Universality Principle | Basis of Jurisdiction | Jurisdiction of States | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Universality Principle of Jurisdiction in Public International Law

The universality principle is one of the recognized bases for the exercise of jurisdiction by states in Public International Law. It allows a state to claim criminal jurisdiction over an individual regardless of where the crime was committed, the nationality of the perpetrator, or the nationality of the victims. Under this principle, certain offenses are so serious that they affect the international community as a whole, and as such, any state is permitted to prosecute the offenders.

Key Features of the Universality Principle:

1. Jurisdiction Without Territorial or National Connection: Unlike other bases for jurisdiction (such as territoriality, nationality, or protective principles), the universality principle does not require a nexus between the state asserting jurisdiction and the offense, offender, or victim. A state can exercise jurisdiction over an offense even if it occurred entirely outside its territory, did not involve its nationals, and did not directly affect its interests.

2. Crimes Covered: The universality principle generally applies to offenses that are considered heinous by the international community and that pose a threat to global peace and order. The most commonly recognized crimes subject to universal jurisdiction include:

   • Genocide: The intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
   • War Crimes: Serious violations of the laws and customs of war, including the mistreatment of civilians and prisoners of war.
   • Crimes Against Humanity: Widespread or systematic attacks directed against civilian populations, including murder, enslavement, torture, and other inhumane acts.
   • Piracy: Historically the first crime to be universally condemned, piracy on the high seas is a classic example of a crime subject to universal jurisdiction.
   • Terrorism: Although there is still debate over its precise definition and scope, many states assert universal jurisdiction over acts of terrorism.
   • Torture: Under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, states are obligated to prosecute or extradite individuals accused of torture, regardless of where the crime was committed.

3. Legal Foundations in International Law:

   • The Geneva Conventions (1949) establish universal jurisdiction over grave breaches of the laws of war.
   • The United Nations Convention Against Torture (1984) obligates signatory states to take measures against torture, including prosecuting individuals under universal jurisdiction.
   • Customary International Law also plays a significant role in the application of the universality principle. Certain crimes, such as piracy and genocide, are universally recognized under customary international law as subject to universal jurisdiction.
   • International Criminal Court (ICC): While the ICC is a treaty-based institution, it has jurisdiction over some of the most serious crimes of international concern, often based on the principle that these crimes affect the international community as a whole.

4. Obligations of States: Universal jurisdiction often comes with the duty of the state to either prosecute or extradite offenders (known as the principle of aut dedere aut judicare). This means that if a state finds an individual suspected of committing one of the listed international crimes, it must either prosecute the individual under its own laws or extradite them to another state that is willing to do so.

5. Challenges and Controversies:

   • Political Manipulation: Some critics argue that the universality principle could be misused for political purposes, allowing states to pursue political enemies under the guise of prosecuting serious crimes.
   • Sovereignty Issues: Universal jurisdiction can sometimes clash with state sovereignty, particularly when a state seeks to prosecute officials or military personnel from another state without that state's consent.
   • Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Despite the principle of universal jurisdiction, there are often practical difficulties in apprehending and prosecuting individuals who have committed these crimes, especially if they are located in a state that is unwilling or unable to cooperate.
   • Immunities of State Officials: High-ranking state officials, such as heads of state, are often protected by immunity from prosecution in foreign courts. This can create a barrier to the effective exercise of universal jurisdiction in certain cases.

Philippine Context:

In the Philippines, the principle of universal jurisdiction is acknowledged in the country's legal framework, particularly in relation to serious international crimes. As a signatory to various international treaties, the Philippines has undertaken obligations to either prosecute or extradite individuals who have committed certain crimes under universal jurisdiction.

1. Republic Act No. 9851: The Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity (RA 9851) is a key legislative act that affirms the Philippines’ commitment to international law. It provides for universal jurisdiction over individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This law mandates Philippine courts to assert jurisdiction over these crimes regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims.

2. Implementation of International Treaties: The Philippines has ratified important international conventions that contain universal jurisdiction provisions, such as the Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (until its withdrawal in 2019). These treaties have been incorporated into domestic law, obligating the Philippines to apply universal jurisdiction principles when necessary.

3. Extradition: The Philippines has bilateral and multilateral extradition agreements with various countries, allowing it to surrender individuals accused of crimes subject to universal jurisdiction. Extradition laws in the country, particularly Presidential Decree No. 1069 (the Philippine Extradition Law), allow for the transfer of offenders to foreign jurisdictions that may be more capable of prosecuting them under the universality principle.

Conclusion:

The universality principle in Public International Law plays a crucial role in ensuring that the most serious crimes affecting the international community do not go unpunished, even if committed in areas beyond the reach of any single state's normal jurisdiction. It empowers all states to act as guardians of global justice, holding perpetrators accountable when other states are unwilling or unable to prosecute. In the Philippine legal context, this principle is enshrined in domestic laws that reflect the country’s commitment to international legal standards and its responsibility to combat impunity for heinous crimes. Despite its challenges, the universality principle remains a fundamental tool in the fight against impunity for crimes that threaten the fabric of the international legal order.

Passive Personality Principle | Basis of Jurisdiction | Jurisdiction of States | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Passive Personality Principle in Public International Law: Basis of Jurisdiction

The Passive Personality Principle is one of the recognized bases for a state’s jurisdiction in international law. It allows a state to claim jurisdiction to try a foreign national for offenses committed abroad when the victim of the offense is a national of the state asserting jurisdiction.

Definition

The Passive Personality Principle permits a state to exercise jurisdiction over foreign nationals who commit crimes outside its territory, provided that the victim of the crime is a national of the state asserting jurisdiction. This principle is primarily concerned with protecting nationals of a state from harm abroad, regardless of where the offense was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator.

Legal Basis

In public international law, states traditionally exercise jurisdiction based on five key principles:

1. Territoriality Principle: Jurisdiction based on where the offense occurs.
2. Nationality Principle: Jurisdiction over crimes committed by nationals, regardless of where the offense occurs.
3. Protective Principle: Jurisdiction over acts that threaten the state's security or integrity.
4. Universal Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over certain heinous crimes, such as genocide or piracy, regardless of where they occur or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims.
5. Passive Personality Principle: Jurisdiction based on the nationality of the victim.

The Passive Personality Principle is controversial in comparison to the other principles. It was historically criticized as being an overreach of state power, as it extends a state's jurisdiction beyond its borders and potentially interferes with the sovereignty of the state where the crime was committed. Despite this, it has gained more acceptance over time, particularly with the rise of transnational crimes such as terrorism, trafficking, and cybercrime.

Application in International Jurisprudence

The principle has been applied and accepted by a number of states, particularly in cases involving serious offenses where national interests are affected. However, international law requires that the application of this principle must respect the sovereignty of other states and follow the general norms of international law, especially in cases where multiple jurisdictions may be involved.

Some significant cases involving the application of the Passive Personality Principle include:

• United States v. Yunis (1988): A Lebanese national hijacked a Jordanian airliner carrying U.S. citizens. The U.S. court asserted jurisdiction under the passive personality principle since U.S. nationals were victims.
• Lotus Case (France v. Turkey, PCIJ, 1927): Although not directly a passive personality case, this case addressed issues of extraterritorial jurisdiction, illustrating how such principles were viewed at the time.

Modern Development and Acceptance

The application of the Passive Personality Principle has evolved over time and is increasingly invoked in response to the global nature of crime, particularly in relation to terrorism, cybercrimes, and crimes against humanity. International treaties and conventions, such as the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, endorse the application of passive personality jurisdiction for certain offenses.

• Terrorism: States, particularly those frequently affected by terrorism, have invoked the Passive Personality Principle to prosecute terrorists who have harmed their nationals abroad.

• Cybercrimes: With the borderless nature of cyber offenses, some states assert jurisdiction over foreign nationals committing cybercrimes against their citizens or businesses, even when these crimes occur outside their territory.

• Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation: Some states have expanded their jurisdiction over crimes involving the trafficking or sexual exploitation of their nationals abroad, especially when their citizens are victims in countries with weak legal frameworks.

Limitations and Controversies

The Passive Personality Principle is not universally accepted, and its exercise must conform to the following limitations and conditions:

1. Dual Criminality: The conduct in question must be criminal in both the state asserting jurisdiction and the state where the offense occurred.
2. Sovereignty of Other States: The application of this principle must not encroach on the sovereignty of other states. Mutual respect for state sovereignty is a core principle of international law.
3. International Comity: When multiple jurisdictions assert authority over the same offense, states must exercise their jurisdiction with restraint and in a manner that respects international comity to avoid diplomatic friction.

Critics argue that the Passive Personality Principle could result in unjust results, particularly where laws in the state asserting jurisdiction differ substantially from those in the state where the crime occurred. Furthermore, it may lead to excessive extraterritorial overreach and jurisdictional conflicts.

Philippine Context and Jurisprudence

In the Philippines, the Passive Personality Principle is reflected in certain provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and other special laws that extend jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad against Filipino nationals.

• Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code: The Philippines asserts jurisdiction over offenses committed outside its territory under limited circumstances, including those affecting national security, public interest, or where Filipino citizens are involved as either offenders or victims. This is a form of passive personality jurisdiction.

• Republic Act No. 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007) and Republic Act No. 11479 (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020): These laws extend the Philippines' jurisdiction to offenses committed abroad if they involve Filipino nationals as victims, reflecting a broader acceptance of passive personality jurisdiction, particularly in the context of transnational terrorism.

• Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175): Section 21 extends jurisdiction over cybercrimes committed abroad if the victim is a Filipino national, again invoking the Passive Personality Principle.

Conclusion

The Passive Personality Principle in public international law enables states to extend their jurisdiction beyond their borders to protect their nationals. While it is not universally accepted and remains contentious due to its potential extraterritorial reach, it has gained traction in modern jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving terrorism, cybercrime, and human trafficking. The principle is grounded in the desire of states to protect their citizens from harm, even when that harm occurs abroad, while remaining mindful of the need to respect the sovereignty and legal systems of other nations.

In the Philippine legal framework, the Passive Personality Principle is reflected in the Revised Penal Code and various special laws, affirming the country’s commitment to protecting its nationals from crimes committed abroad.

Basis of Jurisdiction | Jurisdiction of States | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Basis of Jurisdiction of States under Public International Law

In public international law, jurisdiction refers to the authority of a state to regulate conduct or enforce laws. This authority can extend to persons, property, and events, regardless of whether they are located within or outside the state's territory. The basis of state jurisdiction under public international law is grounded in several principles. The exercise of jurisdiction must conform to customary international law, treaty obligations, and general principles of law to avoid infringing upon the sovereignty of other states.

Here is an exhaustive exploration of the basis of jurisdiction of states:

---

I. Principles of Jurisdiction

There are five principal bases of jurisdiction in international law:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Nationality or Active Personality Jurisdiction
3. Passive Personality Jurisdiction
4. Protective Principle
5. Universality Principle

---

1. Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction is the most common and accepted form of jurisdiction. It refers to the authority of a state to regulate conduct within its own borders.

• Subjective Territoriality: A state may exercise jurisdiction over acts that occur within its territory. For instance, if a crime is committed within the borders of a state, that state has the right to prosecute the individual responsible.

• Objective Territoriality: A state may exercise jurisdiction over acts that take place outside its borders but have substantial effects within the state's territory. This is also known as the effects doctrine. An example is the regulation of cross-border criminal activities like cybercrime or terrorism, where actions outside the state have direct consequences within the state.

Case Example:
The Lotus Case (France v. Turkey, PCIJ 1927) established the principle that a state could exercise jurisdiction based on objective territoriality. In this case, the Permanent Court of International Justice held that Turkey could assert jurisdiction over a collision at sea, even though the collision occurred on the high seas and involved a French ship, because the effects of the incident occurred within Turkey’s territorial waters.

---

2. Nationality or Active Personality Jurisdiction

Under the principle of nationality, a state has the authority to regulate the conduct of its nationals anywhere in the world. This jurisdiction is based on the connection between the individual and the state, derived from the person’s citizenship.

• Active Personality: This refers to jurisdiction over nationals regardless of where the offense is committed. A state may prosecute its citizens for crimes committed abroad, provided the state has a legal framework that permits extraterritorial jurisdiction based on nationality.

Example:
The Philippines exercises nationality-based jurisdiction under the Philippine Passport Act (RA 8239), which allows prosecution of Filipinos for offenses committed abroad if such actions are punishable under both Philippine laws and the laws of the host country.

---

3. Passive Personality Jurisdiction

The passive personality principle allows a state to claim jurisdiction to prosecute foreign nationals who commit offenses against its citizens, even if the act occurred outside the state's territory. While controversial and less widely accepted than other principles, it is gaining recognition, particularly in cases involving terrorism, human trafficking, or other transnational crimes.

This principle is typically invoked to protect citizens abroad who are victims of crimes committed by non-nationals.

Case Example:
The U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act provides for jurisdiction based on the passive personality principle, allowing the U.S. to prosecute terrorists who harm U.S. citizens abroad, even if the criminal act occurs outside U.S. territory and involves non-U.S. nationals.

---

4. Protective Principle

The protective principle allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over foreign nationals who commit acts abroad that threaten the state's security or vital interests. This principle is invoked when offenses, even if committed outside the state’s borders, pose a direct threat to national security, state functions, or governmental institutions.

The protective principle is generally applied to cases involving espionage, counterfeiting, or acts that undermine the integrity of state institutions.

Example:
Many states, including the Philippines, apply this principle in cases of currency counterfeiting, where foreign nationals may be prosecuted for counterfeiting the national currency, even if the act occurred outside the state's borders.

---

5. Universality Principle

The universality principle asserts that certain crimes are so heinous that any state may assert jurisdiction over the offenders, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim, or where the crime was committed. This principle is primarily applied to offenses that are considered jus cogens violations, or crimes under international law that are recognized as universally reprehensible.

Such crimes include:

• Genocide
• War Crimes
• Crimes Against Humanity
• Piracy
• Terrorism
• Slavery and Human Trafficking

Under the universality principle, any state can prosecute offenders of these crimes, regardless of any direct connection to the state (e.g., the nationality of the offender or victim, or the location of the offense).

Example:
The prosecution of Adolf Eichmann by Israel in 1961 is a well-known example of the universality principle. Although Eichmann committed crimes against humanity in Germany during World War II, Israel exercised jurisdiction based on the universal nature of the crimes.

---

Limitations on Jurisdiction

The exercise of jurisdiction by states is not unlimited. It must comply with certain constraints under international law, to avoid conflicts with the sovereignty of other states and prevent abuse of power. The following factors limit or condition a state’s exercise of jurisdiction:

1. Respect for Sovereign Equality: The principle of sovereign equality underpins international law. A state must not exercise its jurisdiction in a way that violates the sovereignty of another state. This is particularly relevant in the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction, which can create tensions between states.

2. Non-Intervention Principle: A state is prohibited from intervening in the domestic affairs of another state. Jurisdictional claims must respect the sovereignty of other states, and the exercise of jurisdiction must not encroach upon the authority of other states over their own territories or citizens.

3. Treaty Obligations: States may be bound by treaty provisions that limit or regulate their exercise of jurisdiction. For example, treaties governing extradition, mutual legal assistance, or the handling of transnational crimes may place procedural or substantive restrictions on jurisdictional claims.

---

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Enforcement

While a state may assert jurisdiction extraterritorially under any of the principles outlined above, enforcement of jurisdiction outside its own borders requires cooperation with other states. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is subject to:

1. Extradition Treaties: States may need to rely on extradition agreements to bring suspects to trial. Without such treaties, states cannot compel foreign authorities to surrender individuals within their jurisdiction.

2. Mutual Legal Assistance: States may enter into agreements for mutual legal assistance (MLA) to gather evidence, obtain testimony, or enforce judgments in cases involving cross-border crimes.

3. Diplomatic Channels: Diplomatic negotiations may be necessary in cases where a state seeks to assert jurisdiction extraterritorially, especially when no formal agreements exist.

---

Conclusion

The jurisdiction of states in public international law is a balance between safeguarding sovereignty, maintaining international peace, and ensuring accountability for criminal acts. The principles of territoriality, nationality, passive personality, protective measures, and universality all provide distinct bases for jurisdiction. However, their exercise must respect the constraints of international law and the sovereignty of other states. The evolution of transnational crimes and international cooperation mechanisms, such as extradition and mutual legal assistance, continues to shape the application of these jurisdictional principles.

Territoriality Principle | Basis of Jurisdiction | Jurisdiction of States | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Territoriality Principle: Basis of Jurisdiction in Public International Law

The territoriality principle is one of the most fundamental bases for a state's jurisdiction under Public International Law. It is premised on the notion that a state has exclusive authority to regulate conduct within its own geographical boundaries. The principle affirms the right of a state to apply its laws to persons, property, and events within its territory, underscoring the sovereign nature of a state's power over its domain.

1. Definition and Nature of Territoriality Principle

The territoriality principle is a concept in international law that grants states the authority to regulate matters occurring within their territorial boundaries. The essence of this principle is that a state exercises its sovereign rights over its territory, including jurisdiction over individuals (whether nationals or foreigners), events, and property within that territory.

Jurisdiction, under the territoriality principle, encompasses:

• Legislative Jurisdiction: The power of a state to create laws applicable within its territory.
• Executive Jurisdiction: The ability to enforce laws and decisions through administrative and policing actions.
• Judicial Jurisdiction: The competence of courts within a state to try cases related to acts committed within its territory.

2. The Scope of Territorial Jurisdiction

The territoriality principle generally operates in two distinct forms:

• Subjective Territoriality: This applies when an offense or act begins within the territory of a state, giving that state the right to regulate the act or enforce jurisdiction. It is based on the idea that a state has the authority to punish offenses that commence within its borders, even if they produce effects elsewhere.

• Objective Territoriality: This principle extends to acts that produce substantial effects within the territory of a state, even if the act was initiated outside that state’s territory. The objective territoriality principle allows a state to claim jurisdiction over offenses that have a significant impact or consequences within its boundaries.

3. Basis for the Territoriality Principle

The basis for the territoriality principle is deeply rooted in the sovereignty of states under the doctrine of sovereign equality in international law. Each state has the inherent right to regulate the affairs within its borders without interference from other states. The United Nations Charter and customary international law uphold the principle of non-interference, reinforcing the importance of territorial jurisdiction as a manifestation of state sovereignty.

Customary International Law

The principle of territoriality is considered a customary international law norm, which has evolved over time through state practice and legal precedents. Many international cases and treaties reflect this principle, affirming that states have the primary right to apply their laws within their borders.

United Nations Charter

Article 2(1) of the UN Charter emphasizes the sovereignty of states, indirectly affirming the territoriality principle by prohibiting interventions in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states.

4. Limits and Exceptions to the Territoriality Principle

While the territoriality principle grants a state the primary right to exercise jurisdiction within its territory, international law recognizes certain limitations and exceptions that balance the interests of states and uphold broader international norms.

• Diplomatic Immunity: Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), accredited foreign diplomats enjoy immunity from the host state's jurisdiction, even while physically present in the host state's territory. This immunity is a deviation from the territoriality principle, grounded in the need to ensure functional and peaceful diplomatic relations.

• Consular Immunity: Consuls and other consular staff, as provided in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), also enjoy a degree of immunity from local jurisdiction, although to a lesser extent than diplomats.

• Foreign Military Forces: Foreign troops stationed in another state, under a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) or as part of international peacekeeping missions, are usually exempt from the host state's jurisdiction. These arrangements often rely on agreements that establish the scope of jurisdiction over foreign military personnel.

• Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Certain states exercise jurisdiction beyond their borders under limited circumstances, based on other principles of jurisdiction (such as nationality or the protective principle). While territoriality remains primary, extraterritorial assertions of jurisdiction exist in fields such as international criminal law and human rights.

5. Overlap with Other Principles of Jurisdiction

The territoriality principle may intersect with other bases of jurisdiction, including:

• Nationality Principle: A state may assert jurisdiction over its nationals regardless of where the act occurs. This is distinct from territoriality but can overlap in cases where both nationality and territoriality provide grounds for jurisdiction.

• Protective Principle: This allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over acts that threaten its national security or essential interests, even if these acts occur outside its territory.

• Universality Principle: In certain cases involving crimes of international concern (e.g., piracy, genocide), states may assert jurisdiction regardless of the location of the offense or the nationality of the offender. This principle transcends territoriality in matters of universal jurisdiction.

6. Territoriality and International Criminal Law

The territoriality principle is particularly significant in international criminal law. The International Criminal Court (ICC) and other international tribunals rely on territorial jurisdiction to try individuals for crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, when these acts occur within the territory of state parties to the Rome Statute or under the ICC's referral mechanism.

7. Case Law Examples

Several international cases highlight the application of the territoriality principle:

• Lotus Case (France v. Turkey, PCIJ 1927): The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) dealt with a collision between a French and a Turkish vessel on the high seas. The court affirmed that states have the freedom to exercise criminal jurisdiction over acts committed abroad, provided that the effects of those acts are felt within the state asserting jurisdiction. This case supports the notion of objective territoriality.

• SS "Wimbledon" Case (1923): This case before the PCIJ confirmed the importance of territorial sovereignty, asserting that a state's territorial jurisdiction could be limited only by express international agreements.

8. Conclusion

The territoriality principle remains one of the most fundamental and universally accepted bases of jurisdiction in Public International Law. It emphasizes the sovereignty of states and their exclusive right to regulate and enforce laws within their territorial borders. However, in the interest of maintaining international order and cooperation, limitations such as diplomatic immunity, extraterritorial jurisdiction, and exceptions for international crimes exist. These exceptions ensure that while states have the right to territorial sovereignty, they must also comply with their obligations under international law and respect the rights and interests of other states.

Nationality Principle and Statelessness | Basis of Jurisdiction | Jurisdiction of States | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Nationality Principle and Statelessness in Public International Law

The nationality principle and the concept of statelessness are key components in understanding the jurisdiction of states under public international law. These principles determine the rights, duties, and legal obligations of individuals in relation to the state, as well as the scope of a state’s authority over its citizens and, in the case of stateless persons, over individuals with no formal nationality.

---

1. Nationality Principle

The nationality principle is one of the fundamental bases of state jurisdiction, which allows a state to exercise authority over individuals based on their nationality. It is rooted in the notion that individuals owe allegiance to their state of nationality, and in turn, the state has the right to regulate the conduct of its nationals, even beyond its territorial borders.

A. Definition of Nationality

• Nationality is the legal bond that links an individual to a state, which confers upon that person rights and duties under the laws of the state. It is an essential element of an individual's legal identity and determines the state to which the person owes allegiance.
• Nationality is distinct from citizenship, though the terms are often used interchangeably. In some legal contexts, citizenship refers specifically to the individual's enjoyment of full political rights within the state (e.g., the right to vote).

B. State's Jurisdiction Over Nationals

• Under the nationality principle, a state may exercise jurisdiction over its nationals even when they are abroad. This extraterritorial jurisdiction allows states to regulate the activities and behavior of their citizens outside of the state's borders.
• For example, a state can legislate to criminalize certain actions committed by its nationals abroad (e.g., sex trafficking, terrorism), and such laws will apply to nationals regardless of where the crime was committed. The Philippine Revised Penal Code contains such provisions, particularly under Article 2, which provides for extraterritorial application of the Code under certain circumstances.

C. Active and Passive Nationality Principle

There are two types of nationality principles that govern extraterritorial jurisdiction:

1. Active Nationality Principle

   • The active nationality principle gives a state jurisdiction over crimes committed by its nationals, irrespective of where the crime was committed.
   • This principle is widely accepted under international law. For instance, a Filipino citizen committing a crime abroad can be prosecuted in the Philippines under the active nationality principle.

2. Passive Nationality Principle

   • Under the passive nationality principle, a state may assert jurisdiction over crimes committed against its nationals by foreign individuals.
   • This principle is more controversial and is accepted with certain limitations in international law. For instance, if a Filipino national is harmed abroad, the Philippine government may seek to prosecute the foreign perpetrator under this principle.

D. Dual Nationality and Multiple Nationalities

• Some individuals may hold dual or multiple nationalities, meaning they are nationals of more than one state. In such cases, the question arises as to which state has the primary claim to jurisdiction over the individual.
• International law provides that states can recognize dual nationality, but conflicts of jurisdiction can arise when multiple states seek to exercise authority over the same individual.
• States resolve these issues through bilateral or multilateral agreements, as well as through the principle of effective nationality, which prioritizes the individual's genuine connection to one state over another.

---

2. Statelessness

Statelessness refers to the condition of individuals who do not have nationality or citizenship in any country. A stateless person is defined under Article 1 of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons as a person "who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law."

A. Causes of Statelessness

Statelessness can arise due to various factors, including:

• Conflicts of laws: Different nationality laws of states may create situations where an individual is not considered a national by any state.
• Denationalization: States may revoke an individual's nationality, rendering them stateless. This can happen as a result of political persecution or discriminatory policies.
• Failure to register at birth: Individuals born in certain jurisdictions may fail to acquire nationality if their births are not registered.
• State succession: When new states are formed (e.g., after a region gains independence), some individuals may become stateless if their nationality is not recognized by the new state or if they lose nationality from the previous state.
• Discrimination: In some cases, nationality laws discriminate against certain groups (e.g., based on ethnicity, gender, or religion), leading to statelessness.

B. International Protection of Stateless Persons

• 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons: This Convention establishes the international legal framework for the protection of stateless individuals, providing them with a legal status and ensuring their basic human rights, similar to the protection given to refugees.
• 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness: This Convention aims to prevent statelessness by establishing rules that govern the acquisition and loss of nationality. It obligates states to ensure that individuals are not rendered stateless by the operation of national laws.
• Human Rights Obligations: International human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), recognize the right of every person to a nationality. Article 15 of the UDHR states, "Everyone has the right to a nationality," and that "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."

C. Consequences of Statelessness

• Lack of legal protection: Stateless persons often face significant challenges in accessing legal protection and basic human rights. Without nationality, they may have difficulty obtaining identification documents, education, healthcare, employment, and travel rights.
• Detention and Deportation: Stateless persons are at greater risk of arbitrary detention and deportation since they may not have a country to which they can legally be deported.
• Social and economic marginalization: Stateless individuals frequently face exclusion and marginalization, as they may be unable to participate fully in society without legal recognition by any state.

D. Philippine Law on Statelessness

• Philippine Citizenship Laws: Under Philippine law, nationality is generally acquired through jus sanguinis (right of blood), meaning individuals are Filipino citizens if they are born to Filipino parents, regardless of where they are born. The Philippines does not apply jus soli (right of soil), under which nationality is based on the place of birth.
• The Philippine Constitution provides for the rights of Filipino citizens, but it does not have specific provisions dealing with stateless persons. However, as a signatory to international treaties on statelessness, the Philippines has obligations under international law to protect stateless individuals within its territory.

---

3. Resolution of Statelessness and Nationality Disputes

A. Naturalization as a Remedy for Statelessness

Naturalization is one of the primary legal avenues for stateless individuals to acquire nationality. Countries, including the Philippines, have naturalization laws that allow foreigners, including stateless persons, to apply for citizenship under certain conditions.

B. International Cooperation

States cooperate through international organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which plays a crucial role in identifying stateless individuals, protecting their rights, and advocating for their inclusion in nationality systems.

C. Role of Courts in Addressing Statelessness

Courts, both domestic and international, play a significant role in adjudicating nationality disputes. In the Philippines, courts have decided cases on the issue of citizenship, especially in the context of individuals who are stateless or in danger of becoming stateless. The judiciary may also enforce the provisions of international treaties to which the Philippines is a party, ensuring that stateless persons receive appropriate protection.

---

Conclusion

The nationality principle and the issue of statelessness reflect the intricate relationship between individuals and states in public international law. Nationality provides a legal bond between the individual and the state, empowering states to exercise jurisdiction over their nationals. Statelessness, on the other hand, presents complex legal challenges as stateless individuals lack the legal protection typically conferred by nationality. International law, through conventions and human rights principles, seeks to address these challenges by ensuring that stateless individuals are afforded protection and that states work toward reducing statelessness across the globe.

Protective Principle | Basis of Jurisdiction | Jurisdiction of States | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Protective Principle in Public International Law

The protective principle is a well-established doctrine under public international law that allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over conduct that occurs outside its territory when such conduct threatens the state's security, vital governmental functions, or sovereignty. It is an exception to the general principle of territorial jurisdiction, which holds that a state primarily exercises authority within its own borders. The protective principle is considered a form of extraterritorial jurisdiction and is grounded in the legitimate interest of a state to defend its core interests.

This principle recognizes that certain offenses, though committed outside a state's borders, may directly endanger its essential interests. Thus, a state is justified in protecting itself by asserting jurisdiction over individuals who engage in acts that could undermine its integrity or sovereignty.

Key Elements of the Protective Principle

1. Offense Must Threaten Vital National Interests:

   • The protective principle applies to offenses that threaten the vital interests of a state. These offenses usually involve matters of national security or governmental integrity. Common examples include:
     • Espionage
     • Counterfeiting of the state's currency or official documents
     • Terrorism or acts that incite insurrection
     • Smuggling of weapons or illegal drugs with a direct link to national security
   • The key requirement is that the conduct must present a clear threat to the safety, stability, or essential functions of the state, even if such conduct takes place entirely outside the state's territory.

2. Extraterritorial Conduct:

   • Jurisdiction under the protective principle is exercised over conduct that occurs outside the territory of the state claiming jurisdiction. This sets the protective principle apart from the territorial principle, which focuses on crimes committed within a state's borders.

3. Non-Nationals and Non-Residents:

   • The protective principle can be applied to both nationals and non-nationals. A state may assert jurisdiction over foreign nationals if their conduct abroad threatens the state's essential interests. This distinguishes the protective principle from the nationality principle, which gives states jurisdiction over their nationals regardless of where the offense occurs.

4. Potential for Abuse:

   • Because the protective principle involves extraterritorial jurisdiction and can be applied to foreign nationals, there is potential for abuse. States must carefully balance their legitimate interests in protecting national security with the need to respect the sovereignty of other states. Excessive or arbitrary use of the protective principle could lead to diplomatic tensions or conflicts with other nations.

Application in Practice

In practice, states invoke the protective principle in cases where their critical interests are at risk. The principle has been used in situations involving international terrorism, espionage, and other crimes that pose a direct threat to the security of the state. Several legal systems and international conventions acknowledge the legitimacy of the protective principle in specific circumstances.

Examples of State Practice

• United States: U.S. courts have consistently recognized the protective principle as a valid basis for asserting jurisdiction over certain extraterritorial acts. For example, the U.S. has exercised jurisdiction over cases involving the forgery of U.S. currency or attacks on U.S. embassies abroad, based on the protective principle.

• Philippines: The protective principle is also recognized in the Philippines under domestic law. While there may be no explicit statute solely devoted to this principle, Philippine courts have applied the protective principle in cases that involve threats to national security or governmental interests. The principle may be invoked when a foreign national engages in acts outside the Philippines that threaten the state's vital interests, such as terrorist financing or human trafficking schemes that affect national security.

International Recognition

• International Criminal Law: The protective principle is often cited in cases where crimes of international concern, such as terrorism and organized crime, are committed outside the territorial borders of the state but pose direct threats to the state’s security. International conventions addressing these crimes, such as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, often recognize the need for states to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction under the protective principle.

• International Terrorism: Many states have invoked the protective principle to combat international terrorism. For example, states have asserted jurisdiction over terrorist activities plotted or supported from abroad that target their citizens, institutions, or territories.

Limitations of the Protective Principle

While the protective principle serves as a useful tool for states to defend their national interests, it is subject to several limitations to prevent abuse:

1. Requirement of a Genuine Threat:

   • A state invoking the protective principle must demonstrate that the extraterritorial conduct presents a genuine threat to its essential interests. Mere suspicion or theoretical risks are insufficient to justify the exercise of jurisdiction.

2. Respect for Sovereignty of Other States:

   • States must balance their exercise of jurisdiction under the protective principle with respect for the sovereignty of other states. The principle does not authorize intervention in the internal affairs of another state, nor does it justify unilateral action that undermines international peace and order.

3. Principle of Non-Intervention:

   • The protective principle must be applied consistently with the broader principle of non-intervention in international law. A state cannot use the protective principle as a pretext for infringing on the sovereignty of other nations, nor should it bypass diplomatic mechanisms and multilateral cooperation in addressing transnational threats.

4. Potential Diplomatic Consequences:

   • Excessive or arbitrary reliance on the protective principle could lead to diplomatic fallout or retaliatory measures from other states. International law encourages the peaceful resolution of disputes, and states are expected to seek cooperative solutions rather than unilateral exercises of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The protective principle is a crucial component of public international law, allowing states to assert jurisdiction over extraterritorial conduct that threatens their national security or essential governmental functions. While it plays a critical role in safeguarding state sovereignty, the principle is subject to limitations that require states to balance their legitimate security interests with respect for the sovereignty and legal order of other states.

In the Philippines, the protective principle remains a vital tool for addressing threats to national security, particularly in the context of transnational crimes like terrorism and cybercrime, which may be orchestrated beyond the state's territorial borders but have significant impacts on its stability and governance.