- Copyright Page
- Table of Cases
- Table of Legislation
- List of Contributors
- Introduction: Defining State Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction in International Law
- The Beginnings of State Jurisdiction in International Law until 1648
- The <i>Lotus</i> Case in Context: Sovereignty, Westphalia, Vattel, and Positivism
- The European Concept of Jurisdiction in the Colonies
- Immanuel Kant and Jurisdiction in International Law
- Navigating Diffuse Jurisdictions: An Intra-State Perspective
- Jurisdictional Pluralism
- Deepening the Conversation between Socio-Legal Theory and Legal Scholarship about Jurisdiction
- Critical Approaches to Jurisdiction and International Law
- Cosmopolitan Jurisdiction and the National Interest
- Jurisdictional Immunities of the State in International Law
- The Establishment, Change, and Expansion of Jurisdiction through Treaties
- Territoriality and Globalization
- Private Interests and Private Law Regulation in Public International Law Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction and State Responsibility
- Enforcing Criminal Jurisdiction in the Clouds and International Law’s Enduring Commitment to Territoriality
- The ‘J’ Word: Driver or Spoiler of Change in Human Rights Law?
- International Investment Law, Hybrid Authority, and Jurisdiction
- Conceptions of State Jurisdiction in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of International Justice
- The Evolving Nature of the Jurisdiction of the Security Council: A Look at Twenty-First-Century Practice
- International Criminal Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction and International Territorial Administration
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter explores the exercise of jurisdiction in the common interest. Drawing on realism and actual practice, it is posited that the exercise of jurisdiction in the common interest is unlikely unless the state has a nexus to the situation subject to regulation. The presence of a nexus may in fact serve to allocate jurisdictional authority and responsibility and encourage action in the common interest. In practice, cosmopolitan jurisdiction is hardly exercised. Scarce resources, fear of retaliation or reciprocity, and lack of local interest in global issues may cause states to forego assertions of cosmopolitan jurisdiction, unless a ‘national interest’ can be identified. The chapter then considers the actual practice of universal criminal jurisdiction.
Cedric Ryngaert is Chair of Public International Law at Utrecht University. Among other publications, he authored Jurisdiction in International Law, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2015) and Unilateral Jurisdiction and Global Values (Eleven, 2015), and co-edited with Math Noortmann and August Reinisch, Non-State Actors in International Law (Hart, 2015), Non-State Actor Responsibilities (Brill, 2015), and The International Prosecutor (Oxford University Press, 2012). For his work on jurisdiction, he received the Prix Henri Rolin (2012).
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.