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.
Highlights
The decision in Republic of Italy v Union of India (‘Indian Fishermen Case’)[1] by the Supreme Court of India dealt with legal aspects of coastal state jurisdiction and sovereign immunity under international law
In responding to Italy’s argument that Kerala did not have jurisdiction, India argued that Kerala’s courts derived jurisdiction from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP), a federal Act of Parliament, which had been extended to the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) by the Maritime Zones Act 1976 (MZA) as noted above
As to Italy’s argument that extension of the CCrP to the EEZ by the MZA was inconsistent with UNCLOS, India argued that it was not inconsistent, and that even if it was, the laws of India prevail over UNCLOS in Indian courts
Summary
The decision in Republic of Italy v Union of India (‘Indian Fishermen Case’)[1] by the Supreme Court of India dealt with legal aspects of coastal state jurisdiction and sovereign immunity under international law. [B]etween India and Australia there are so many links of concept and legal theory that we owe it to each other to become more familiar with relevant fields of jurisprudence so that we may take advantage of the experience which each has to offer.[8] This case note sets out the factual background and legal frameworks that gave rise to the decision in the Indian Fishermen Case, considers the arguments made by each of the parties before the Supreme Court, and summarises the findings of the two presiding Judges. It seeks to understand the relevance of the decision and any lessons that can be learned from it
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
