100%(3)100% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (3 suara)
6K tayangan2 halaman
S.s. "Lotus" collided with the boz-kourt, a Turkish collier, in 1926. Eight of its crew members were killed; The Lotus remained to assist the survivors. Turkish authorities placed Lieutenant Demons and captain Hassan Bey under arrest. At trial, Demons argued that the Turkish court lacked jurisdiction.
S.s. "Lotus" collided with the boz-kourt, a Turkish collier, in 1926. Eight of its crew members were killed; The Lotus remained to assist the survivors. Turkish authorities placed Lieutenant Demons and captain Hassan Bey under arrest. At trial, Demons argued that the Turkish court lacked jurisdiction.
Hak Cipta:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai DOC, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
S.s. "Lotus" collided with the boz-kourt, a Turkish collier, in 1926. Eight of its crew members were killed; The Lotus remained to assist the survivors. Turkish authorities placed Lieutenant Demons and captain Hassan Bey under arrest. At trial, Demons argued that the Turkish court lacked jurisdiction.
Hak Cipta:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai DOC, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
“Lotus” France v. Turkey 1927 P.C.I.J. (Ser. A) No. 10 (Sept. 7)
On August 2, 1926, the S.S. Lotus, a French steamship, collided on the
high seas with the Boz-Kourt, a Turkish collier. The Boz-Kourt split in two and sank, and eight of its crew members were killed. The Lotus remained to assist the survivors of the Boz-Kourt, including its captain, Hassan Bey, and then continued with the survivors to Constantinople. Turkish authorities subsequently requested that Lieutenant Demons, the officer of the watch on board the Lotus when the collision occurred, come ashore to give evidence. At the conclusion of the questioning, Turkish authorities placed Demons and Hassan Bey under arrest pending trial on charges of manslaughter. At trial, Demons argued that the Turkish court lacked jurisdiction, but the court convicted both Demons and Hassan Bey, sentencing each to a term of imprisonment. The French government protested the arrest and the conviction and requested that the case be transferred to a French court. Turkey proposed, and France agreed, to pose the following question to the PCIJ: “(1) Has Turkey . . . acted in conflict with the principles of international law—and if so, what principles—by instituting . . . criminal proceedings in pursuance of Turkish law against M. Demons . . .?”
The French government invoked the 1923 Convention of Lausanne in
arguing against Turkish jurisdiction. Article 15 of the Convention indicated that “all questions of jurisdiction shall, as between Turkey and the other contracting Powers, be decided in accordance with the principles of international law.” France maintained that such principles precluded criminal jurisdiction in this case. The Court, somewhat significantly, condensed the positions of the parties in the following way:
The French Government contends that the Turkish Courts, in order
to have jurisdiction, should be able to point to some title to jurisdiction recognized by international law in favor of Turkey. On the other hand, the Turkish Government takes the view that Article 15 allows Turkey jurisdiction whenever such jurisdiction does not come into conflict with a principle of international law.
Having thus framed the question as one inquiring whether international
law is essentially permissive or prohibitive, the Court then issued its famous dictum:
International law governs relations between independent States.
The rules of law binding upon States therefore emanate from their own free will as expressed in conventions or by usages generally accepted as expressing principles of law and established in order to regulate the relations between these co-existing independent communities or with a view to the achievement of common aims. Restrictions upon the independence of States cannot therefore be presumed. The Court ultimately ruled, in a six-six split with President Huber casting the deciding vote, that trying Demons was not an exercise of power on the territory of another State, that the Court could deduce no rule or principle of international law preventing Turkey from exercising jurisdiction, and that under the circumstances France and Turkey had concurrent jurisdiction.