Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law

Jurisdiction has traditionally been considered in international law as purely a question of the rights and powers of states. Conceived in this way, the rules on jurisdiction serve the important function of delimiting (while accepting some overlap of) state regulatory authority – the question of when a person or event may be subject to national regulation – a function which is shared with the cognate discipline of private international law. This article suggests that the idea and the rules of jurisdiction in international law require reconceptualisation in light of three developments. The first is the growing recognition that in a range of circumstances the exercise of national jurisdiction may, under international law, be a question of duty or obligation rather than right. The second development is the increased acceptance that such jurisdictional duties may in some circumstances be owed not only to other states but also to private parties, particularly through the emergence and strengthening of the doctrines of denial of justice and access to justice. The third development is the widely recognised phenomenon known as party autonomy, under which private parties in civil disputes have the power to confer jurisdiction on national courts and to determine themselves which law governs their relationships. In combination, these developments suggest the necessity of rethinking the concept of jurisdiction in international law, to reflect the more complex realities of an international legal order under which states possess both jurisdictional rights and obligations and are no longer the exclusive actors.