18) Principle of equity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_international_law#General_principles_of_law

The principle of good faith was said by the ICJ to be "[o]ne of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations".[23] Similarly, there have been frequent references to equity.[24] It is generally agreed that equity cannot be employed to subvert legal rules (that is, operate contra legem).[25] This "equity as law" perception is reinforced by references to equitable principles in the text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, though this may be little more than an admission as to the existence, and legitimation, of the discretion of the adjudicator.

Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v France; New Zealand v France) [1974] ICJ Reports 253 at 268.

http://books.google.ru/books?id=cc3XzkFt-IUC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=Principle+of+equity+icj&source=bl&ots=0Ie7YgJayE&sig=L88JwsUJeYiGkPVkY6KAK1O4ImI&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=MdciT8DdNfDN4QS-7uDcCA&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Principle%20of%20equity%20icj&f=false – стр. 99

19) Principles of State jurisdiction

State jurisdiction is basically the authority of a state under international law to control the actions of people, property and circumstances. it involves the basic principles of state sovereignty, equality of states and non-interference in domestic affairs.

• Territorial Jurisdiction principle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_principle The territorial principle (also territoriality principle) is a principle of public international law under which sovereign state can prosecute criminal offences that are committed within their borders. The principle also bars states from exercising jurisdiction beyond its borders, unless they have jurisdiction under other principles such as the principle of nationality, the passive personality principle, the protective principle, and possibly universal jurisdiction.[1] The Lotus case was a key court ruling on the territoriality principle. In 1926, a French vessel collided with a Turkish vessel, causing the death of several Turkish nationals. The Permanent Court of International Justice ruled that Turkey had jurisdiction to try the French naval lieutenant for criminal negligence, even though the incident happened beyond Turkey's boundaries.[2] This case extended the territoriality principle to cover cases that happen outside a state's boundaries, but have a substantial effect on the state's interests or involve its citizens.[2] + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_case

• Effects Doctrine - http://www.morlacchilibri.com/inlaw/downloads/in.law_08_2.pdf In comparison, the effects doctrine can be described as a further extension of the territorial principle that goes beyond what the objective territorial principle could justify. The doctrine was developed by the US courts in the application of the US anti-trust regulations.19 Based on the effects doctrine, the US courts justified the exercise of jurisdiction over cartel arrangements and collusions which had not physically taken place within the United States at all. http://books.google.ru/books?id=74Zmct-7hGIC&pg=PA45&dq=Effects+Doctrine+icj&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=w94iT6zeG-fd4QS2xsikCA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Effects%20Doctrine%20icj&f=false + http://books.google.ru/books?id=wmq5xQN8_S0C&pg=PA214&dq=Effects+Doctrine+icj&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=w94iT6zeG-fd4QS2xsikCA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Effects%20Doctrine%20icj&f=false

• Nationality (Personality) principle- http://www.ecpat.net/worldcongressIII/PDF/Journals/EXTRATERRITORIAL_LAWS.pdf The Nationality Principle (Active Personality Principle) is particularly important and allows States to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of the nationality of the suspect, e.g. over offences committed abroad by their own nationals. The aut dedere aut judicare (‘extradite or prosecute’) Principle serves to ensure that countries with laws that do not extradite their citizens take effective action to ensure that culprits do not go unpunished.

• Protective Principle (Passive Personality) - The Passive Personality Principle prescribes that a State may assert jurisdiction on the basis of the nationality of the victim. It derives from the idea that a State must protect its own nationals, even when they are living or travelling abroad7. In practice, this means that State A could prosecute a crime committed by a national of State B against a child who is a national of State A, even if the offence was committed outside the borders of State A. Both the OPSC and the recent Council of Europe’s Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse8 encourage States to prescribe jurisdiction under this principle, but neither the OPSC nor the Convention actually makes it mandatory.

• Principle of universal jurisdiction - Universal jurisdiction or universality principle is a principle in public international law (as opposed to private international law) whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a crime against all, which any state is authorized to punish, as it is too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction ) The concept received a great deal of prominence with Belgium's 1993 "law of universal jurisdiction", which was amended in 2003 in order to reduce its scope following a case before the International Court of Justice regarding an arrest warrant issued under the law, entitled Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium).[2] The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 reduced the perceived need to create universal jurisdiction laws, although the ICC is not entitled to judge crimes committed before 2002.

• http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=591&code=cobe&p1=3&p2=3&case=121&k=36&p3=5