Suchergebnisse

It is well settled in Anglo-American law that national courts are
competent, in general, to adjudicate rights and duties with respect to all
things or persons found within the territory which the process of the court
controls. Exceptions find an especial justification in considerations of
national or international convenience. A situation which seems to have been
insufficiently considered, however, is presented by the case of the thing or
person which has been seized or arrested abroad, in violation of
international law, and brought within the state and thus within reach of the
process of the state's courts. Should the courts be considered competent, on
the basis of physical presence thus procured, to adjudicate in the usual
way?

The course of the development and modification of exterritoriality in Siam is so little known that an account of it may not be without interest to students of international law.

Filmed from the original held by: Harvard Law School Library. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

While I agree with the action taken by the Court and consider that, in view of the unsatisfactory and contradictory provisions of the special agreement by which the parties have submitted this case to the Court, it is perhaps the only course by which the Court could, under its Statute, aid the parties in arriving at a wholly satisfactory solution of their dispute, nevertheless, in view of certain language used in the order, which might be the source of doubt as to the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court and might serve as a basis of argument that it is within the competence of this Court, with the consent of the parties, to take jurisdiction of and decide purely political questions upon considerations of expediency without regard to the legal rights of the parties, I feel it incumbent upon me to make the following observations:In my opinion the question of the competence of this Court which has been raised by the present case and a direct decision of which the Court has avoided, for the moment at least, by the making of the present order, is, from the point of view of the future of this Court and the development of the judicial settlement of international disputes, by far the most important question which has ever been brought before the Permanent Court of International Justice. I feel, therefore, that I would be derelict in my duty if I allowed the question to be passed over in silence or left any doubt as to my opinion in regard thereto.

Because of the deficiencies in her laws and judicial administration, China has for eighty years passively accepted the arrangement, sanctioned by
treaties, under which foreigners found within her territory are clothed with extraterritorial rights. The privileged status thus accorded to foreigners virtually established in that country an anomalous system of foreign jurisdictions.Now that the Chinese laws and judicial machinery are being improved in accordance with modern requirements, what was once a Chinese attitude of silent acquiescence toward the restriction of sovereignty has today become one of active and energetic protest against its further continuance.

The problem of jurisdiction is of even greater importance in international law than it is in the domain of municipal law. This may easily be understood because, up to the present, no international tribunal has been furnished with obligatory jurisdiction binding upon all States. In consequence, the judicial settlement of many international disputes depends upon the preliminary question whether any tribunal has jurisdiction over the case. Although since the foundation of the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague a tribunal invested with a very comprehensive jurisdiction exists, it is, nevertheless, significant that in many cases before the Permanent Court a plea to the jurisdiction has been raised with the obvious intention of preventing a legal decision on the merits.