International Law | EssayIvy.com

Surname 1

Name

Professor

Subject

Date

International Law

Jurisdiction is the practical authority vested in a legal institution or body to administer

justice within a defined area of responsibility (Noll 15). This power is vested upon sovereign

states administrations by its citizens to protect them by applying the tenets of justice, retribution,

equity and equality over them. In the matter of September 9/11 attacks, this paper will illustrate

the application of the principles of jurisdiction and its ramifications on the would not have been

attacks on the World Trade Center, and Pentagon had the terrorists chosen to possibly attack a

supertanker or a cargo ship in other jurisdictions.

To begin with, Section Four of the US Constitution requires the Federal government to

protect each state from invasion, which in this case would be the States of New York City and

Virginia (McCormick 40). With that clause, the federal government would be compelled to

institute legal proceedings against the Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian Nationals (the terrorists

involved). However, that invocation would not have international goodwill unless it is backed up

by the Territorial jurisdiction principle of public international law that allows a sovereign state to

prosecute criminal offenses committed within its borders (Hooghe 20). With those attacks

classified as criminal offenses within its boundaries then the US would be compelled to retaliate.

Moreover based on the universal jurisdiction which is a legal principle permitting and

demanding all nations to institute criminal proceedings in regards to specific crimes regardless of

Surname 2

the location of the crime or the nationality of the confirmed perpetrator (Michaels 34). Then

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would also be compelled to institute criminal proceedings against their

nationals who committed a crime in another foreign state.

Now the nature of the jurisdiction applicatory in this scenario differs, the US would be

applying universal and Extradictory jurisdiction from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (had the

perpetrators survived and possibly escaped back to their home countries). While the latter two

states would exercise the local jurisdiction on their nationals as citizens of their nations and

Extradictory Jurisdiction from the US had the perpetrators survived and got apprehended within

the US). In essence, all the three states would have some version of legal space to exercise. With

the issue of Extradition mentioned, the nature of international agreements between those three

states arises. According to the US Federal Criminal Code and Rules, § 3181, Kuwait and Saudi

Arabia are listed among those countries that share dual extradition rules, to or from any nation

being either the victim of a crime or whose nationalities are involved in criminal activities other

states (Coyle 86). That kind of jurisdiction also extends to any other co-conspirators whose home

countries are signatories to the same extradition protocols.

Moreover, the nature of the criminal charges would also be acutely different in approach,

the US according to their penal code would proffer charges ranging from terrorism, a felony,

murder of its citizens and according to the territorial jurisdiction prefer the charges against

destruction of public property and state interests (Vagias 40). Kuwait and the Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia, on the other hand, would proffer charges ranging from sabotage to international

diplomacy, murder, and terrorism, which is according to the Arab league joint penal code and

foreign policy (Ryngaert 35).

Surname 3

However, had the perpetrators were from other nationalities other than those mentioned

such as Philippines, Norway, India, and Indonesia perpetuated attacks on extraterritorial lands of

the Panama, Kuwaiti, Japanese and American flags. Then the rules of engagement would change.

With the first two on supertankers or cargo ships in the high seas and the latter on American and

Dutch harbors, similarly, the following rules would come to play. According to the definition of

high seas as the water expanse (sea or ocean) beyond the stipulated three-mile limit or territorial

waters of a country (Harden-Davies 71), then the first two attacks on the high seas would not fall

on any particular local jurisdiction.

However with the precedence of the Lotus case that leads to the 1958 High Seas

Convention, held in Geneva, which emphasized that only the flag state or the sovereign state of

which the alleged perpetrator was a national had original jurisdiction over sailors in question

with regards to high sea incidents (Sohn, 23). The convention would demand that the crews be

tried in the domains of their home countries (Philippines, Norway, India, and Indonesia). That is

to mean since the crews are from different nationalities and not one, then either the nationality of

the captain in control during the incident would be tried in his local jurisdiction as was in the

Lotus case. The Lotus case involved Turkey's authority in trying Monsieur Demons, the French

lieutenant on duty at the time of the ships' collision (Bean 45). But since the crew is formed

different nationalities (The Philippines, Norway, India, and Indonesia), the jurisdiction can either

be reverted to their local authorities as mentioned previously or referred to the Permanent Court

of International Justice if their home nationalities are signatories to the United Nations charter

that mandates that court.

On the other hand, should the actual crime happen within the territorial waters of any

country then the domicile country can apply the Universal jurisdiction laws or the Extradition

Surname 4

laws as mentioned previously? However, should the attacks happen on American and Dutch

harbors than the following would be the ramifications; The US is not a party signatory to the

United Charter mandating the Permanent Court of International Justice. Therefore any attack

within its harbors would not be subject to that court's jurisdiction. Besides, more clarity would be

sought to establish, that if the attacks happened on the high seas off the authority of the US, then

that matter would not be in their local jurisdiction. But should the attacks be within the precincts

of their territorial waters, then the case regardless the nationalities is addressed by their federal

district courts as stipulated In article 28 of the US Constitution § 1333 (Tushnet 23).

If the attacks were to happen on the Dutch harbors, then the same treatment would apply,

if it is far removed from the territorial waters of the Netherlands, then the matter would be

referred to the principles of the 1958 High Seas Convention. That would demand that the state

flag is in jurisdiction over the case is the captain in watch duty is identified, but if the attack

happened on a joint operation, then the legal jurisdiction would fall on the Permanent Court of

International Justice, to which the Netherlands is a signatory.

Conclusion

As indicated, jurisdiction is a very complicated matter of national diplomacy to address;

it seeks to ensure that all states are treated and remain equal, with rights to solve their issues.

However, since the world is a global village, everything is interconnected and every nation in the

exercise of its sovereignty may end up infringing on the other, therefore to maintain that balance,

there are treaties to address matters happening on lands and spaces that are not within any local

jurisdiction. Those conventions draft and come up with rules that define the nature of interstate

engagement on matters that are not within any jurisdiction and also state to what extent a given

country can apply its sovereign rights. When all those factors are considered, then one thing

Surname 5

becomes evident; the implementation and ramifications of criminal laws are highly dependent

upon the circumstances to which a particular crime is committed.

Surname 6

Work Cited

Bean, Barbara. "Law of the Sea." (2016).

Coyle, John F. "The Case for Writing International Law into the US Code." BCL Rev. 56 (2015):

433.

Harden-Davies, Harriet, Genevieve Quirk, and Robin M. Warner. "New laws for the high seas:

four key issues the UN talks need to tackle." (2016).

Hooghe, Liesbet, et al. Measuring regional authority. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,

2016.

McCormick, James M. "Domestic Politics and US Leadership after September 11." The Bush

Leadership, the Power of Ideas, and the War on Terror (2016): 155.

Michaels, Ralf. "Jurisdiction, foundations." (2016).

Noll, Gregor. "Theorizing jurisdiction." The Oxford handbook of international legal theory

(2016).

Ryngaert, Cedric. Jurisdiction in international law. OUP Oxford, 2015.

Vagias, Michail. The territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge

University Press, 2014.

Sohn, Louis B., et al. Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,

2014.

Tushnet, Mark V., Mark A. Graber, and Sanford Levinson, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the US

Constitution. Oxford Handbooks, 2015.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."