From the multifaceted notion of sovereignty, states derive certain abilities, such
as plain internal jurisdiction to prescribe and enforce laws, immunity from other
states’ own jurisdiction and freedom from other states’ intervention on their territory.
Indeed, one the most prominent corollaries of the principle of sovereignty is jurisdiction, a concept that operationalizes that of sovereignty, the focus of the
following item.
4.2 From Sovereignty to Jurisdiction in International Law:
Bases of Jurisdiction
As observable by now, sovereignty consists of a broad concept and is often taken as
a principle of international law, key feature of the current world-system for international relations theories. Jurisdiction, on the other hand, will be a rather operational
notion, usually considered a consequence of the sovereignty and equality of states,
alongside a duty of non-intervention in internal affairs of fellow states, and the
prevalence of consent in order for a sovereign state to be bound by international
obligations.
23 Originating from the juxtaposition of the Latin expressions “iuris” and
“dictio”, jurisdiction relates to the power to “say the law” or, in other words, to the
competences or the administrative domain over which a legal authority extends.
24
In international law, jurisdiction typically links a situation or event to the competence of a state to regulate such situation, which may relate to any of the branches
of government: legislative, executive and judicial. It is often defined in a negative
fashion, as an ensemble of rules and principles that serve the purpose of limiting
legal competences of a state to regulate the conduct of natural and juridical persons
in certain situations and to enforce measures in the wake of that conduct.
25 As a
consequence, the so-called law of jurisdiction represents a fundamental step in the
pursuit for a (relatively) peaceful coexistence in the international arena, providing
rules that have the main characteristic of allocating competences to regulate daily life
between states and international organizations. In this sense, jurisdiction becomes a
major concern of international law inasmuch as it attempts to prevent sovereigntybased assertions of interest by one state from unduly encroaching upon the rights and
freedoms of other states.
26 That powerful states shall not legislate and regulate
activities taking place in the territory of other states has become a widely accepted
principle of international law, of noninterference, and is the result of allocating
jurisdiction in the international sphere.
23 This classification is adopted by James Crawford (2012), p. 449.
24 Entry “Jurisdiction”, Online Etymology Dictionary.
25 Staker (2014), p. 309.
26 Ryngaert (2015), p. 6.
4.2 From Sovereignty to Jurisdiction in International Law: Bases of Jurisdiction
91
as plain internal jurisdiction to prescribe and enforce laws, immunity from other
states’ own jurisdiction and freedom from other states’ intervention on their territory.
Indeed, one the most prominent corollaries of the principle of sovereignty is jurisdiction, a concept that operationalizes that of sovereignty, the focus of the
following item.
4.2 From Sovereignty to Jurisdiction in International Law:
Bases of Jurisdiction
As observable by now, sovereignty consists of a broad concept and is often taken as
a principle of international law, key feature of the current world-system for international relations theories. Jurisdiction, on the other hand, will be a rather operational
notion, usually considered a consequence of the sovereignty and equality of states,
alongside a duty of non-intervention in internal affairs of fellow states, and the
prevalence of consent in order for a sovereign state to be bound by international
obligations.
23 Originating from the juxtaposition of the Latin expressions “iuris” and
“dictio”, jurisdiction relates to the power to “say the law” or, in other words, to the
competences or the administrative domain over which a legal authority extends.
24
In international law, jurisdiction typically links a situation or event to the competence of a state to regulate such situation, which may relate to any of the branches
of government: legislative, executive and judicial. It is often defined in a negative
fashion, as an ensemble of rules and principles that serve the purpose of limiting
legal competences of a state to regulate the conduct of natural and juridical persons
in certain situations and to enforce measures in the wake of that conduct.
25 As a
consequence, the so-called law of jurisdiction represents a fundamental step in the
pursuit for a (relatively) peaceful coexistence in the international arena, providing
rules that have the main characteristic of allocating competences to regulate daily life
between states and international organizations. In this sense, jurisdiction becomes a
major concern of international law inasmuch as it attempts to prevent sovereigntybased assertions of interest by one state from unduly encroaching upon the rights and
freedoms of other states.
26 That powerful states shall not legislate and regulate
activities taking place in the territory of other states has become a widely accepted
principle of international law, of noninterference, and is the result of allocating
jurisdiction in the international sphere.
23 This classification is adopted by James Crawford (2012), p. 449.
24 Entry “Jurisdiction”, Online Etymology Dictionary.
25 Staker (2014), p. 309.
26 Ryngaert (2015), p. 6.
4.2 From Sovereignty to Jurisdiction in International Law: Bases of Jurisdiction
91