CHAPTER 9 CASES FROM BOOK0 JURISDICTION OF STATES Kourt (including its captain) were taken to Turkey on board the
ptain) were taken to Turkey on board the Lotus. In
Turkey, the officer on watch of the Lotus (Demons), and the captain of the THE LOTUS CASE Turkish ship were charged with manslaughter. Demons, a French national, Citation. Permanent Court of Intl Justice, P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (1927) was sentenced to 80 days of imprisonment and a fine. The French government protested, demanding the release of Demons or the transfer of Brief Fact Summary. Turkeys (D) assertion of jurisdiction over a French his case to the French Courts. Turkey and France agreed to refer this citizen who had been the first officer of a ship that collided with a Turkish ship dispute on the jurisdiction to the Permanent Court of International Justice on the high seas was challenged by France (P) as a violation of international (PCIJ). law. Questions before the Court: Synopsis of Rule of Law. A rule of international law, which prohibits a state Did Turkey violate international law when Turkish courts exercised from exercising criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts jurisdiction over a crime committed by a French national, outside Turkey? If outside of the states national jurisdiction, does not exist. yes, should Turkey pay compensation to France? Citation. Permanent Court of Intl Justice, P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (1927) The Courts Decision: Turkey, by instituting criminal proceedings against Demons, did not violate Brief Fact Summary. Turkeys (D) assertion of jurisdiction over a French international law. citizen who had been the first officer of a ship that collided with a Turkish ship on the high seas was challenged by France (P) as a violation of international Relevant Findings of the Court: law. Establishing Jurisdiction: Does Turkey need to support its assertion of jurisdiction using an existing rule of international law or is the mere absence Synopsis of Rule of Law. A rule of international law, which prohibits a state of a prohibition preventing the exercise of jurisdiction enough? from exercising criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of the states national jurisdiction, does not exist. The first principle of the Lotus case said that jurisdiction is territorial: A State cannot exercise its jurisdiction outside its territory unless an international Held. (Per curiam) No. A rule of international law, which prohibits a state from treaty or customary law permits it to do so. This is what we called the first exercising criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts Lotus Principle. outside of the states national jurisdiction, does not exist. Failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary is the first and foremost Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a restriction imposed by international law on a state and it may not exercise its State is that failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary it power in any form in the territory of another state. may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this This does not imply that international law prohibits a state from exercising sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State jurisdiction in its own territory, in respect of any case that relates to acts that outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from have taken place abroad which it cannot rely on some permissive rule of international custom or from a convention. (para 45) international law. In this situation, it is impossible to hold that there is a rule of international law that prohibits Turkey (D) from prosecuting Demons The second principle of the Lotus case: Within its territory, a State may because he was aboard a French ship. This stems from the fact that the exercise its jurisdiction, on any matter, even if there is no specific rule of effects of the alleged offense occurred on a Turkish vessel. international law permitting it to do so. In these instances, States have a Hence, both states here may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over this matter wide measure of discretion, which is only limited by the prohibitive rules of because there is no rule of international law in regards to collision cases to international law. the effect that criminal proceedings are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state whose flag is flown. 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 Discussion. In 1975, France enacted a law regarding its criminal jurisdiction to acts which have taken place abroad, and in which it cannot rely on some over aliens because of this the situation surrounding this case. The law permissive rule of international law. Such a view would only be tenable if stipulates that aliens who commit a crime outside the territory of the Republic international law contained a general prohibition to States to extend the may be prosecuted and judged pursuant to French law, when the victim is of application of their laws and the jurisdiction of their courts to persons, French nationality. This is contained in 102 Journal Du Droit International 962 property and acts outside their territory, and if, as an exception to this (Clunet 1975). Several eminent scholars have criticized the holding in this general prohibition, it allowed States to do so in certain specific cases. But case for seeming to imply that international law permits all that it does not this is certainly not the case under international law as it stands at present. forbid. 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 NAME OF THE CASE: THE LOTUS CASE (FRANCE VS TURKEY); YEAR persons, property and acts outside their territory, it leaves them in this OF THE DECISION: 1927; AND COURT: PCIJ. respect a wide measure of discretion, which is only limited in certain cases Overview: A collision occurred on the high seas between a French vessel by prohibitive rules; as regards other cases, every State remains free to and a Turkish vessel. Victims were Turkish nationals and the alleged adopt the principles which it regards as best and most suitable. This offender was French. Could Turkey exercise its jurisdiction over the French discretion left to States by international law explains the great variety of rules national under international law? which they have been able to adopt without objections or complaints on the part of other States In these circumstances all that can be required of a Facts of the Case: A collision occurred on the high seas between a French vessel Lotus and State is that it should not overstep the limits which international law places a Turkish vessel Boz-Kourt. The Boz-Kourt sank and killed eight Turkish upon its jurisdiction; within these limits, its title to exercise jurisdiction rests in nationals on board the Turkish vessel. The 10 survivors of the Boz- its sovereignty. (paras 46 and 47)
1|Page PUBLIC INTL L AW- JURISDICTION OF
S TAT E S The Lotus case gives an important dictum on creating customary This applied to civil and criminal cases. If the existence of a specific rule was international law. France alleged that jurisdictional questions on collision a pre-requisite to exercise jurisdiction, PCIJ argued, then it wouldin many cases are rarely heard in criminal cases because States tend to prosecute cases result in paralysing the action of the courts, owing to the impossibility only before the flag State. France argued that this absence of prosecutions of citing a universally accepted rule on which to support the exercise of their points to a positive rule in customary law on collisions.The Court held that [States] jurisdiction (para 48). this would merely show that States had often, in practice, abstained from instituting criminal proceedings, and not that they recognized themselves as The PCIJ based this finding on the sovereign will of States. being obliged to do so; for only if such abstention were based on their being International law governs relations between independent States. The rules conscious of having a duty to abstain would it be possible to speak of an of law binding upon States therefor emanate from their own free will as international custom. The alleged fact does not allow one to infer that States expressed in conventions or by usages generally accepted as expressing have been conscious of having such a duty; on the other hand, as will principles of law and established in order to regulate the relations between presently be seen, there are other circumstances calculated to show that the these co-existing independent communities or with a view to the contrary is true. In other words, opinio juris is reflected in acts of States achievement of common aims. Restrictions upon the independence of States (Nicaragua Case) or in omissions (Lotus case) in so far as those acts or cannot therefore be presumed [NB: This was one of the more debated aspects of the judgement. Some omissions are done following a belief that the said State is obligated by law argued that the Court placed too much emphasis on sovereignty and to act or refrain from acting in a particular way. (For more on opinio consent of States (i.e. took a strong positivist view)]. juris click here)
Criminal Jurisdiction: Territorial Jurisdiction
France alleged that the flag State of a vessel would have exclusive jurisdiction over offences committed on board the ship in high seas. The PCIJ disagreed. It held that France, as the flag State, did not enjoy exclusive territorial jurisdiction in the high seas in respect of a collision with a vessel TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION CASE carrying the flag of another State (paras 71 84). The Court held that Turkey Brief Fact Summary. The United States (P) sought damages from Canada and France both have jurisdiction in respect of the whole incident: i.e. there by suing them to court and also prayed for an injunction for air pollution in is concurrent jurisdiction. the state of Washington, by the Trail Smelter, a Canadian corporation which is domiciled in Canada (D). The PCIJ held that a ship in the high seas is assimilated to the territory of the flag State. This State may exercise its jurisdiction over the ship, in the same Synopsis of Rule of Law. The duty to protect other states against harmful way as it exercises its jurisdiction over its land, to the exclusion of all other acts by individuals from within its jurisdiction at all times is the responsibility States. In this case, the Court equated the Turkish vessel to Turkish territory. of a state. In this case, the PCIJ held that the offence produced its effects on the Turkish vessel and consequently in a place assimilated to Turkish territory in Held. Yes. It is the responsibility of the State to protect other states against which the application of Turkish criminal law cannot be challenged, even in harmful act by individuals from within its jurisdiction at all times. No state has regard to offences committed there by foreigners. Turkey had jurisdiction the right to use or permit the use of the territory in a manner as to cause over this case. injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein as stipulated under the United States (P) laws and the principles of If, therefore, a guilty act committed on the high seas produces its effects on international law. a vessel flying another flag or in foreign territory, the same principles must By looking at the facts contained in this case, the arbitration held that be applied as if the territories of two different States were concerned, and the Canada (D) is responsible in international law for the conduct of the Trail conclusion must therefore be drawn that there is no rule of international law Smelter Company. Hence, the onus lies on the Canadian government (D) to prohibiting the State to which the ship on which the effects of the offence see to it that Trail Smelters conduct should be in line with the obligations of have taken place belongs, from regarding the offence as having been Canada (D) as it has been confirmed by International law. The Trail Smelter committed in its territory and prosecuting, accordingly, the delinquent. Company will therefore be required from causing any damage through fumes The Lotus Case was also significant in that the PCIJ said that a State would as long as the present conditions of air pollution exist in Washington. have territorial jurisdiction, even if the crime was committed outside its So, in pursuant of the Article III of the convention existing between the two territory, so long as a constitutive element of the crime was committed in that nations, the indemnity for damages should be determined by both State. Today, we call this subjective territorial jurisdiction. In order for governments. Finally, a regime or measure of control shall be applied to the subjective territorial jurisdiction to be established, one must prove that the operations of the smelter since it is probable in the opinion of the tribunal that element of the crime and the actual crime are entirely inseparable; i.e., if the damage may occur in the future from the operations of the smelter unless constituent element was absent the crime would not have happened. they are curtailed. The offence for which Lieutenant Demons appears to have been prosecuted was an act of negligence or imprudence having its origin on Discussion. Responsibility for pollution of the sea or the existence of a duty board the Lotus, whilst its effects made themselves felt on board the Boz- to desist from polluting the sea has never been laid at the feet of any country by any international tribunal. Although regulation of pollution is just Kourt. These two elements are, legally, entirely inseparable, so much so that commencing, it must ensure that there is equilibrium against freedom of the their separation renders the offence non-existent It is only natural that seas guaranteed under general and long established rules of international each should be able to exercise jurisdiction and to do so in respect of the law. incident as a whole. It is therefore a case of concurrent jurisdiction. BLACKMER V US Customary International Law
2|Page PUBLIC INTL L AW- JURISDICTION OF
S TAT E S Brief Fact Summary. For his failure to respond to subpoenas served upon Congress acted pursuant to its authority in enacting the statute and it could him in France which required his appearance in the United States, Blackmer prescribe a penalty to enforce it. Affirmed (D) was found to be in contempt of court. THE NOTTEBOHM CASE Synopsis of Rule of Law. There must be due process for the exercise of Brief Fact Summary. A month after the start of World War II, Nottebohn (P), judicial jurisdiction in personam. a German citizen who had lived in Guatemala (D) for 34 years, applied for Facts. Blackmer (D), a U.S. (P) citizen who was residing in France, was Liechtenstein (P) citizenship. served subpoenas to appear in court as a witness in a criminal trial in the U.S. Contempt proceedings were initiated against Blackmer (D) when he Synopsis of Rule of Law. Nationality may be disregarded by other states failed to respond to the subpoenas and he was found guilty and fined. where it is clear that it was a mere device since the nationality conferred on a Blackmer (D) appealed on the ground that the federal statute was party is normally only the concerns of that nation unconstitutional. Facts. Nottebohn (P), a German by birth, lived in Guatemala (D) for 34 years, retaining his German citizenship and family and business ties with it. Issue. Must there be due process for the exercise of judicial jurisdiction in He however applied for Liechtenstein (P) citizenship a month after the personam? outbreak of World War II. Nottebohm (P) had no ties with Liechtenstein but intended to remain in Guatemala. The naturalization application was Held. (Hughes, C.J). Yes. There must be due process for the exercise of approved by Liechtenstein and impliedly waived its three-year. After this judicial jurisdiction in personam. The court may adjudge the witness guity of approval, Nottebohm (P) travelled to Liechtenstein and upon his return to contempt if the witness fails to comply with the court order. Congress acted pursuant to its authority in enacting the statute and it could prescribe a Guatemala (D), he was refused entry because he was deemed to be a penalty to enforce it. Affirmed. German citizen. His Liechtenstein citizenship was not honored. Liechtenstein (P) thereby filed a suit before the International Court to compel Discussion. The statute was not found to be unconstitutional by the Court. Guatemala (D) to recognize him as one of its national. Guatemala (D) Blackmer (D) alleged that there was inadequate notice, but since he still challenged the validity of Nottebohms (P) citizenship, the right of retained his U.S. citizenship, he was still subject to the U.S. authorities. Liechtenstein (P) to bring the action and alleged its belief that Nottebohm (P) Blackmer v. United States case brief, 284 U.S. 421 (1932) remained a German national. BLACKMER V. UNITED STATES Issue. Must nationality be disregarded by other states where it is clear that it 284 U.S. 421 (1932) was a mere device since the nationality conferred on a party is normally the Procedural History: concerns of that nation? Appeal from contempt conviction. Held. NO. issues relating to citizenship are solely the concern of the granting Overview: nation. This is the general rule. But it does not mean that other states will Blackmer (D) was found to be in contempt of court for failing to respond to automatically accept the conferring states designation unless it has acted in subpoenas served upon him in France requiring his appearance in the conformity with the general aim of forging a genuine bond between it and its United States. Blackmer (D) was a U.S. (P) citizen who resided in France. national aim. In this case, there was no relationship between Liechtenstein He was served subpoenas to appear in court as a witness in a criminal trial (P) and Nottebohm (P). the change of nationality was merely a subterfuge in the United States. When he failed to respond to the subpoenas, contempt mandated by the war. Under this circumstance, Guatemala (D) was not proceedings were initiated and Blackmer (D) was found guilty and fined. forced to recognize it. Dismissed Blackmer (D) appealed, claiming the federal statute was unconstitutional. Discussion. A state putting forth a claim must establish a locus standi for that purpose. Without interruption and continuously from the time of the Issue: injury to the making of an award been a national of the state making the For the exercise of judicial jurisdiction in personam, must there be due claim and must not have been a national of the state against whom the claim process? has been filed. International law 347 (8th Ed. 1955) Vol.1. Rule: FILARTIGA V PENA-IRALA for the exercise of judicial jurisdiction in personam, there must be due process Brief Fact Summary. A suit against Pena-Irala (D) on the premise that he had tortured to death the decedent of Filartiga (P), was filed by Filartiga (P). Analysis: The Court did not find the statute to be unconstitutional. Synopsis of Rule of Law. For purpose of the Allen Tort Statute, torture may Blackmer (D) alleged that there was inadequate notice. Since be considered to violate law of nations. Blackmer (D) retained his U.S. citizenship, he was still subject to U.S. acts. A suit claiming that Pena-Irala (D) had tortured Filartigas (P) decedent authorities. to death while he was a police Inspector General, was brought by Filartiga Outcome: (P). All parties were Paraguayan citizens. Jurisdiction was based on the Allen (Hughes, C.J.) Yes. For the exercise of judicial jurisdiction in personam, there Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. S 1350, which provided jurisdiction for tort committed must be due process. Due process requires appropriate notice of the judicial in violation of the law of nations. The case was dismissed by the district action and an opportunity to be heard. The statute provides that when the court for lack of jurisdiction to which Filartiga (P) appealed. presence of a citizen of the United States who resides abroad is required in court, a subpoena be issued addressed to a consul of the United States. The Issue. For purpose of the Allen Tort Statute, may torture be considered as a consul must serve the subpoena on the witness personally with a tender of violation of the law of nations? traveling expenses. Upon proof of such service and of the failure of the witness to appear, a court order may be issued. If the witness fails to comply Held. (Judge not stated in casebook excerpt). Yes. For purpose of the Allen with the court order, the court may adjudge the witness guilty of contempt. Tort Statute, torture may be considered to violate law of nations. The prohibition against torture has become part of customary international law. 3|Page PUBLIC INTL L AW- JURISDICTION OF S TAT E S Various United Nations declarations such as the Universal Declaration of State Secret Police (Gestapo) to form the Head Office for Reich Security Human Rights and the 1975 Declaration on the Protection of All Persons (RSHA), the Accused occupied the role of Special Officer of Zionist Affairs from Torture further portrays the fact that prohibition against torture has (para. 61). He was transferred to Vienna in 1938 to administer the Central become part of customary international law. Torture has been officially Office for the Emigration of Austrian Jews (para. 64). His success was such renounced in the vast majority of nations and this is the reason why this that approximately 150,000 Austrian Jews were forced to emigrate and he court concluded that torture violates the law of nations. was appointed head of the new Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Discussion. It is not new for many members of the United Nations to make October 1939 (para. 65). pronouncements and not be pronouncements into action. It is no secret that From the outbreak of the War to mid-1941, the Accused devised and carried torture is still widely practiced if not by a majority of countries then in a out the mass deportation of Jewish persons from his role as the Special significant manner. Actual practice, and not U.N. declarations have been Referent for Emigration and Evacuation within the RSHA (paras. 71-75) and argued by commentators as what constitute international law. explored the possibility of setting up a slave Jewish state in Madagascar (para. 76). ATTY GENERAL V EICHMANN In early 1942, the Accused was appointed the Referant of the RSHA in matters connected to the Final Solution (para. 88). In implementing the Final Summary Solution, the Accused received information as to the number of persons to The crimes perpetrated by the Nazis during Hitlers reign against Jewish be expelled (para. 90), organised the transfer of money from evacuated citizens were some of the worst recorded in history. Although accurate Jews for the disposal of the SS (para. 91), and oversaw the handling of the figures may never be known, it is estimated that some 6 million Jewish transport of Jews (para. 93), not only in the Reich but also in other countries individuals died men, women, and children from all over Europe. They (para. 98). In particular, he headed the Eichmann Special Operations Unit in were deported from their homes in large freight trains in appalling conditions, Hungary and did his utmost to carry out the Final Solution (para. 111). These others starved or froze to death, others still were taken away to "Transport Jews" were taken to concentration camps and those who were concentration camps where the fit were forced to perform manual labour unfit for hard labour were exterminated immediately (para. 145). whilst the weak were shot to death or later, gassed to death in their thousands. In autumn 1942, a cover up effort was begun as bodies in mass graves were The Accused, Adolf Eichmann, was an Austrian by birth who volunteered to burned in an effort to hide the slaughter (para. 148). The concentration work for the Security Service (SD) in Berlin. He rose through the ranks and camps were evacuated (para. 149) the Accused in particular was eventually occupied the position of Head of Section (Referant) for Jewish responsible for all administrative matters connected with the Terezin Ghetto Affairs charged with all matters related to the implementation of the Final (para. 152) and the camp at Bergen-Belsen (para. 153). Solution to the Jewish Question. In this capacity, he oversaw the transport and deportation of Jewish persons, set up and personally ran an operations Core legal questions centre in Hungary in order to implement the Final Solution there, organised the transfer of money from evacuated Jews to the State and was responsible Does the District Court of Jerusalem have jurisdiction to try the for the administration of the camps at Terezin and Bergen-Belsen. case in light of the fact that Eichmann is a foreign national and crimes He was captured by Israeli Security Forces in Argentina and handed over to were committed on foreign territory? the District Court of Jerusalem to stand trial for war crimes, crimes against In the affirmative, is jurisdiction negated by the abduction of the humanity and crimes against the Jewish people. He was convicted of all 15 Accused from a foreign country? counts and sentenced to death. He was unsuccessful in contesting the Is obeying superior orders a defence excluding criminal jurisdiction of the Court or defending his actions by relying on superior responsibility? orders. Specific legal rules and provisions Procedural history Section 19 of the Criminal Code Ordinance of 1936. In May 1960, the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, abducted Eichmann Sections 1(a)(1),(2),(3), 1(b) and 8 of the the Nazis and Nazi from his hiding place in Argentina and transferred him to Jerusalem to face Collaborators (Punishment) Law. an Israeli court. The trial commenced on 11 April 1961 with the indictment charging Court's holding and analysis Eichmann with 15 counts of crimes against the Jewish people, crimes against humanity, war crimes and membership in an organisation declared The Courts jurisdiction is founded upon it by the Nazis and Nazi criminal by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg 15 years earlier. Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950. This law does not violate the principles of international law (para. 10). Israels right to punish is founded on two elements. First, the universal character of the crimes in question, Related developments which are grave offences against the law of nations itself and, in the absence Eichmann appealed the decision of the District Court. The Supreme of an international court, grant jurisdiction to any domestic court (para. 12). Court dismissed his appeal on 29 May 1962. Second, the specific character of the crimes, which was the extermination of Eichmann was executed on 31 May 1962. the Jewish people, provides the necessary linking point between the Accused and the newly-founded State of Israel, a State established and Legally relevant facts recognised as the State of the Jews (para. 34). The crimes committed by the Prior to the outbreak of World War II, the Accused was a member of the Accused concern the vital interests of the State, thus it has a right to punish Austrian SS and later volunteered for a position with the Head Office of the the Accused pursuant to the protective principle (para. 35). Security Service (SD) in Berlin (para. 59). When the SD merged with the This jurisdiction is not negated by the manner in which the Accused was brought before the Court. It is an established rule of law that a person 4|Page PUBLIC INTL L AW- JURISDICTION OF S TAT E S standing trial for an offence against the laws of a State may not oppose his apprehended, and later indicted under the Destruction of Aircraft Act, 18 being tried by reason of the illegality of his arrest or the means by which he U.S.C. 32. He moved to dismiss on grounds of jurisdiction. was brought to the jurisdiction of the court (para. 41). This rule applies Issue equally in cases where the accused is relying on violations of international, May the federal government prosecute an airline hijacker even if the rather than domestic, law (para. 47). Such a violation of international law hijackings only connection with the United States was the presence of constitutes an international tort, which may be cured by waiver. In the several Americans on board the plane? present instance, the joint decision of the Governments of Argentina and Israel of 3 August 1960 cured the international tort committed by Israel Held when it entered Argentinian territory to abduct the Accused (para. 50). (Parker, J.) Yes. The federal government may prosecute an airline hijacker Having examined the command structure in place at the SS and the scope of even if the hijackings only connection with the United States was the the Accuseds authority, the Court concluded that the latter acted in presence of Americans on board the plane. There must be jurisdiction under both international and domestic law in order for jurisdiction to exist in the accordance with general directives from his superiors but he retained wide situation of this case. International law relates to the power of Congress to powers of discretion (para. 180). Under Section 8 of the Punishment Law, have extraterritorial application of its law; domestic law relates to its intent to the defence of superior orders (contained in Section 19(b) of the Criminal do so. International law recognizes several bases for a nation to give Code Ordinance of 1936) is not available in case of offences enumerated by extraterritorial application to its laws. One is the universal principle. Some the afore-mentioned Law but may be taken into account as a factor at acts are considered to be so heinous and contrary to civilization that any sentencing (para. 218). court may assert jurisdiction. The acts that fall within this category are mainly defined by international convention. The universal principle applies because numerous conventions condemn hijacking and hostage taking. The The Accused was convicted on all fifteen counts and sentenced to death passive personal principle is also relevant, which applies to offenses (para. 244). against a nations citizens abroad. The United States has been slow to recognize this principle, but it is now generally agreed upon. International law having been disposed of on this issue, domestic law must now be US V YUNIS discussed. The Hostage Taking Law, at subsection (b)(1)(A), clearly includes an offender that has seized or detained a U.S. citizen. The language could Facts not be plainer. With regard to the Destruction of Aircraft Act and the Federal Aviation Act, 18 U.S.C. 31, that the law was intended to apply only when In 1985, Fawaz Yunis (defendant) and four other men hijacked a Jordanian the aircraft in question either began or ended its flight in the United States. Airlines flight in Beirut, Lebanon with two American citizens on board. The Since the flight in question did not do this, the Act does not apply. Motion plane immediately took off and unsuccessfully attempted to fly to Tunis, denied in part; granted in part. where a conference of the Arab League was under way. Yunis and the others Discussion sought the removal of all Palestinians from Lebanon. Eventually, the plane There are three other existing bases for jurisdiction that are generally landed back in Beirut, the passengers were set free, and the hijackers held a accepted. These are territorial (jurisdiction over territory), national press conference reiterating their demands. The men then blew up the plane (jurisdiction over a person) and protective (jurisdiction necessary to protect a and fled from the airport. After an FBI investigation identified Yunis as the state.) Of the five generally recognized jurisdictional grounds, the passive likely leader of the hijackers, an arrest warrant was obtained and Operation personal principle has been met with the most resistance by U.S. courts and Goldenrod was put into motion to arrest Yunis. Undercover FBI agents lured officials. Yunis onto a yacht in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and arrested him once the craft entered international waters. Yunis was then transferred to a U.S. US V ALVAREZ- MACHAIN Navy munitions ship and interrogated for several days. Thereafter, Yunis was Brief Fact Summary. Alvarez-Machain (D) abducted from Mexico for trial in flown to Washington, D.C., and charged with conspiracy, aircraft piracy, and the U.S. (P) by Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents, contended that his hostage taking. Yunis was convicted and he appealed, claiming that the abduction was illegal because of an extradition treaty between the United district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to try States (P) and Mexico. him on the charges. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The presence of an extradition treaty between the United States and another country does not necessarily preclude obtaining a Brief Fact Summary citizen of that nation through abduction. Yunis (Defendant) argued that the Government (Plaintiff) could not prosecute him for a hijacking that he perpetrated when its only connection to the United Facts. Agents of the DEA abducted Alvarez-Machain (D) from his office in States was that several Americans were on board the plane. Mexico because he was wanted in the U.S. (P) for alleged complicity in the torture-murder of a DEA agent. But by contending that his abduction violated Synopsis of Rule of Law a U.S.-Mexico extradition treaty, Alvarez (D) sought to dismiss the The federal government may prosecute an airline hijacker even if the indictment. His prayer was granted by the district court and the indictment hijackings only connection with the United States was the presence of was dismissed. The court of appeals affirmed while the U.S. Supreme Court Americans on board the plane. granted review. Facts Issue. Does the presence of an extradition treaty between the United States Yunis (Defendant) and several accomplices hijacked a Jordanian airliner and another country does not necessarily preclude obtaining a citizen of that while it was on the ground in Beirut. The plane flew to several locations nation through abduction? around the Mediterranean Sea, and eventually flew back to Beirut, where the hijackers blew up the plane and then escaped into the hills. The only Held. (Rehnquist, C.J.) No. The presence of an extradition treaty between connection between the whole event and the United States was that several the United States and another country does not necessarily preclude Americans were on board the whole time. Yunis (Defendant) was indicted obtaining a citizen of that nation through abduction. It has been established for violating the Hostage Taking Act, 18 U.S.C. 1203. He was that abduction, in and of itself, does not invalidate prosecution against a foreign national. The only question to be answered is whether the abduction 5|Page PUBLIC INTL L AW- JURISDICTION OF S TAT E S violates any extradition treaty that may be in effect between the U.S. (P) and a fragrant violation of international law and a breach of the U.S. (P) treaty the nation in which the abductee was to be found. The international law obligations. applies only to situations where no extradition treaty exists, so it is irrelevant here. Since the extradition treaty does not prohibit an abduction as it Discussion. Alvarez (D) lost this battle but won the war. In 1993, he was occurred in this case, then it is not illegal. Reversed. tried in Los Angeles. The trial judge Edward Rafeedie dismissed the case for lack of evidence at the close of the prosecution case. The judge used some Dissent. (Stevens, J.). the majority opinion fails to distinguish between acts harsh language in his order, apparently believing the case should never have of private citizens, which do not violate any treaty obligations and conduct been brought. expressly authorized by the executive branch, which undoubtedly constitutes