The previous chapter described the extent of a state’s physical territory; this chapter looks at how far a state’s legal power extends. As will be seen, international law places certain limits on the right of a state to make, apply and enforce its laws – its jurisdiction – and these limits are considered in Section 6.2. International law also recognises two principal bars to the exercise of that jurisdiction: diplomatic immunity and state immunity; these are covered in Sections 6.3 and 6.4. Two other bars to jurisdiction, namely special mission immunity and the foreign act of state doctrine, are also briefly covered in Sections 6.6 and 6.7.

This chapter critically analyses the origins of the modern freezing injunction. The analysis is not limited to the landmark cases in 1975, Karageorgis and Mareva, covered in detail in this chapter. It argues that an important part of the historical foundations of freezing injunctions is the original exception to the general rule: the proprietary freezing injunction. Understanding the nature of the proprietary freezing injunction is crucial in order to assess the legitimacy of extending the scope of the exception to non-proprietary claims in 1975. The chapter recognises that there is now an important new category of freezing injunction, the so-called Chabra injunction against third parties. A detailed analysis of the scope of Chabra injunctions reveals serious concerns about a level playing field in litigation.

This chapter examines the extent to which the current jurisdictional preconditions for freezing injunctions are consistent with any theories underpinning the rules of jurisdiction in private international law. As a starting point, it identifies different perspectives on the purpose of private international law and the purpose of jurisdictional rules. The chapter engages in a detailed discussion of the use of the term jurisdiction and its different interpretations in an attempt to eliminate the confusion surrounding the application of private international rules in the context of freezing injunctions. It explores the difference between personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction and their respective relevance in extraterritorial freezing injunction cases. The core of the chapter is the emphasis on the link between public international and private international law, drawing upon Mills’ international systemic perspective. The potential significance of the doctrine of comity is taken into consideration.