THE LOTUS CASE (France v Turkey):

Facts:
The French steamer Lotus collided with the Turkish cargo ship Bos-Kourt 5-6 naut
ical miles north of Cape Sigri (around the area between Greece and Turkey). The
Boz-Kourt was cut in two, causing it to sink, and leading to eight deaths. The L
otus tried to support the shipwrecked persons, leading to ten rescues, but ended
up continuing to Constantinople.
The officer on watch on board the Lotus was Monsieur Demons, a Frenchman, who wa
s tried by the Turkish Court for involuntary manslaughter (the Turkish captain w
as also tried, but this is irrelevant), and subsequently convicted. His lone def
ense was lack of jurisdiction, which the French government echoed on appeal, lea
ding to the case in the ICJ.
France's primary argument is that in a collision in the high seas, where no othe
r countries are involved except the flags of the ships involved, jurisdiction li
es in whose flag the errant vessel sails. The Turkish prosecution was improper b
ecause it was not in accord with principles of international law.
The Turkish base their jurisdiction on Art. 6 of their Penal Code, which allows
extraterritorial jurisdiction in cases such as these.
The issue then is not so much whether or not Art. 6 is in line with internationa
l law (which can't really change their local law), but merely on who has jurisdi
ction over the offense.
Applicable Law:
Art. 15 of the Convention of Lausanne, of which both states are parties. Questio
ns of jurisdiction are to be decided in accordance with the principles of intern
ational law.
France: Decide based on the evolution of the Convention. When the Turkish govern
ment adopted Art. 6 of their Penal Code, it was rejected by the British, while t
he French entered into a reservation with respect to it. Based on this, taking j
urisdiction over Demons is contrary to the intention behind Lausanne.
Court: No. It is general international law that applies. Treaties are generally
interpreted based on the ordinary meaning of words, hence when we speak of inter
national law, we refer to the general principles that all states adhere to. More
over, there was no explanation as to the French reservation-- unless alleged, on
e cannot know how the relations under the treaty may be modified. Weighing these
two, IL in the Lausanne Convention can only refer to GP/IL.
Basis of Turkish Jurisdiction and the Concept of Territoriality:
France:
law in
Turkey:
iple of

The Turkish courts must find some title to jurisdiction in international

favor of it in order to take jurisdiction.
Art. 15 alone can apply for as long as it does not conflict with a princ
international law.

- It is established that a state may generally exercise jurisdiction only within

its define territory. However, this rule in IL does not preclude the possibilit
y that a State can take jurisdiction over offenses committed outside its territo
ry. The only limitation is that such laws promulgated should not conflict with t
he limits set by international law.
- Presumption: Restrictions on the independence of States are not presumed. They
must be established.

- Hence, the question is whether or not there is support for the French contenti
on that Turkey's actions conflict with such limits.
Issue: Whether or not there is a source of law prohibiting Turkey from assuming
jurisdiction. NO. In fact, the sources of law show that there is concurrent juri
sdiction between Turkey and France. Turkey exercised jurisdiction FIRST, barring
France.
France's arguments are three-fold: (1) IL does not allow a State to take proceed
ings with regard to offenses committed by foreigners abroad merely because the v
ictims were their Nationals, (2) IL recognizes the exclusive jurisdiction of the
State whose flag is flown over all offenses on board ships on the high seas, an
d (3) any such principles derived are applicable to collision cases.
As to the first argument: No such law exists. What nations tend to do is that of
fenses, the authors of which are in the territory of another State, are regarded
as having been committed in the national territory for as long as one or more c
onstituent elements OR effects occur there. Both Courts have applied this princi
ple, and there have been no records of protests challenging this principle. Henc
e, with the offense committed on a French ship and the effects felt on a Turkish
ship, it seems Turkish cognizance was proper.
Even then, if Art. 6 were held incompatible if IL, it may still be possible to f
ind some other general principle that would allow the Turks to have jurisdiction
. Such an error with respect to applicable law is a municipal issue that does no
t extend to IL unless a treay provision enters into account, or when the possibi
lity of a denial of justice arises.
As for the argument that manslaughter cannot be localized at the point where mor
tal effect is felt: Manslaughter is punished precisely due to the effect. No sou
rce of IL has established a contrary rule.
As to the second argument: In these situations, it's established that the ships
are treated in the same position as national territory. Hence, when they clash a
nd collide, it can be treated as if there were a territorial dispute/overlap bet
ween the two States-- this is a corollary of the basic rule of freedom on the hi
gh seas. This implies that the state of the victim can take cognizance-- no rule
of IL prevents them.
The French rely on publicists, decisions, and conventions to prove that they sho
uld have exclusive jurisdiction. To start, there is no shortage of publicists th
at argue that in a case when offenses were committed on board a foreign ship on
the high seas, it can still be treated as if the offense was committed within th
at foreign territory. Next, precedent is actually lacking with respect to cases
in favor of France. Finally, most conventions do not refer to common law offense
s, which ought to be treated differently from matters such as slave trade, subma
rine sables, fisheries, etc.
As to the third argument: it appears that there may be state practice where the
foreign State would defer to the State of the offender, but again, there is no b
elief that they had a duty to defer/abstain. This means that a view pointing tow
ards jurisdiction on the hand of the offended State is not prohibited. Though th
ere are municipal cases that may bolster the French side, these are only part of
a rich body of jurisprudence that actually favors the Turkish.
Conclusion: They have concurrent jurisdiction; it's just that Turkey exercised i
t first, to the exclusion of France.