N.
1 The power of a court to hear and decide a case or make a certain order. (For the limits of jurisdiction of individual courts, see entries for those courts.)
2 The territorial limits within which the jurisdiction of a court may be exercised. In the case of English courts this comprises England, Wales, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and those parts of the sea claimed as territorial waters. Everywhere else is said to be outside the jurisdiction.
3 The territorial scope of the legislative competence of Parliament. See sovereignty of Parliament.
In international law, jurisdiction can be exercised on a number of grounds, based on the following principles:(1) the territorial principle, i.e. that the state within whose boundaries the crime has taken place has jurisdiction, irrespective of the nationality of the transgressor (British Nylon Spinners Ltd v ICI [1952] Ch 19 (CA) 26);(2) the nationality principle, i.e. that a state has the power of jurisdiction over one of its nationals for an offence he has committed in another state (Joyce v DPP [1946] AC 347 (HL);(3) the protective principle, i.e. that a potentially injured state can exercise jurisdiction in all cases when its national security is threatened (US v Archer 51 F Supp 708 (1943);(4) the passive personality principle, i.e. that a state has jurisdiction if the illegal act has been committed against a national of that state (Achille Lauro incident of 1985);(5) the universality principle, i.e. that when the accused has committed a crime in breach of a rule of * jus cogens (such as a crime against humanity), any party having custody of the alleged lawbreaker is permitted to bring criminal proceedings against him (Filartiga v Pe͂na-Irala 630 F 2d 876, 890 (2d Cir 1980).
(1) the territorial principle, i.e. that the state within whose boundaries the crime has taken place has jurisdiction, irrespective of the nationality of the transgressor (British Nylon Spinners Ltd v ICI [1952] Ch 19 (CA) 26);
(2) the nationality principle, i.e. that a state has the power of jurisdiction over one of its nationals for an offence he has committed in another state (Joyce v DPP [1946] AC 347 (HL);
(3) the protective principle, i.e. that a potentially injured state can exercise jurisdiction in all cases when its national security is threatened (US v Archer 51 F Supp 708 (1943);
(4) the passive personality principle, i.e. that a state has jurisdiction if the illegal act has been committed against a national of that state (Achille Lauro incident of 1985);
(5) the universality principle, i.e. that when the accused has committed a crime in breach of a rule of * jus cogens (such as a crime against humanity), any party having custody of the alleged lawbreaker is permitted to bring criminal proceedings against him (Filartiga v Pe͂na-Irala 630 F 2d 876, 890 (2d Cir 1980).
