monopoly.
@urgencepc4563
3 жыл бұрын
And for the record the fact that they follow some talmudic bullshit of Chosen People doesn't cut it.
It never ceases to amaze me how people manage to actually take international law seriously, I mean how do you even enforce it when a superpower decides to go ahead and do something illegal anyway?
@lexanimata
2 жыл бұрын
Some authors ever argued whether international law is really a "law", actually even local/national laws are very similar to IL, you have the powerful and wealthy members of the society drafting and imposing the rules based on their interests
@calvinvandegrift3812
2 жыл бұрын
@@lexanimata Yeah no, there are elites in every society, democratic or not who ultimately decide policies in conjunction with the majority.
Right
Common law admiralty maritime
Hข่าวลงบอกว่าเงินดอนล่าเต็มแบงร์ทุกทุกแบงร์แต่เวลาถามแบงร์ถึงบอกว่าไม่มีละคะแล้วอย่างนี้จะเอาผิดกับแบงร์ใด้ใหมละคะช่วยกันปรกปิดกันกับพวกฉ้อโกงนะคะ
Banks Can't Own Property CASE LAW Official source for United States laws is the Statue at Large and the United States Code is only prima facie evidence of such laws. Royer’s Inc. v United States Statue at Large are “Legal evidence” of laws contained therein and are accepted proof of these laws in any court of the United States. Bear v United States (1985 DC Neb) 611 Unless Congress affirmatively enacts title of United States Code into law, title is only prima facie evidence of law. Preston v Heckler (1984 CA9 Alaska) 734 F2d, 1359, 34CCH FPD34433, later proceeding (1984 DC Alaska) 596 F Supp 1158 Where title has not been enacted into positive law, title is only prima facie or rebuttable evidence of law, and if construction is necessary, recourse may be had to original statue National banking corporations are agencies or instruments of the general government, designed to aid in the administration of a important branch of the public service, and are an appropriate constitutional means to that end. Pollard v State, Ala 1880, 65 Ala 628 See, also, Tarrant v. Bessemer Nat Bank 1913, 61 So 47,7 Ala App 285 A national bank cannot lend its credit or become the guarantor of the obligation of another unless it owns or has an interest in the obligation guaranteed especially where it receives no benefits therefrom. Citizens’ Nat Bank of Cameron v Good Roads Gravel Co. Tex Civ App. 1921 236 SW 153 dismissed w.o.j A national bank has no power to guarantee the performance of a contract made for the sole benefit of another. First National Bank v Crespi & Co.Tex Civ App 1920 217 SW 705 National banks have no power to negotiate loans for others. Pollock v Lumberman’s Nat Bank of Portland Or 1917 168 P 616 86 Or 324 A national bank cannot act as a broker in lending its depositors’ money to third persons. Byron v First Nat Bank of Roseburg, Or 195 146 P 516 75 Or 296 A national bank is not authorized to act as a broker in loaning the money of others. Grow v Cockrill, Ark. 1897, 39 S W 60, 63 Ark 418. See, also, Keyser v Hitz Dist of Col 1883 2 Mackey 513 Officers of a national bank in handling its funds are acting in a fiduciary capacity, and cannot make loans and furnish money contrary to law or in such improvident manner as to imperil its funds. First Nat Bank v Humphreys Okla 1917 168 P 410, 66 Okla 186 Representations made by bank president to proposed surety as to borrower’s assets, in connection with proposed loan by bank, held binding on the bank. Young v Goetting, CCA. 5 (Tex) 1926, 16 F 2d 248 Bank is liable for its vice president’s participation in scheme to defraud depositor by facilitating prompt withdrawal of his money. National City Bank v Carter CCA6 (Tenn) 1926 F2d 940 Wheeler v Sohmer, Comptroller of the State of New York Promissory notes are only evidences of debt not debt themselves! 12 USC 3754 59 CJS § 2 Mortgages Definitions “The literal meaning of the word “mortgage” is “dead pledge” a mortuum vadium. The term mortgage may be employed as meaning the debt secured by the mortgage, but in its true sense an ordinary mortgage is not a debt as the debt is the principle obligation, and the mortgage is generally regarded as merely an incident or accessory to the debt. A mortgage is an interest in the land created by a written instrument providing security for the performance of a duty or payment of debt and is usually evidenced by a note. Where did the money come from that they say is owed? How does the bank have a right to say that there’s an obligation? References: Caddy v Cortide NY Testy v Collons Baker v Citizen State Bank of Louis Park US v Stanley Corbin on Contracts (void contracts) Statue of Frauds Contract Cases Nothing can be more material to the obligation than the means of enforcement, without the remedy the contract may indeed, in the sense of law may be said to not exist. And its obligation to fall within the class of those moral and social duties which depend for their fulfillment wholly upon the will of the individual the ideas of validity and remedy are inseparable and both are parts of the obligation which is guaranteed by the Constitution against invasion. The obligation of a contract “is the law which binds the parties to perform their agreement”Red Cross Line v Atlantic Fruit Company 264 US 109 L Ed 582, 44 S. Ct. February 18, 1924 It is essential to the creation of a contract that there be a mutual or reciprocal assent. Sanford v Abrams (1888) 24 Fl 181, So. 373. Ross v Savage (1913) 66 Fl 106, 63 So. 148; Mc Cay v Sever (1929) 98 Fla 710, 24 So. 44; United State Rubber Products, Inc. v Clark (1941) 145 Fla 631, 200 So. 385, Mann v Thompson (1958) Fla. App D1 100 So. 2d 634 That the assent be to a certain and definite proposition. Fincher v Belk-Sawyer Co.(1961) Fla App D3 127 So. 2d 130. Goff v Indian Lake Estates, Inv. (1965 Fla. App D2) 178 So.2d 910, Hewitt v Price (1969, Fla App D3) 222 So. 2d 247 Without a meeting of the minds of the parties on an essential element, there can be no enforceable contract Hettenbaugh v Keyes Ozon - Fincher Ins. Inc. 1962 Fla App D3) 147 So. 2d 328, Goff v Indian Lake Estates, Inc. (1965 Fla App D2) 178 So. 2d 910 What are the elements? What is it? What does it do? How does it perform? What’s going to happen later? Can it be used later? Was that fully disclosed? Each and every element there has to be a meeting of the minds! UCC In order to form a contract, the parties must have a distinct understanding, common to both, and without doubt or difference. Unless all understand alike, there can be no assent, and therefore no contract. Webster Lumber Co v Lincoln (1927) 94 Fla1097, 115 So. 498, Minsky’s Follies of Florida, Inc. v Sennes (1953 206 F2d 1 O’neil Corporate Trustees, Inc. (1967) 376 F2d 818. Until the terms of the agreement have received the assent of both parties, the negotiation is open and imposes no obligation on either. Goff v Indian lake Estates Inc. (1965 Fla App D2) 178 So. 2d 910. Car v Duvall (1840) 39 US 77, 10 L. Ed 361 The assent of each party must be freely given; a contract entered into as a result of the exercise of duress or undue influence by the other party, or procured by the fraud of one of the parties, lacks the essential element of real assent and maybe avoided by the injured party. Wall v Bureau of Lathing and Plastering (1960 Fla App D3) 117 So. 2d 767. An actual assent by the parties upon exactly the same matters is indispensable to the formation of the contract. Bullock v Hardwick (1947) 158 Fla 834, 30 So. 2d 539: Hettenbaugh v. Keyes Ozon-Fincher Ins. Inc. 1962 Fla App D3) 147 So 2d 328 General Finance Corp v Stratton 1963 Fla App D1, 156 So 2d 884 Title 12 Chap 17§1841 and §1813 CFR 6000 FDIC-Bank Holding Company Act 12 CFR 25,12 BANKS AND BANKING, Sec. 25.12 Definitions 12 USC Chap 3 Subchap 1 Sec. 222; 1811 and 501a; 21 Title 62 Revised Statues Until the terms of the agreement have received the assent more education on new.oregontrackers.com/ When Native Americans Were Slaughtered in the Name of ... www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states When Native Americans Were Slaughtered in the Name of ‘Civilization’. By the close of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century, fewer than 238,000 indigenous people remained, a sharp decline from the estimated 5 million to 15 million living in North America when Columbus arrived in 1492. California lawful arms rights NOT FOR PUBLICATIONUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2018/07/17/17-56081.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1I75viN6PZ-7DoUSL6DB0jooLmYrTE6qoHzp27-nAuC2URm9uK6S_wWoY Re: Police Are Private Contractors No Authority To Protect you are you Children For A Private Corporation www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/4913117-addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine Private Jails in the United States - FindLaw Private jails, prisons, and detention centers have a long history in the U.S., as far back as 1852 when San Quentin was the first for-profit prison in the U.S., long before it was state-owned. A resurgence in private prisons came in the wake of wide-spread privatization that took place during the 1980s. civilrights.findlaw.com/other-constitutional-rights/private-jails-in-the-united-states.html /?fbclid=IwAR3nUgHOHxKkcKx4aCmxrvZOIlOpW0C-SMPOuWEKLY2WTgQLuS0DGCLiV9I Saturday Night Live kzread.info/dash/bejne/e5eVqtetirTPeaQ.html
0.45 kind of Islamophobic.
@lexanimata
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your feedback
They have no jurisdiction they have no jurisdiction God the living Father has the jurisdiction overall. We are created to be his image. God created out of his image We are not the graven image created out of birth certificate The marriage license drivers license any kind of license and Social Security card the number we are not just numbers.
I am a (living) man not a person
stop using that that muslim like cartoon, its unfair
@blazer14their
5 жыл бұрын
NO, its accurate.
very offensive cartoon usage and u should be stopped.
Great video!
@lexanimata
3 жыл бұрын
Grazie Fede