This fully updated second edition of Jurisdiction in International Law examines the international law of jurisdiction, focusing on the areas of law where jurisdiction is most contentious: criminal, antitrust, securities, discovery, and international humanitarian and human rights law. Since F.A. Mann's work in the 1980s, no analytical overview has been attempted of this crucial topic in international law: prescribing the admissible geographical reach of a State's laws. This new edition includes new material on personal jurisdiction in the U.S., extraterritorial applicatins of human rights treaties, discussions on cyberspace, the Morrison case. Jurisdiction in International Law has been updated covering developments in sanction and tax laws, and includes further exploration on transnational tort litigation and universal civil jurisdiction. The need for such an overview has grown more pressing in recent years as the traditional framework of the law of jurisdiction, grounded in the principles of sovereignty and territoriality, has been undermined by piecemeal developments. Antitrust jurisdiction is heading in new directions, influenced by law and economics approaches; new EC rules are reshaping jurisdiction in securities law; the U.S. is arguably overreaching in the field of corporate governance law; and the universality principle has gained ground in European criminal law and U.S. tort law. Such developments have given rise to conflicts over competency that struggle to be resolved within traditional jurisdiction theory. This study proposes an innovative approach that departs from the classical solutions and advocates a general principle of international subsidiary jurisdiction. Under the new proposed rule, States would be entitled, and at times even obliged, to exercise subsidiary jurisdiction over internationally relevant situations in the interest of the international community if the State having primary jurisdiction fails to assume its responsibility.

The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in International Law provides an authoritative and comprehensive analysis of the concept of jurisdiction in international law. Jurisdiction plays a fundamental role in international law, limiting the exercise of legal authority over international legal subjects. But despite its importance, the concept has remained, until now, underdeveloped. Discussions of jurisdiction in international law regularly refer to classic heads of jurisdiction based on territoriality or nationality, or use the SS Lotus decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice as a starting point. However, traditional understandings of jurisdiction are facing new challenges. Globalization has increased the need for jurisdiction to be applied extraterritorially, non-State forms of law provide new theoretical challenges and intersections between different forms of jurisdiction have become more intricate. This Handbook provides a necessary re-examination of the concept of jurisdiction in international law through a thematic analysis of its history, its contemporary application, and how it needs to adapt to encompass future developments in international law. It examines some of the most contentious elements of jurisdiction by considering how the concept is being applied in specific substantive and institutional settings.

With the sensational arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998, the rise to prominence of universal jurisdiction over crimes against international law seemed to be assured. The arrest of Pinochet and the ensuing proceedings before the UK courts brought universal jurisdiction into the foreground of the "fight against impunity" and the principle was read as an important complementary mechanism for international justice –one that could offer justice to victims denied an avenue by the limited jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals. Yet by the time of the International Court of Justice’s Arrest Warrant judgment four years later, the picture looked much bleaker and the principle was being read as a potential tool for politically motivated trials. This book explores the debate over universal jurisdiction in international criminal law, aiming to unpack a practice in which international lawyers continue to disagree over the concept of universal jurisdiction. Using Martti Koskenniemi’s work as a foil, this book exposes the argumentative techniques in operation in national and international adjudication since the 1990s. Drawing on overarching patterns within the debate, Aisling O’Sullivan argues that it is bounded by a tension between contrasting political preferences or positions, labelled as moralist ("ending impunity") and formalist ("avoiding abuse") and she reads the debate as a movement of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions that struggle for hegemonic control. However, she draws out how these positions (moralist/formalist) merge into one another and this produces a tendency towards a "middle" position that continues to prefer a particular preference (moralist or formalist). Aisling O’Sullivan then traces the transformation towards this tendency that reflects an internal split among international lawyers between building a utopia ("court of humanity") and recognizing its impossibility of being realized.

This study is based on the following questions: Which jurisdiction can and should be exercised for the prosecution of individuals responsible for gross and serious violations of human rights? And especially, in this regard, what is the role of universal jurisdiction? In explaining the modern jurisdictional regime, this study illuminates the historical phenomenon of the expansion of jurisdiction in Chapter II, and conducts in-depth research particularly into universal jurisdiction in Chapter III and IV. This study explicates the notion of universal jurisdiction in history and in theory, categorizing its nature by two aspects (permissive or obligatory, and supplemental or primary), and underscores the differences between ordinary universal jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction in absentia. Having made an analysis on the legality of jurisdiction, this study has proceeded to examine the appropriateness of exercising jurisdiction. Noting the danger of conflicts of jurisdiction, Chapter V attempts to compile some guiding rules that can be utilised in determining the appropriateness of jurisdiction, thus answering the question of Which jurisdiction should be exercised'. Chapter VI then applies these guiding rules to non-territorial jurisdiction, namely universal jurisdiction. The observations deduced from the application of the guiding rules demonstrates, together with the analysis of the legality of universal jurisdiction in Chapter IV, the role of universal jurisdiction within the modern jurisdictional regime.

The subject of declining jurisdiction in private international law is one of enormous practical importance and academic interest. It is also a topic where a comparative approach is particularly revealing. This book contains the 17 national reports and the general report on the subject of`Rules for declining to exercise jurisdiction: Forum Non Conveniens, Lis Pendens'. The Reports were held in Athens/Delphi in August 1994. The list of nations for which a report has been prepared is as follows: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Quebec, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece,Israel, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, and USA.This book by bringing together all the reports on `Declining Jurisdiction' provides a unique insight into this topic, and, dealing as it does with a key aspect of private international law, fits very well into the Oxford series of monographs on private international law.

This Research Handbook provides a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of the international law of jurisdiction and immunities, illustrating those aspects in which the law of jurisdiction and law of immunities are mutually interdependent, as well as shedding light on the implications of that interdependence. With authoritative contributions from recognized experts, it offers an impartial perspective on the applicable international law, independent from any positions held in governmental or other institutional circles. Authoritative and well-structured, the book covers all major topics in relation to jurisdiction and immunities, such as conceptual justifications for jurisdiction and immunities, extra-territorial jurisdiction, types of available immunities, normative basis for jurisdiction and immunity claims in various types of judicial proceedings. It explores the complex questions arising when a state asserts its jurisdiction over persons that are based abroad, or are not that state’s citizens, or otherwise have no connection with that state, as well as how tensions are further heightened when one state tries to assert jurisdiction, in its own courts, over another state or an international organization such as the UN. This much-needed Handbook will appeal strongly to academic researchers and postgraduate students. Civil servants and employees of international organizations and NGOs will also find it an invaluable resource.

This book explores the theory and practice of judicial jurisdiction within the field of private international law. It offers a revised look at values justifying the power of courts to hear and decide cross-border disputes, and demonstrates that a re-conceptualisation of jurisdiction is needed. Rather than deriving from territorial power of states, jurisdiction in civil and commercial cross-border matters ought to be driven by party autonomy. This autonomy can be limited by certain considerations of equality and critical state sovereign interests. The book applies this normative view to the existing rules of jurisdiction in the European Union and the Russian Federation. These regimes are chosen due to their unique positions towards values in private international law and contrasting societal norms that generate and accommodate these values. Notwithstanding disparate cultural and political ideas, these regimes reveal a surprising level of consistency when it comes to enforcement of party autonomy. There is, nevertheless, room for improvement. The book demonstrates to scholars, policy makers and lawmakers that jurisdiction should be re-centred around the interests of private actors, and proposes ways to improve the current rules.

Papers originally presented in a conference held at the Catholic University, Milan, on 10-11 May 2002.

Internet jurisdiction has emerged as one of the greatest and most urgent challenges online; affecting areas as diverse as e-commerce, data privacy, law enforcement, content take-downs, cloud computing, e-health, cyber security, intellectual property, freedom of speech, and cyberwar. In this innovative book, Professor Svantesson presents a vision for a new approach to Internet jurisdiction based on an extensive period of research dedicated to the topic. The book demonstrates that our current paradigm remains attached to territorial thinking that is out of sync with our modern world, especially, but not only, online. Having made the claim that our adherence to the territoriality principle is based more on habit rather than on any clear and universally accepted legal principles, Professor Svantesson advances a new jurisprudential framework for how we approach jurisdiction - a framework that unites private, and public, international law. He also proposes several other reform initiatives aimed at equipping us to solve the Internet jurisdiction puzzle. In addition, the book provides a history of Internet jurisdiction, and challenges our traditional categorisation of different types of jurisdiction. It places Internet jurisdiction in a broader context and outlines methods for how to properly understand and work with rules of Internet jurisdiction. While Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle paints a clear picture of the concerns involved and the problems that needs to be overcome, this book is distinctly aimed at finding practical solutions anchored in a solid theoretical framework. Professor Svantesson argues that many of the Internet jurisdiction problems we face are due to a sleepwalking-like acceptance of orthodox thinking. Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle acts as a wake-up call to this issue.