Limitations to the Exercise of Civil Jurisdiction in Areas Other than Reparation for International Crimes

The extent of the jurisdictional power of States has been disputed since the 1927 PCIJ decision in the Lotus case. Two doctrinal approaches hence emerged and consolidated: one embracing the Court’s position and underlying the inherent and unbridled nature of States’ jurisdiction; the other positing that States’ jurisdiction is not innate but rather granted to States by international law. According to the latter view, a permissive norm under international law would be required in order for a State to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. Nearly a century later, not much seems to have changed. The legitimacy of exorbitant fora provided by national legal orders, however tempered by judicial self-restraint, is still debated. The ECtHR decision in the Naït-Liman case yet confirms this assessment.