No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Dan Svantesson has introduced an important proposal to reformulate the way we allocate jurisdiction in the international community. Rather than asking whether a proposed assertion of jurisdiction falls into one of the canonical principles identified in the Harvard Research Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime of 1935, Svantesson proposes to subject claims of jurisdiction to three “core” principles: (1) whether there is a substantial connection between the matter and the State seeking to exercise jurisdiction; (2) whether the State seeking to exercise jurisdiction has a legitimate interest in the matter; and (3) whether the claim of jurisdiction is reasonable given the balance between the state’s interests and other interests that might be asserted. He sees the first two of these as being implicit in the Harvard Draft paradigm, and the third a helpful addition to resolve conflicts in an increasingly interdependent world.
1 Svantesson, Dan Jerker B., A New Jurisprudential Framework for Jurisdiction: Beyond the Harvard Draft, 109 AJIL Unbound 67 (2015)Google Scholar.
2 Is Google building a navy? Internet giant launches second ‘floating data center’, Daily Mail Rep., Oct. 30, 2013.
3 See Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 US 764, 812-822 (1993) (J., Scalia Google Scholar, dissenting).
4 Nuno Garoupa & Tom Ginsburg, Judicial Reputation (2015).
Target article
Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime
Related commentaries (5)
A New Jurisprudential Framework for Jurisdiction: Beyond the Harvard Draft
A Private (International) Law Perspective Comment on “A New Jurisprudential Framework for Jurisdiction”
An Urgent Suggestion to Pour Old Wine into New Bottles: Comment on “A New Jurisprudential Framework for Jurisdiction”
Comment on “A New Jurisprudential Framework for Jurisdiction”
Introduction to Symposium: Rethinking State Jurisdiction in the Internet Era