Universal Civil Jurisdiction and International Law: A Response to B.S. Chimni

Authors

Chimène Keitner

Abstract

The exercise of various forms of jurisdiction, and the delineation of a political entity’s jurisdictional reach over persons, places, and conduct, can sharpen and entrench inequities within and between states. One can thus aptly characterize certain exercises of jurisdiction, and particularly certain forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction, as assertions of imperial and/or hegemonic power. Importantly, however, jurisdiction can also be invoked to redress certain power inequities by providing access to judicial remedies for conduct that has evaded other forms of regulatory control. In addition, while certain assertions of extraterritorial prescriptive jurisdiction can represent overreaching by powerful states, the practice of disclaiming that a state’s extraterritorial conduct amounts to an exercise of “jurisdiction” has enabled states to shirk their human rights obligations. In this context, extraterritoriality can serve a protective function for individuals affected by the exercise of state power.

Contemporary exercises of extraterritorial jurisdiction are seldom either entirely benevolent or entirely duplicitous. Rather, they represent a messy compromise among competing values and demands channelled through various institutions and constituencies. If there is a high degree of consensus on conduct, and more than a tangential connection to the forum (for example, if the plaintiffs or defendant reside there), then the exercise of adjudicatory jurisdiction should be possible in the absence of an effective remedy in the state where the alleged conduct occurred.

Recommended Citation

Keitner, Chimène (2024) "Universal Civil Jurisdiction and International Law: A Response to B.S. Chimni," National Law School of India Review: Vol. 35: Iss. 2, Article 4.
DOI: 10.55496/CANY3529
Available at: https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol35/iss2/4

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.55496/CANY3529