No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Criminal Jurisdiction over Military Persons in the Territory of a Friendly Foreign Power
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
1. A person who enters the territory of a foreign country, thereby becomes subject to the operation of the law of that country. This rule of international law has been incorporated in the national legislations of the contemporary States. In so far as concerns penal legislation it is, for example, in the Netherlands laid down in article 8 of the “Act containing general principles of the legislation of the Kingdom” of 15 May 1829 (S. 28) and in article 2 of the Penal Code. Article 13a of the said Act and article 8 of the Code explicitly provide that the limitations of this “territorial principle” are to be found in international law. Among them are the rules on exterritoriality which can originate from either custom or treaty. The question to be examined here is whether there is a rule of customary law according to which members of visiting forces in the territory of a friendly foreign State are entitled to exterritoriality in criminal matters wholly or partly.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1958
References
page 165 note 1 François, J. P. A., Handboek van het volkenrecht, 2nd ed. (1949), vol. I, p. 528Google Scholar: “Exterritoriality must be understood in this sense, that the person concerned is entitled to certain privileges which in general exempt him from the authority of the state of abode, and has in view… no fiction of sojourn outside of the foreign state” (translated).
page 165 note 2 The theme of this paper was discussed in 1956 by the studygroup of international law “Professor Telders” at Leyden; there it was introduced by H. W. M. Stokvis, Lieutenant-Commander (S). Of the material used in the following pages much was gathered by him; but for the opinions expressed in this paper the author is solely responsible.
page 165 note 3 See part VI.
page 166 note 1 Op. cit., p. 561; unaltered in Grondlijnen van het Volkenrecht (1954), pp. 285–286.Google Scholar
page 167 note 1 van Praag, L., Juridiction et droit international public, La juridiction nationale d'après le droit international public coutumier en temps de paix (1915), pp. 493, 494.Google Scholar
page 167 note 2 Hyde, C. C., International law chiefly as interpreted and applied by the United States, 2nd ed. (1945), vol. I, p. 819.Google Scholar
page 167 note 3 Hall, W. E., A treatise on international law, 8th ed. (1924), pp. 250–251.Google Scholar
page 167 note 4 “…it is believed that the commanders, not only of forces in transit through a friendly country with which no convention exists, but also of forces stationed there, assert exclusive jurisdiction in principle in respect of offences committed by persons under their command.”
page 167 note 5 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International law, vol. I, 8th ed. (1955), p. 847.Google Scholar
page 167 note 6 7th ed. (1949), pp. 758–760.
page 168 note 1 In a note he concedes that a majority of the authors still hold that opinion (p. 847, note 5).
page 168 note 2 Incidentally, Lauterpacht has borrowed the new expression from the paper by Barton.
page 168 note 3 A. J. XXXVI (1942), pp. 539–567 (“Jurisdiction over friendly foreign armed forces”); XL (1946), pp. 257–279 (“Further developments concerning jurisdiction over friendly foreign armed forces”).
page 168 note 4 B.Y.B. XXVI (1949), pp. 380–413 (“Foreign armed forces: immunity from supervisory jurisdiction”); XXVII (1950), pp. 186–234 (“Foreign armed forces: immunity from criminal jurisdiction”).
page 169 note 1 A. J. XXXVI (1942), p. 539.
page 169 note 2 Ibid.
page 169 note 3 Ibid., pp. 544–547.
page 169 note 4 7 Cranch, 116; also A.J. III (1909), pp. 227–237.
page 170 note 1 Ibid., p. 541.
page 170 note 2 Marshall in his judgment relates a case, recorded by Bynkershoek, of Spanish warships which were held at Flushing for a debt of the King of Spain. As to the method by which he reached his decision, he says: “In exploring an unbeaten path, with few, if any, aids from precedents or written law, the court has found it necessary to rely much on general principles, and on a train of reasoning, founded on cases in some degree analogous to this.”
page 171 note 1 King, ibid., p. 542; Coleman v. Tenessee and Tucker v. Alexandroff.
page 172 note 1 Ibid., pp. 542–543.
page 172 note 2 De Martens, , N.R.G. 3rd series, vol. II, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
page 173 note 1 King, ibid., pp. 543, 544.
page 173 note 2 Ibid., p. 547.
page 173 note 3 Judgment of 14 January 1932, “Gazette des Tribunaux Mixtes d'Egypte” (from here on to be abbreviated to G.T.M.), 01 1934, pp. 108–109.Google Scholar
page 174 note 1 The italics are mine.
page 174 note 2 In English translation A.J. XXI (1927), pp. 182–187.
page 174 note 3 Treaty between the U.S.A. and Panamá of 18 November 1903; de Martens, N.R.G., 2nd series, vol. XXXI, p. 599.
page 175 note 1 Art. III of the treaty. The revision of 2 March 1936 (de Martens, N.R.G., 3rd series, vol. XXXVIII, p. 643) brought no change in the position of the zone as de facto American territory.
page 175 note 2 A.J. XL (1946), pp. 257–279.
page 176 note 1 Ibid., pp. 258–259.
page 176 note 2 Ibid., pp. 259–260. The italics are mine.
page 176 note 3 See note 4 on p. 167.
page 176 note 4 B.Y.B. XXVI (1949), pp. 380–413.
page 177 note 1 Ibid., p. 382.
page 177 note 2 Ibid., pp. 384–385.
page 178 note 1 Barton repeats his thesis in the second article, pp. 216–218.
page 178 note 2 B.Y.B. XXVII (1950), pp. 186–234.
page 178 note 3 Ibid., pp. 187–193.
page 178 note 4 Ibid., pp. 197–205.
page 178 note 5 Ibid., p. 231.
page 178 note 6 Ibid., pp. 207–216.
page 178 note 7 Ibid., p. 232.
page 179 note 1 De Martens, , N.R.G., 3rd series, vol. XXXIII, pp. 325–343.Google Scholar
page 179 note 2 De Martens, , N.R.G., 3rd series, vol. XXXIII, pp. 344–349.Google Scholar
page 179 note 3 Op, cit., p. 194.
page 180 note 1 Ibid., pp. 194–196.
page 180 note 2 “Aucun membre des forces britanniques ne sera justiciable de la juridiction criminelle des tribunaux d'Egypte, ni de la juridiction civile de ces tribunaux, en aucune matière relevant de ses attributions officielles.” The difficulty lies in the last comma.
page 180 note 3 G.T.M. 28 (1938), p. 289 and 30 (1939), p. 39: “Ministère Public” contra Spender.
page 180 note 4 G.T.M. 31 (1940), p. 60: “Ministère Public” contra Shoheit.
page 180 note 5 Journal des tribunaux mixtes d'Egypte. See Barton, , pp. 195–196.Google Scholar
page 180 note 6 Art. 1 of the Convention: “In this Convention the expression ‘British Forces’ includes (a) every person subject to the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act and the Air Force Act of the United Kingdom…”
page 181 note 1 Op. cit., p. 196.
page 181 note 2 Ibid., pp. 201–202; 225–226; 230–231; 233. Three judgments have been published in an English version in A.J. XXXIX (1945), pp. 345–355. Barton besides mentions as his sources the “Journal des tribunaux mixtes d'Egypte” and the “Bulletin de législation et de jurisprudence égyptiennes”, both publications from the war period.
page 181 note 3 A.J. XXXIX (1945), pp. 349–355; judgment of 8 March 1943.
page 182 note 1 I cannot see how in these cases the local courts could ever have jurisdiction. — The following italics are mine.
page 182 note 2 The italics are mine.
page 183 note 1 The italics are mine.
page 183 note 2 A.J. XXXIX (1945), pp. 345–347; Georges Triandafilou v. the “Ministère Public”, 29 06 1942.Google Scholar
page 183 note 3 The italics are mine.
page 183 note 4 Ibid., p. 354. The italics are mine.
page 184 note 1 Barton, , op. cit., p. 232.Google Scholar
page 184 note 2 Ibid., p. 233.
page 185 note 1 Ibid., p. 234.
page 185 note 2 Viz. by force of a stipulation in an agreement.
page 187 note 1 “Military discipline embraces the maintenance of regularity and order in all matters concerning military service, even in apparently insignificant matters”; art. 1 of the Rules on Military Discipline, Netherlands Order in Council of 31 July 1922 (S. 476).
page 187 note 2 Art. 9 of the same Rules.
page 187 note 3 Ibid.
page 190 note 1 Tractatenblad 1951, nr. 114; in force as from 23 August 1953. See also jonkheer van Panhuys, H. F. in this periodical, II (1955), pp. 253–278.Google Scholar
page 190 note 2 The italics are mine.
page 190 note 3 In the French version: “pour l'exécution du service”.
page 191 note 1 Concerning the position of the personnel in the international military staffs a separate Protocol was concluded on 28 August 1952 (Trbl. 1953, nr. 11). Under this Protocol the position of the military members of those staffs is identical with the position of the forces under the Agreement. No “supra-national” disciplinary competence has been granted to the Chiefs of Staff.
page 191 note 2 The Agreement also contains rules governing the position of some groups of civilians.
page 191 note 3 Loc. cit., p. 258.
page 191 note 4 Act of 27 April 1903 (S. 112). This Act contains no enumeration of disciplinary offences.
page 192 note 1 In the French version: “dans l'exécution du service”.
page 192 note 2 Trbl. 1954, No. 81.
page 193 note 1 The italics are mine.
page 193 note 2 W. E. Hall, loc. cit.
page 193 note 3 Trbl. 1954, no. 120.
page 193 note 4 The italics are mine.