The Enrica Lexie and St. Antony: A voyage into jurisdictional conflict

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

36 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Republic of Italy v Union of India illustrates the legal and diplomatic complexities that can arise when nations, and states within those nations, have competing claims to jurisdiction over the prosecution of criminal offences. In our increasingly interconnected world, competing claims to jurisdiction are more likely. The decision, among other things, is concerned with legal aspects of coastal state jurisdiction in a federal system and sovereign immunity under international law. This decision is of interest because Australia, like India, is a coastal nation that divides power between federal and state governments. This case note sets out the factual background and legal frameworks that gave rise to the decision, considers the arguments made by each of the parties before the Supreme Court, and summarises the findings of the two presiding Judges. It then seeks to understand the relevance of the decision and any lessons that can be taken from it.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)74-89
Number of pages16
JournalQueensland University of Technology Law Review
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2014

Fingerprint

jurisdiction
India
Supreme Court
coastal state
immunity
prosecution
international law
republic
Italy
offense

Cite this

@article{0e38e503f97c40a8addeb39728e91382,
title = "The Enrica Lexie and St. Antony: A voyage into jurisdictional conflict",
abstract = "The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Republic of Italy v Union of India illustrates the legal and diplomatic complexities that can arise when nations, and states within those nations, have competing claims to jurisdiction over the prosecution of criminal offences. In our increasingly interconnected world, competing claims to jurisdiction are more likely. The decision, among other things, is concerned with legal aspects of coastal state jurisdiction in a federal system and sovereign immunity under international law. This decision is of interest because Australia, like India, is a coastal nation that divides power between federal and state governments. This case note sets out the factual background and legal frameworks that gave rise to the decision, considers the arguments made by each of the parties before the Supreme Court, and summarises the findings of the two presiding Judges. It then seeks to understand the relevance of the decision and any lessons that can be taken from it.",
author = "Danielle Ireland-Piper",
year = "2014",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5204/qutlr.v14i2.550",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "74--89",
journal = "Queensland University of Technology Law & Justice Journal",
issn = "2201-7275",
publisher = "Queensland University of Technology, Faculty of Law",
number = "2",

}

The Enrica Lexie and St. Antony : A voyage into jurisdictional conflict. / Ireland-Piper, Danielle.

In: Queensland University of Technology Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, 01.05.2014, p. 74-89.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Enrica Lexie and St. Antony

T2 - A voyage into jurisdictional conflict

AU - Ireland-Piper, Danielle

PY - 2014/5/1

Y1 - 2014/5/1

N2 - The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Republic of Italy v Union of India illustrates the legal and diplomatic complexities that can arise when nations, and states within those nations, have competing claims to jurisdiction over the prosecution of criminal offences. In our increasingly interconnected world, competing claims to jurisdiction are more likely. The decision, among other things, is concerned with legal aspects of coastal state jurisdiction in a federal system and sovereign immunity under international law. This decision is of interest because Australia, like India, is a coastal nation that divides power between federal and state governments. This case note sets out the factual background and legal frameworks that gave rise to the decision, considers the arguments made by each of the parties before the Supreme Court, and summarises the findings of the two presiding Judges. It then seeks to understand the relevance of the decision and any lessons that can be taken from it.

AB - The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Republic of Italy v Union of India illustrates the legal and diplomatic complexities that can arise when nations, and states within those nations, have competing claims to jurisdiction over the prosecution of criminal offences. In our increasingly interconnected world, competing claims to jurisdiction are more likely. The decision, among other things, is concerned with legal aspects of coastal state jurisdiction in a federal system and sovereign immunity under international law. This decision is of interest because Australia, like India, is a coastal nation that divides power between federal and state governments. This case note sets out the factual background and legal frameworks that gave rise to the decision, considers the arguments made by each of the parties before the Supreme Court, and summarises the findings of the two presiding Judges. It then seeks to understand the relevance of the decision and any lessons that can be taken from it.

U2 - 10.5204/qutlr.v14i2.550

DO - 10.5204/qutlr.v14i2.550

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 74

EP - 89

JO - Queensland University of Technology Law & Justice Journal

JF - Queensland University of Technology Law & Justice Journal

SN - 2201-7275

IS - 2

ER -