THE CASE OF THE SS. LOTUS (FRANCE V TURKEY)
Sainikitha. OL, Student, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, School of Excellence in Law
Facts of the case:
On 2nd August of 1926, an unprecedented collision took place before midnight between a French vessel named Lotus and a Turkish collier Boz – Kourt and eventually caused the unfortunate death of eight Turkish nationals who were on board the Turkish collier. A French citizen, named Monsieur Demons captained the French mail steamer. The remaining 10 survivors of the Boz – Kourt including its captain, Hassan Bey were taken aboard the Lotus. On 3rd August, the Lotus had arrived to Constantinople. And on 5th August, Lieutenant Demons was called ashore to submit his evidence where he was questioned and later arrested by the Turkish authorities without any information being made to the French Consul – General. As circumstances unfolded, the Turkish criminal courts convicted Demons for the offence of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 80 days of imprisonment and a fine.
A special agreement was made between the representatives of France and Turkey on 12th October, 1926 which clearly stated that the further proceedings of the case shall be dealt in the Permanent Court of International Justice by applying the principles of international law. And added that the judgement shall be delivered according to Article 40 of the statute of article and Article 35 of the rules of the court. Later, with mutual consent of Turkey and France, the case was taken to the Permanent Court of International Justice located in Hague, Geneva. On 7th September 1927, the case was heard by the PCIJ.
Issue raised:
Whether Turkey had violated any principles of International Law by asserting jurisdiction over a foreign national for an act committed outside the territorial boundaries?
Whether Turkey is bound to compensate Demons for the unauthorised conviction?
Arguments raised by France:
The major contention of France was that Turkey does not have any jurisdiction to convict Demons. And also, it was argued that the case shall be transferred to French Courts.
The state whose flag the vessel flew had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and also offered to show ‘state practice’ in support of its position. It also argued that Turkey does not have jurisdiction to try the case. The French government challenged Turkish jurisdiction, demanding the release of Demons or the transfer of his case to the French Courts.
Also, they relied on Article 15 of the Lausanne Convention, 1923 which states that jurisdiction will be decided in conformity with international law principles. Also, it was requested that the Court shall fix indemnity of six thousand Turkish pounds which has to be paid by the Turkish government for the injury caused to Demons.
Arguments by Turkey:
The simple argument of Turkey was to decide in favour of Turkey and that Turkey has jurisdiction over the trial of French citizen Demons. It also claimed jurisdiction under Article 6 of the Turkish Penal Code which reads as follows.,
“Any foreigner who, apart from the cases contemplated by Art. 4, commits an offence abroad to the prejudice of Turkey or of a Turkish subject, for which offence Turkish law prescribes a penalty involving loss of freedom for a minimum period of not less than one year, shall be punished in accordance with the Turkish Law provided he is arrested in Turkey. The penalty may however be reduced by one third and instead of death penalty, 20 years of penal servitude shall be awarded…”
Further, it was argued that since there is an absence of explicit violation and contravention of principles and prohibitions of international law, the sovereign states may act in any way as they deem fit. Turkey contended that it has taken the jurisdiction over the Lotus case based on the ‘objective territorial principle’.
Judgement:
On the 12th session of PCIJ, the judgement of this case was delivered which has ushered a transformative era in the principles of international law. It was finally held that Turkey did not have any jurisdiction to try a French national as both the countries shared a concurrent jurisdiction in the present matter which had occurred as a result of collision in high seas. But later, PCIJ held that there was no violation of Article 15 stating that despite the fact that French flag was aviated in the ship, there exists no principle of international law guaranteeing complete authority and jurisdiction to France.
It was held that since there is no principle of international law stating that a state cannot prosecute an offender for the collision in high seas. Compensation payable to Demons was also rightly rejected by the PCIJ. And hence Turkey’s act of prosecuting Demons was held to be valid and appropriate.
Legal Principle established:
The lotus case gave birth to the lotus approach. The case had widely dealt with high seas collision, jurisdictional errors and territorial issues.
1st principle: One country cannot act beyond its boundary unless and otherwise it is recognised and allowed by the international convention or customary law. Para 45 also states that a country cannot act beyond it’s mandate except when an exclusive law is made by the international court which shall be used.
2nd Principle: A country can use the jurisdiction within its own territory. Within the yard, a state may make any law even in the absence of any rules which has to be stipulated by the international law. States may use its jurisdiction on any matter in its own accord since it holds exclusive authority within its own territory.
Analysis:
The majority has rejected the ‘flag state principle’ or ‘flags of convince concept’ which was argued by France, since there was no rule in international law regarding the disputed principle. Article 11 of the Geneva Convention of High Seas, 1958 states that only the flag state or the state of the alleged offender has jurisdiction with regard to incidents arising in high seas. This principle has again been adopted in Article 92 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Conclusion:
The sovereign states are allowed to act in their preferred manner and choose such paths as they consider necessary as long as they do not violate the well-established principles of international law. The states shall have jurisdiction even when the alleged act has been committed abroad where it involves constitutive elements which is applicable within the territory of the state.
But, in order to exercise jurisdiction, it has to be proved that such an offence committed beyond the boundaries of the state had left inseparable consequences that has directly affected the state.
References:
- Gargi Choudhary, S.S. Lotus Case (France v. Turkey), 1927: Case Analysis, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10435-s-s-lotus-case-france-v-turkey-1927-case-analysis.html
- Malik Fariha Mehnaz, Lotus Case Summary | France v. Turkey, LAW LEGUM,
- Meenakshi Nair, The Case of the S.S. “Lotus”, LAWYERS CLUB INDIA, https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/the-case-of-the-s-s-lotus–4384.asp
- Chelsi, France v. Turkey S.S. Lotus Case, Int’l J. Novel Research & Dev., Vol. 8, Issue 9, Sept. 2023.