Articles

• Hertogen, An

Abstract

In an increasingly interdependent world, state sovereignty is inherently limited in order to protect the equal sovereignty of other states. However, identifying the precise constraints on states is a different and far more difficult question. The traditional answer is found in the Lotus principle, which consecrates a freedom to act unless explicitly prohibited by international law. The principle has rightly come under attack because of its incompatibility with the needs of a modern international community. This is usually followed by calls to disregard the precedential value of the Permanent Court of International Justice’s Lotus judgment on which it is based. This article defends the Lotus judgment but argues that the principle is the wrong reading of the majority opinion and that it fails to create the right conditions for interstate co-existence and cooperation, the twin goals of international law identified by the majority. The article then examines the meaning of ‘co-existence’ for contemporary international law and weighs the principle of ‘locality’ as an additional criterion that ought to be considered when resolving conflicting claims of jurisdiction.