State sovereignty in international public law

Extract

[...] If the proceedings fail between the two States, the dispute may be brought before the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice or before an arbitrator. The effective exercise of diplomatic protection implies the meeting of three cumulative conditions of admissibility: if one of them is missing, then it will be impossible to bring the case before the International Court of Justice. First, an effective bond of nationality must exist in order for the State to effectively take up the individual's case. [...]

[...] State sovereignty in international public law Jean Bodin (1530-1596) considered that the concept of sovereignty is an absolute concept. Sovereignty is a key concept when it comes to dealing with the state and its place in the international arena. It is, indeed, a concept that has been fostered to characterize the intrinsic power of states: according to the classical conception of sovereignty, it would then be the legal translation of the independence of states from each other. However, it should be noted that the situation remains more complex. [...]

[...] The Lotus case rendered in September 1927 by the Permanent Court of International Justice clarified this. In addition, the problem of extradition arises. Indeed, if an individual who has committed reprehensible acts takes refuge in the territory of another State, the requesting State may ask the other State to surrender the individual to it. However, extradition presupposes that a so-called extradition convention exists between independent States on the international scene. Therefore, extradition will not be automatic, even if such a convention exists. [...]

[...] Limits to this territorial sovereignty of the State While the principle of territorial sovereignty recognized to each State implies that it has an express right to carry out specific activities, the State has a duty to ensure the protection of persons in its territory, whether or not they are nationals. It, therefore, has a duty of vigilance, but the problem of immunity limits the effective exercise of this duty. Thus, the State is responsible for this duty of vigilance. The State exists on the international scene, or rather it coexists. [...]

[...] Indeed, it must not act when it does so in the application of its territorial sovereignty to the detriment of third States with which it coexists. For example, the Trail Smelter case on March involved a dispute that was caused by transboundary pollution between the United States and Canada. A lead smelter located on Canadian Territory emitted smoke that travelled into the United States and destroyed agricultural production. The arbitration award held that it is the responsibility of the State not to cause damage in the territory of another State and to take all necessary measures to that end. [...]