References: (1927) PCIJ Series A – No 10
Ratio: Jurisdiction is primarily territorial in both international and domestic law: ‘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. 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. 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. 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 as best and most suitable.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – The United States of America v Nolan SC (Bailii, [2015] UKSC 63, [2016] IRLR 34, [2015] 3 WLR 1105, [2016] 1 CMLR 42, [2015] ICR 1347, [2016] 1 All ER 857, [2015] WLR(D) 441, [2016] AC 463, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2014/0073, SC, SC Summary)
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.
(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 11-Aug-17
Ref: 591914