CASE SUMMARY ON FRANCE v.
TURKEY, (1927) PCIJ
Ser. A, No. 10, 4. (S.S. Lotus Case)
FACTS OF THE CASE
On August 2nd, 1926, just before midnight, a collision occurred between the French mail
steamer Lotus, proceeding to Constantinople, and the Turkish collier Boz-Kourt. The Boz-
Kourt, which was cut in two, sank, and eight Turkish nationals who were on board perished.
After having done everything possible to rescue the shipwrecked persons, of whom ten were able
to be saved, the Lotus continued on its course to Constantinople, where it arrived on August 3rd.
At the time of the collision, the officer of the watch on board the Lotus was Monsieur Demons, a
French citizen, lieutenant in the merchant service and first officer of the ship, whilst the
movements of the Boz-Kourt were directed by its captain, Hassan Bey, who was one of those
saved from the wreck.
On September 15th, the Criminal Court delivered its judgment, the terms of which have not been
communicated to the Court by the Parties. The Court sentenced Lieutenant Demons to eighty
days’ imprisonment and a fine of twenty-two pounds
The action of the Turkish judicial authorities with regard to Lieutenant Demons at once gave rise
to many diplomatic representations and other steps on the part of the French Government or its
representatives in Turkey, either protesting against the arrest of Lieutenant Demons or
demanding his release, or with a view to obtaining the transfer of the case from the Turkish
Courts to the French Courts.
As a result of these representations, the Government of the Turkish Republic declared on
September 2nd, 1926, that "it would have no objection to the reference of the conflict of
jurisdiction to the Court at The Hague".
ISSUES OF THE CASE
1) Did Turkey violate international law when Turkish courts exercised jurisdiction over a
crime committed by a French national, outside Turkey?
2) Should the reply be in the affirmative, what pecuniary reparation is due to M. Demons,
provided, according to the principles of international law, reparation should be made in
similar cases?
CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT
The French Government put forth the following grounds to prove that the Turkish Government
acted beyond the jurisdiction :
1) The first ground upon which the French relied was the Law of the flags which prevailed
in the High Seas. According to this, the country which has its flag on the ship has
jurisdiction over any dispute regarding the matter.
2) By taking the reference of the case of Costa Rica Packet, The French raised its second
contention that was in accordance with the principles of International Law, Nationality of
the victim cannot be held as a sufficient ground to extend the criminal jurisdiction of its
courts.
3) The third contention raised by French was the extension of jurisdiction can also not be
claimed merely because of the connexity of offences due to the collision of the vessels.
CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT
According to Turkish Government, there was loss of life of eight people present on the vessel
Boz-Kourt due to the collision with Steamship Lotus which was directed by Monsieur Demons.
And if Turkey hadn't made the person liable then, it would have been injustice to the citizens
who lost their lives in the collision between Steamship Lotus and the Boz-Kourt.
DECISION OF THE PERMANENT COURT OF JUSTICE
(1) that, following the collision which occurred on August 2nd, 1926, on the high seas between
the French steamship Lotus and the Turkish steamship Boz-Kourt, and upon the arrival of the
French ship at Stamboul, and in consequence of the loss of the Boz-Kourt having involved the
death of eight Turkish nationals, Turkey, by instituting criminal proceedings in pursuance of
Turkish law against Lieutenant Demons, officer of the watch on board the Lotus at the time of
the collision, has not acted in conflict with the principles of international law, contrary to Article
15 of the Convention of Lausanne of July 24th, 1923, respecting conditions of residence and
business and jurisdiction ;
(2) that, consequently, there is no occasion to give judgment on the question of the pecuniary
reparation which might have been due to Lieutenant Demons if Turkey, by prosecuting him as
above stated, had acted in a manner contrary to the principles of international law.
RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE COURT
1) The first principle laid down was the passive personality principle. According to the
principle the State is allowed in limited cases, to claim jurisdiction to try a foreign
national for offences committed abroad that affect its own citizens.
The Court held that “Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law
upon a State is that – failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary – it may
not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense
jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory
except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a
convention.”
In simple words, A state cannot exercise its jurisdiction outside its territory unless it is
permitted by international law or customary law.
2) The second principle was that the State may exercise jurisdiction with regards to any
matter within its territory.
The court held that It does not, however, follow that international law prohibits a State
from exercising jurisdiction in its own territory, in respect of any case which relates to
acts which have taken place abroad, and in which it cannot rely on some permissive rule
of international law.
The Court based this finding on the sovereign will of States.
3) One more principle that was laid down was subjective territorial jurisdiction. According
to which a State would have territorial jurisdiction, even if the crime was
committed outside its territory, so long as a constitutive element of the crime was
committed in that State.
