The Lotus Principle Explained in Contemporary International Law

Introduction

The Lotus Principle remains one of the most influential and contested ideas in public international law. Its usual formulation is simple: a state may act unless international law prohibits the conduct. That statement is memorable, but it is also incomplete. It compresses a complex 1927 judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice into a broad slogan about state freedom. The result is a frequent misunderstanding of Lotus as if it were a general licence for unilateral action. The better reading is narrower. Lotus concerned criminal jurisdiction after a maritime collision on the high seas, and its continuing value lies in the method it offers for analysing legal silence, jurisdictional competence, and the burden of proving a restrictive rule (PCIJ, 1927).

The dispute arose after the French steamship Lotus collided with the Turkish vessel Boz-Kourt outside territorial waters. Turkish nationals died. When the Lotus reached Constantinople, Turkish authorities prosecuted Lieutenant Demons, the French officer of the watch. France argued that Turkey lacked jurisdiction because the relevant conduct had occurred on a French vessel on the high seas. Turkey relied on the legal effects of the collision on a Turkish vessel and the death of Turkish nationals. The PCIJ was not asked to build a general theory of sovereignty. It was asked if Turkey had acted contrary to international law (PCIJ, 1927).

That procedural framing matters. The majority searched for a rule that prohibited Turkey’s exercise of jurisdiction. France failed to establish such a rule. On that basis, the Court held that Turkey had not violated international law. The famous passage that restrictions on the independence of states cannot be presumed must be read against that background. It was not written as a complete answer to every future dispute involving state action, legal gaps, or international regulation.

The central difficulty is the meaning of silence. International law is not a single code with a provision for every situation. A treaty may say nothing about a specific act. Custom may be uncertain. General principles may guide reasoning without giving an immediate rule. A court may reject a claim because a prohibition has not been proven. That outcome is not always the same as saying that the conduct is positively authorised. This distinction is essential to any serious use of the Lotus Principle.

Contemporary international law also operates in a legal environment far denser than the one faced by the PCIJ in 1927. Treaty regimes now govern fields that were lightly regulated or unsettled at the time of Lotus. The specific maritime result of the case has been overtaken by codification. Article 97 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that penal or disciplinary proceedings arising out of a high-seas collision or incident of navigation may be brought only before the flag state or the state of nationality of the person concerned (United Nations, 1982). Lotus still matters, but not because it controls modern collision cases.

It's more durable, and relevance concerns jurisdiction. A state may have authority to prescribe rules for conduct with a foreign element when a recognised connection exists. Territory, nationality, substantial effects, protection of core state interests, and some forms of serious international crime may provide such a connection. Lotus is useful because it forces lawyers to ask which link supports the claim to regulate. It is not useful when used as a shortcut that avoids that inquiry.

A second distinction is equally important: the distinction between prescription and enforcement. A state may enact laws concerning foreign elements more easily than it may enforce those laws abroad. Enforcement involves coercion. Arrests, searches, seizures, compulsory evidence-gathering, and police operations on foreign territory normally require consent, a treaty basis, Security Council authority, or another recognised legal ground. Lotus does not authorise a state to project coercive power into another state’s territory merely because no express prohibition has been found.

Later international jurisprudence confirms that the Lotus Principle cannot be used mechanically. In the Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice examined the absence of a comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons, but it also assessed the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, treaty obligations, necessity, proportionality, and the rules governing armed conflict (ICJ, 1996). In the Kosovo advisory opinion, the Court asked if international law prohibited the declaration of independence, but it did not create a general right of secession or endorse an unlimited doctrine of residual freedom (ICJ, 2010).

The same caution appears in doctrinal scholarship. Hertogen argues that the standard permissive reading of Lotus does not fully reflect the judgment’s concern with coexistence among sovereign states (Hertogen, 2015). Handeyside shows that the ICJ has not treated Lotus as a stable master rule of international law (Handeyside, 2007). Klabbers places Lotus within the broader structure of sources, jurisdiction, and the changing character of international law, rather than reading it as a timeless rule of laissez-faire sovereignty (Klabbers, 2024).

This article argues that the Lotus Principle survives only in a disciplined form. It may operate as a residual and rebuttable presumption where no applicable rule restricts prescriptive jurisdiction. It cannot override treaty law, customary international law, general principles, the UN Charter, jus cogens, erga omnes obligations, immunities, human rights law, environmental due diligence, or lex specialis. A modern Lotus argument must identify the actor, classify the conduct, locate the governing legal field, examine all relevant sources, test the jurisdictional link, and check higher or specialised limits.

The practical lesson is direct. Lotus does not answer the question, “May a state do anything not expressly prohibited?” The better question is: which rule, source, field, and jurisdictional connection governs the conduct? Once that inquiry is complete, state freedom may remain. But it is freedom within law, not freedom outside it.

1. Legal Silence and State Freedom

1.1 Silence in an Uncodified Legal Order

International law does not operate as a complete code. It has no single legislative text capable of answering every dispute between states. Its rules are drawn mainly from treaties, customary international law, general principles of law, judicial decisions as subsidiary means, and the work of institutions that may clarify or evidence legal obligations. Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice reflects this structure, but it does not convert international law into a closed statutory system (ICJ Statute, 1945).

This matters because many disputes arise in areas where no treaty provision gives an immediate answer. A state may claim that another state has acted unlawfully, while the acting state may answer that no rule prohibits the conduct. The legal question then becomes more demanding than a simple search for a written ban. Lawyers must ask if a customary rule exists, if a general principle supplies guidance, if a special regime governs the issue, or if the dispute falls within an area of residual state freedom.

Lotus is central to that problem. The case is commonly associated with the idea that state freedom remains unless international law restricts it. Yet the judgment should not be detached from the method of legal reasoning that produced it. The Permanent Court of International Justice did not treat silence as an empty space where power automatically prevails. It examined the submitted question, the relevant claims of jurisdiction, the maritime setting, and the absence of a proven prohibitive rule (PCIJ, 1927).

A real case of legal silence is rare. Often, the answer is not found in a single provision, but in the interaction between several sources. A treaty may regulate part of the issue. Custom may address another part. General principles may shape the legal consequences. A specialised regime may narrow what appears, at first glance, to be residual freedom. The ILC’s conclusions on customary international law confirm that the absence of a treaty does not mean the absence of law; custom must be assessed through general practice accepted as law (ILC, 2018).

For that reason, the first task in any Lotus-based argument is classification. What is the conduct? Who is acting? Which branch of international law governs the dispute? A claim about criminal jurisdiction, a claim about diplomatic immunity, a claim about the use of force, and a claim about environmental harm do not raise the same legal inquiry. Treating all of them as examples of “what is not prohibited is permitted” would flatten the structure of modern international law.

1.2 Absence of Prohibition and Permission

The most important doctrinal distinction is between the absence of prohibition and positive permission. They are not the same. A court may decide that a state has failed to prove a prohibitive rule. That does not always mean that international law affirmatively grants the acting state a broad right to repeat the same conduct in every comparable situation.

This distinction is often lost in simplified readings of the Lotus Principle. The Court in Lotus asked if Turkey had acted contrary to international law. The question placed the burden on France to show that Turkish jurisdiction was barred. When the Court found no such prohibition, it concluded that Turkey had not violated international law. That is a finding of non-violation in a specific procedural and factual setting, not a universal rule of positive authorisation (PCIJ, 1927).

The difference is practical. Suppose a state enacts criminal legislation covering fraud committed abroad against its nationals. If no rule prohibits that legislation and a recognised connection exists, the state may have prescriptive jurisdiction. But if that same state sends police officers abroad to arrest the suspect without the territorial state’s consent, the legal analysis changes. The issue is no longer only a prescription. It becomes enforcement on foreign territory, where international law is far more restrictive.

A finding that no prohibition has been proven may also reflect evidentiary limits. Customary international law requires evidence of practice and opinio juris. If that evidence is insufficient, a court may decline to find a customary rule. That does not mean the conduct has been endorsed as a general legal entitlement. It may mean only that the applicant has not established the rule with enough clarity (ILC, 2018).

This is why the permissive slogan attached to Lotus is too blunt. It treats international law as if every case must end in either prohibition or complete liberty. Contemporary doctrine is more precise. Conduct may be prohibited, permitted, required, procedurally barred, governed by a special regime, or not proven unlawful on the available evidence. These categories produce different legal consequences.

1.3 Residual Freedom within Legal Order

Residual state freedom is real, but it is not absolute sovereignty. It means that states retain room to act where no applicable rule restricts them. That space is part of international law, not an escape from it. A state does not leave the legal order merely because it acts in an area where regulation is incomplete.

The concept rests on the structure of international society. States are legally equal, and no state is subject to the legislative authority of another state merely because the other state prefers a restrictive rule. Consent, custom, and recognised sources still matter. Lotus reflects this classical concern by resisting the presumption of restrictions that had not been established through international law (PCIJ, 1927).

Yet sovereign equality also limits freedom. If each state has an equal legal position, one state’s freedom cannot be understood as a power to disregard the territorial sovereignty, political independence, or legal rights of another. Hertogen’s reading of Lotus is useful here because it emphasises coexistence. The judgment is better understood as part of a legal order that must allow independent states to coexist, not as an invitation to unilateral expansion (Hertogen, 2015).

Residual freedom also operates alongside duties of cooperation and responsibility. The modern international legal order contains obligations that protect common interests, not only bilateral interests. The UN Charter, human rights treaties, environmental obligations, peremptory norms, and rules of state responsibility all narrow the practical space for claims based on silence. A state cannot rely on residual freedom to avoid obligations that already apply through another source.

The best formulation is modest. Residual freedom exists after the relevant legal limits have been identified. It is not the starting and ending point of analysis. It is the remaining space once treaty law, custom, general principles, institutional decisions, special regimes, jurisdictional limits, and hierarchy norms have been examined.

1.4 The Burden of Proving Illegality

Lotus also has a procedural dimension. It concerns the burden of legal argument. In the dispute between France and Turkey, the Court approached the case by asking if France could identify a rule that prohibited Turkey’s exercise of jurisdiction. France argued for exclusive flag-state jurisdiction over the French vessel, but the Court was not persuaded that international law contained such a restriction at that time (PCIJ, 1927).

That method does not apply in the same way to every field. In some areas, the state alleging illegality must prove the rule breached. In other areas, the acting state must justify its conduct by pointing to a legal basis. The use of force is the clearest example. A state using force cannot simply say that no prohibition has been shown. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter creates a broad prohibition, and the acting state must bring itself within a recognised exception, such as self-defence or Security Council authorisation (United Nations, 1945).

Enforcement jurisdiction follows a similar logic. A state that carries out coercive acts on another state’s territory cannot rely on silence as a sufficient defence. Territorial sovereignty gives the territorial state exclusive authority over enforcement within its territory, subject to consent or a recognised exception. Arrest, search, seizure, and compulsory investigative action abroad require more than the absence of a specific written ban.

The burden also shifts according to the nature of the claim. A state asserting immunity must establish the legal basis of that immunity. A state alleging a breach of human rights must identify the obligation breached and the relevant facts. A state relying on a circumstance precluding wrongfulness must show that the conditions of that circumstance are satisfied. International legal argument is not governed by one fixed burden in all cases.

For that reason, Lotus should not be used as a universal allocation rule. It is more accurate to say that the burden depends on the legal field, the type of conduct, the source invoked, and the procedural posture of the dispute. Lotus remains useful because it reminds lawyers not to presume restrictions without legal evidence. It becomes misleading when used to excuse the acting state from identifying a legal basis in fields where international law requires one.

1.5 Non Liquet and Judicial Function

Non liquet refers to the possibility that a court finds no legal answer to the dispute before it. In domestic systems, courts often have legislation, constitutional norms, and appellate structures that reduce the likelihood of such a finding. International courts operate differently. They decide disputes within the limits of consent, jurisdiction, applicable law, and evidence. The possibility of gaps is more visible.

Even so, international courts rarely declare that the law has no answer. They usually avoid open non liquet by working through the available sources. They examine treaty law, custom, general principles, judicial decisions, institutional materials, and the structure of the relevant legal regime. If the evidence does not establish the alleged rule, they may decide that the claim has not been proven rather than state that international law is empty.

The Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion illustrates the difficulty. The ICJ did not find a comprehensive and universal prohibition of nuclear weapons as such, but it did not stop at silence. It assessed the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, treaty obligations, and the principles governing armed conflict (ICJ, 1996). The opinion shows that the absence of one direct prohibition does not end the legal inquiry.

Lotus can be read in the same way. The Court did not openly say that the law was incapable of answering the dispute. It answered through the burden of proof and the absence of a demonstrated prohibition. That is different from treating legal silence as a political vacuum.

The judicial function requires discipline in handling uncertainty. Courts must avoid inventing rules without a legal basis, but they must also avoid converting every evidentiary gap into unlimited state freedom. This balance explains the lasting importance of Lotus and also its modern limits.

2. The Maritime Dispute behind Lotus

2.1 The Collision on the High Seas

The facts of Lotus were concrete and narrow. On 2 August 1926, the French steamship Lotus collided with the Turkish vessel Boz-Kourt on the high seas. The Turkish vessel sank, and eight Turkish nationals died. The Lotus later arrived in Constantinople with survivors from the Boz-Kourt. Turkish authorities began criminal proceedings against Lieutenant Demons, the French officer of the watch, and against the Turkish captain, Hassan Bey (PCIJ, 1927).

France objected to the prosecution of Demons. Its position was that Turkey had no criminal jurisdiction over a French officer for conduct connected with a French vessel on the high seas. Turkey rejected that view. It argued that the incident also affected a Turkish vessel and caused deaths connected to Turkey. The dispute was then submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice.

The factual setting is essential. Lotus was not about military intervention, sanctions, diplomatic immunity, environmental harm, or human rights. It was about criminal jurisdiction after a collision between ships outside territorial waters. A proper reading must begin with that maritime setting.

The high seas context also shaped the legal problem. No territorial state had ordinary territorial jurisdiction over the place where the collision occurred. France relied on the flag of the Lotus. Turkey relied on the effects of the Boz-Kourt and the nationality of the victims. The case placed the Court before a difficult question: could one maritime incident produce jurisdictional claims by more than one state?

2.2 The Question before the PCIJ

The wording of the special agreement was decisive. The Court was asked if Turkey, by prosecuting Demons, had acted contrary to the principles of international law. This was not the same as asking if international law expressly authorised Turkey’s prosecution. The negative framing directed the Court toward the existence or absence of a prohibitive rule (PCIJ, 1927).

This procedural detail is one reason the case has been misunderstood. The Court did not begin with an abstract inquiry into the powers of all states in every unregulated field. It answered the question submitted by the parties. Since the question was framed around alleged unlawfulness, the Court required France to establish the restriction it claimed.

France argued that Turkey needed to identify a permissive rule before exercising jurisdiction. The majority rejected that approach. It held that international law leaves states a measure of freedom unless a restriction can be shown. That reasoning later became the basis of the Lotus Principle.

Yet the procedural posture must remain visible. The Court’s approach was tied to the form of the question, the nature of the dispute, and the evidence before it. A different question may require a different allocation of legal burdens. That is why Lotus cannot be applied mechanically across modern international law.

2.3 France and Exclusive Flag Jurisdiction

France’s argument rested on exclusive flag-state jurisdiction. It claimed that a ship on the high seas falls under the authority of the state whose flag it flies. Since the Lotus was a French vessel and Demons was a French officer, France argued that only French courts could prosecute him.

The argument had a strong structural appeal. The high seas are not subject to the territorial sovereignty of any state. Flag-state jurisdiction provides order by attaching a vessel to a state's legal system. Without that principle, ships on the high seas would operate in a jurisdictional space marked by uncertainty.

France’s claim, however, required more than recognition of flag-state authority. It required exclusivity. France had to show that the law of the time barred Turkey from exercising jurisdiction even though the collision caused deaths on a Turkish vessel. The majority found that France had not proven such an exclusive rule (PCIJ, 1927).

The distinction between primary jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction is crucial. A state may have a strong jurisdictional claim without excluding every other state. Modern international law often accepts overlapping claims, especially when a single event has connections to several states. Lotus exposed that problem before later treaty law resolved the specific issue of high-seas collisions.

2.4 Turkey and Effects on a Turkish Vessel

Turkey’s position focused on the effects of the collision. The Boz-Kourt was a Turkish vessel. Turkish nationals died. Turkey argued that the offence was not confined to the French ship. It produced consequences on a vessel linked to Turkey and affected Turkish legal interests.

This reasoning can be understood through objective territoriality. Under that approach, a state may exercise jurisdiction over conduct initiated outside its territory when an essential element or substantial effect occurs within its jurisdiction. The Turkish vessel was treated as a relevant jurisdictional space for the effects of the act.

The case also has a connection to passive personality, although that basis was more controversial at the time. Passive personality rests on the nationality of the victim. Turkey’s interest was strengthened by the fact that Turkish nationals had died. The majority did not build the whole judgment on passive personality, but the nationality of the victims formed part of the factual and legal background.

Most importantly, Turkey’s argument shows that Lotus was a case about concurrent jurisdiction. France had a clear connection through the flag of the Lotus and the nationality of Demons. Turkey had a claimed connection through the Boz-Kourt and the victims. The dispute was not between jurisdictions and no jurisdiction. It was between exclusive jurisdiction and overlapping jurisdiction.

2.5 The Majority’s Jurisdictional Reasoning

The majority’s reasoning had two linked elements. First, it held that restrictions on state independence could not be presumed. A state claiming that another state has violated international law must identify the rule that imposes the restriction. Second, it found that the collision was not legally confined to the French vessel. The effects of the act were felt on the Turkish vessel, giving Turkey a jurisdictional connection (PCIJ, 1927).

This reasoning is narrower than the later slogan. The Court did not say that every state may act in every unregulated field. It dealt with a specific form of criminal jurisdiction arising out of a single incident with links to two ships and two states. Its conclusion depended on the absence of an established exclusive flag-state rule and the existence of a Turkish connection to the harm.

The majority’s method reflected the voluntarist character of much international law at the time. States were not to be bound by restrictions unless those restrictions could be derived from accepted sources. Aksünger describes this as part of the continuing relevance of the Lotus dictum, while also distinguishing it from the broader and more controversial permissive principle later associated with the case (Aksünger, 2019).

The weakness of the majority’s reasoning lies in its breadth of language. The phrase concerning restrictions on state independence was capable of being read far beyond the facts. Later lawyers used it as a general formula for state liberty. That reading gives the judgment a reach that its facts and procedural setting cannot bear.

2.6 The Dissenting Theory of Authority

The dissenting opinions took a different view of criminal authority. Their concern was not merely technical. They worried that the majority allowed a state to prosecute a foreign national for conduct outside its territory without a sufficiently clear jurisdictional title. For them, criminal jurisdiction required a stronger basis than the absence of a prohibitive rule.

This view treats jurisdiction as a power that must be justified, not merely as freedom left over after prohibitions are excluded. That approach is especially important in criminal law because prosecution exposes individuals to coercion, punishment, and the authority of a foreign legal system. The dissenters saw danger in allowing criminal jurisdiction to expand through silence.

Their reasoning also anticipated later concerns about extraterritorial jurisdiction. If every state may rely on effects, victim nationality, or indirect connections without careful limits, conflicts of jurisdiction become likely. One event may trigger multiple prosecutions, diplomatic friction, double jeopardy concerns, and uncertainty for individuals.

The dissenting theory did not prevail in 1927, but it remains doctrinally important. It shows that Lotus was controversial from the beginning. The permissive reading was not the only possible reading of international law. The case contained a deeper disagreement about how far state authority should extend when the legal basis is uncertain.

2.7 The Limited Reach of the Judgment

The judgment must be confined to its context. Lotus was decided in 1927, before the modern codification of the law of the sea and before the post-1945 expansion of treaty regimes, human rights law, international criminal law, environmental law, and the law of international organisations. Reading it as a timeless rule ignores almost a century of legal development.

The specific maritime issue has been overtaken. UNCLOS Article 97 now provides a rule for penal and disciplinary proceedings arising out of high-seas collisions and incidents of navigation. Such proceedings may be brought only before the authorities of the flag state or the state of nationality of the person concerned (United Nations, 1982). On that point, the operative legal landscape is no longer the one faced by the PCIJ.

Lotus remains relevant because of its method, not because its maritime outcome controls modern law. It teaches that lawyers must identify the legal field, the applicable sources, the jurisdictional link, the burden of proof, and the limits created by later regimes. It also teaches that legal silence is not a simple concept. Silence may preserve freedom, but it may also conceal custom, general principles, procedural limits, or lex specialis.

The judgment should not be used as a general licence for unilateral action. Its strongest modern role is more modest: it frames the problem of residual freedom in international law and forces careful analysis of the legal basis for restricting state conduct. That is enough to make Lotus important. It is not enough to make it unlimited.

3. The Lotus Principle and Sovereignty

3.1 The Formula Detached from the Facts

The most familiar version of Lotus is not the judgment itself. It is the latter formula attached to it: what international law does not prohibit, it permits. That phrase is easy to remember, but it is too broad to carry the weight often placed on it. It removes the case from its maritime setting, its procedural posture, and its specific dispute about criminal jurisdiction after a high-seas collision.

The PCIJ did not decide that every act of a state is lawful unless a treaty expressly forbids it. The Court answered a narrower question: had Turkey violated international law by prosecuting a French officer after the collision between the Lotus and the Boz-Kourt? The majority looked for a rule that barred Turkey’s jurisdiction. Since France failed to establish such a rule, the Court found no breach (PCIJ, 1927).

That finding later became a general proposition about state freedom. The problem is that the proposition is wider than the case. Lotus concerned a jurisdictional link between an event on the high seas, a Turkish vessel, and Turkish deaths. It did not concern the use of force, human rights, diplomatic immunity, environmental harm, cyber operations, or the legal authority of international organisations.

A serious reading must keep the facts attached to the doctrine. Once the facts are removed, Lotus becomes an attractive but unstable slogan. It may suggest that silence always favours the acting state. Modern international law does not operate so simply. Silence in one source may be answered by another source, narrowed by a special regime, or controlled by a higher norm.

This is why the Lotus Principle should be introduced with caution. It remains useful for understanding how international law handles unproven restrictions. It becomes misleading when treated as a master rule for all questions of state conduct.

3.2 Dictum, Principle, and Doctrine

The distinction between the Lotus dictum and the Lotus Principle is essential. The dictum refers to the language used by the PCIJ on sovereignty, consent, and restrictions on state independence. The principle refers to the later doctrinal abstraction built around that language. The two are related, but they are not identical.

The dictum reflects the classical structure of international law. States are independent legal entities. They are not presumed to have surrendered their freedom unless a rule of international law imposes a restriction. In 1927, that approach reflected a legal order still strongly shaped by consent, custom, and the equality of sovereign states (PCIJ, 1927).

The Lotus Principle is more ambitious. It turns the dictum into a broad rule of permission. Under that reading, legal silence operates in favour of state freedom. That reading has influenced textbooks, pleadings, and academic debates, but it has also attracted sustained criticism. Handeyside argues that ICJ jurisprudence does not support treating Lotus as a stable foundational rule of international law (Handeyside, 2007). Hertogen also criticises the permissive reading because it fails to capture the judgment’s concern with coexistence between sovereign states (Hertogen, 2015).

The doctrinal task is not to discard Lotus altogether. That would be too crude. The better task is to place it correctly. The dictum remains relevant to the burden of proving restrictions and to the structure of residual freedom. The principle, if used at all, must be treated as limited, rebuttable, and field-sensitive.

That distinction prevents two errors. The first is treating Lotus as obsolete merely because international law has developed. The second is treating it as timeless despite treaty codification, human rights law, international institutions, peremptory norms, and specialised regimes. A balanced reading recognises that Lotus still matters, but only within a disciplined legal method.

3.3 Consent and the Sources of Obligation

Lotus is often associated with voluntarism. In its classical form, voluntarism sees international obligations as arising primarily through state consent. States bind themselves through treaties. They may also be bound by customary international law when general practice is accepted as law. The PCIJ’s language in Lotus fits that tradition because it resists restrictions that have not been established through recognised sources (PCIJ, 1927).

Consent still matters. Treaty law depends on consent to be bound. Custom also rests, at least partly, on state practice and opinio juris. A state is not normally bound simply because another state, a court, or a commentator thinks a restriction would be desirable. This remains a basic protection against arbitrary claims of authority in a decentralised legal order.

Yet contemporary international law cannot be reduced to express consent in every case. Customary rules may bind states even without individual express approval, subject to the limited doctrine of persistent objection. Peremptory norms bind all states because of their hierarchical character. Obligations owed to the international community as a whole protect collective legal interests. Security Council decisions under the Charter may create binding obligations for UN members. These developments make a purely voluntarist reading of Lotus incomplete (United Nations, 1945; ILC, 2018; ILC, 2022).

The law of treaties also complicates any simplistic account of consent. A state may consent to a treaty regime whose interpretation later develops through institutional practice, judicial interpretation, subsequent agreement, or subsequent practice. Consent opens the door to legal consequences that may not be reducible to the state’s preferred reading at a later moment.

Lotus should be read with that complexity in mind. It protects states against unproven restrictions, but it does not require every obligation to be traced to express individual approval. The modern sources of international law are broader, denser, and more institutionalised than the legal environment of 1927.

3.4 Sovereign Equality as Legal Restraint

Sovereign equality is sometimes misunderstood as maximum freedom. That is not accurate. If states are equal, no state may treat its freedom as superior to the legal position of another. Equality creates liberty, but it also creates restraint.

This point is crucial for Lotus. The majority’s language on state independence cannot be read in isolation. International law exists because independent states must coexist. If one state could always rely on silence to expand its authority, the equal position of other states would be weakened. Sovereignty would become a weapon of unilateral expansion rather than a legal status shared by all states.

Hertogen’s critique is useful because it recovers this coexistence dimension. Lotus should not be read only as a case about freedom. It should also be read as a case about how to manage overlapping claims of authority in a world of equal states (Hertogen, 2015). That reading better fits the modern legal order, where cooperation, restraint, and jurisdictional coordination are central.

The principle of sovereign equality is reflected in the UN Charter. Article 2(1) affirms the sovereign equality of all members. Article 2(4) protects territorial integrity and political independence against the threat or use of force. Article 2(7) limits intervention in matters essentially within domestic jurisdiction, subject to Charter powers. These provisions do not abolish state freedom, but they place it within a structured legal order (United Nations, 1945).

The most defensible contemporary reading of Lotus is based on mutual restraint. A state may retain freedom where no rule limits it, but that freedom must be reconciled with the legal status, territory, institutions, and rights of other states. Sovereign equality is not a licence to act alone. It is a legal condition for coexistence.

3.5 Presumption Rather than Licence

The Lotus Principle should be treated as a presumption, not as a licence. A presumption can guide the allocation of legal argument. It may indicate that a state alleging illegality must prove the rule breached. A licence is different. It suggests affirmative authority to act. Lotus does not justify that stronger claim across international law.

The presumption is most plausible in questions of prescriptive jurisdiction. A state may legislate with foreign elements when there is a recognised connection and no rule excludes the exercise of authority. That is the field where Lotus continues to have its strongest doctrinal role. Even there, the presumption can be rebutted by treaty law, custom, general principles, immunities, human rights obligations, or a special regime.

The presumption is weak where state conduct affects the territorial sovereignty of another state. It is weaker still where enforcement abroad is involved. A state cannot conduct arrests, searches, seizures, or police operations in foreign territory simply because no specific treaty provision mentions the exact act. Territorial sovereignty supplies the basic limit.

The presumption also fails against hierarchy norms. Jus cogens cannot be displaced by consent, silence, or contrary practice. Obligations such as the prohibitions of genocide, slavery, torture, and aggression operate on a different plane. The ILC’s conclusions on peremptory norms confirm that such norms occupy a superior position in the international legal order (ILC, 2022).

A careful lawyer should use Lotus as a starting point, never as the conclusion. The proper question is not only whether a prohibition exists. It is also whether the relevant field requires a legal basis, whether a special regime governs the issue, whether the conduct affects another state’s protected legal sphere, and whether higher norms limit state freedom.

4. Jurisdiction and the Proper Reach of Lotus

4.1 Prescriptive Jurisdiction

Prescriptive jurisdiction is the power of a state to make rules governing persons, conduct, property, events, or legal relationships. It is the field where Lotus has the greatest continuing relevance. A state may regulate conduct with a foreign element when it has a recognised connection to the subject matter.

That connection matters because international law does not accept boundless legislative reach. A state may not treat the world as an extension of its domestic legal order. It must point to a jurisdictional basis, such as territory, nationality, substantial effects, protective interests, or, in exceptional cases, the nature of the offence. These bases are not all equal in strength. Some are well established. Others are more contested and require caution (Shaw, 2021; Ryngaert, 2015).

Lotus is useful because it shows that more than one state may have a legitimate interest in the same event. France had a connection through the flag of the Lotus and the nationality of Demons. Turkey claimed a connection through the Turkish vessel and Turkish deaths. The dispute was not about a state acting without any link. It was about the legal consequences of overlapping links (PCIJ, 1927).

That point keeps Lotus within proper limits. It does not support universal prescriptive power. It supports careful analysis of the connection, legal field, and prohibitive rules. A valid Lotus argument begins with a jurisdictional basis. It does not replace one.

4.1.1 Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction is the strongest basis of state authority. A state normally has the competence to regulate conduct occurring within its territory. This includes crimes committed on its soil, civil relationships formed there, property located there, and administrative matters connected to its institutions.

The principle is not controversial because territory remains the central organising unit of international law. The territorial state has authority over persons and events within its borders, subject to international obligations such as human rights, immunities, treaty commitments, and rules protecting foreign states.

Territorial jurisdiction also has a subjective form. A state may regulate conduct that begins within its territory even if harmful effects occur elsewhere. For example, a fraudulent scheme planned and initiated inside one state may affect victims abroad. The territorial link remains legally relevant because an essential part of the conduct occurred within the regulating state.

Lotus is not needed to justify ordinary territorial jurisdiction. That authority is older and stronger than the case. Lotus becomes relevant when the territorial link is incomplete or when the conduct crosses legal spaces. Its importance lies in borderline cases, not in ordinary domestic regulation.

4.1.2 Objective Territoriality

Objective territoriality concerns conduct outside the state that produces a legally significant effect within it. The doctrine recognises that a harmful act may be initiated in one place and completed, felt, or consummated in another. It is especially important in criminal law, competition law, financial regulation, cyber activity, and cross-border fraud.

Lotus can be read as an early expression of this logic. The alleged negligent conduct was linked to a French vessel, but the deaths occurred on the Turkish vessel. The majority treated the offence as having effects connected to Turkey. It did not view the event as legally confined to the deck of the Lotus (PCIJ, 1927).

Objective territoriality must still be controlled. If every remote effect were enough, state authority would expand without meaningful limits. Modern doctrine usually requires a substantial, direct, or legally significant effect. The quality of the connection matters more than the mere existence of some consequence.

A practical example shows the point. If a company outside a state manipulates financial data in a way that directly harms investors inside that state, the affected state may claim a regulatory link. If the effect is vague, indirect, or speculative, the claim becomes weaker. Lotus supports the idea of effects-based reasoning, but it does not eliminate the need for legal proximity.

4.1.3 Nationality Jurisdiction

Nationality jurisdiction allows a state to regulate the conduct of its nationals abroad. This is widely accepted in international law. A state may impose criminal duties on its citizens overseas, tax nationals under certain conditions, regulate public officials abroad, or prosecute nationals for serious offences committed outside national territory.

The basis is the legal bond between the state and the individual. Nationality creates rights, but it also creates duties. A national abroad may remain subject to certain obligations imposed by the home state, provided those obligations do not unlawfully interfere with the territorial state.

Nationality jurisdiction is especially common in anti-corruption law, counterterrorism legislation, military offences, sexual offences committed abroad, and tax law. The extent of regulation depends on domestic law and applicable international limits. Treaty regimes often strengthen or coordinate such jurisdiction.

Lotus involved a French national, but France used nationality defensively. It argued that the demons should be subject only to French authority. The majority rejected exclusivity, not nationality itself. The case shows that nationality may provide a strong connection, but it does not always exclude another state with a separate connection to the same event.

4.1.4 Passive Personality Jurisdiction

Passive personality jurisdiction is based on the nationality of the victim. It permits a state to regulate or prosecute certain conduct abroad because its nationals were harmed. Historically, this basis was controversial because it could expose foreign defendants to multiple legal systems based only on the identity of the victim.

Modern practice has become more accepting, especially in cases involving terrorism, hostage-taking, attacks on diplomats, organised crime, and serious violence against nationals abroad. Treaty regimes in counterterrorism and transnational criminal law often require or permit states to establish jurisdiction based on the nationality of victims.

The Turkish position in Lotus had a passive personality dimension because Turkish nationals died. The majority did not rely solely on victim nationality, but the deaths were part of Turkey’s asserted legal interest. That makes Lotus relevant to the history of passive personality, though it should not be treated as a full endorsement of the modern doctrine.

The danger lies in excess. If passive personality is used without restraint, almost any crime with a foreign victim could generate jurisdiction for the victim’s state. That may create conflict with the territorial state, the state of nationality of the accused, and states with stronger evidentiary access. For that reason, passive personality is strongest when tied to serious offences and supported by treaty practice or clear domestic law.

4.1.5 Protective Jurisdiction

Protective jurisdiction allows a state to regulate foreign conduct that threatens its core security or governmental functions. It is not based on where the act occurs or the nationality of the accused. It is based on the nature of the interest threatened.

Examples include offences against state security, counterfeiting currency, falsification of official documents, attacks on state institutions, espionage-related offences, immigration fraud, and certain threats to borders or public authority. The doctrine exists because some foreign acts may target the state itself even when committed outside its territory.

The basis must be used carefully. Many state interests are important, but not all justify extraterritorial regulation. If protective jurisdiction is defined too broadly, almost any economic, political, or reputational harm could be framed as a threat to core state interests. That would weaken the territorial principle and increase conflict between states.

Lotus does not provide a foundation for excessive protective claims. Its lesson is narrower. A state asserting jurisdiction must identify a legally meaningful connection. In protective jurisdiction, that connection is the threat to essential state functions. The more ordinary the interest, the weaker the claim.

4.1.6 Universal Jurisdiction

Universal jurisdiction must be separated from Lotus. It does not arise because international law is silent. It rests on the character of certain offences as crimes of international concern. The classic example is piracy. Modern debates also include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, and enforced disappearance, subject to the specific rules governing each offence.

The rationale is that some crimes harm fundamental interests of the international community. In such cases, a state may assert jurisdiction even without an ordinary territorial or nationality link. That makes universal jurisdiction exceptional. It is not a general extension of the Lotus Principle.

The legal basis varies by crime. Piracy has a long customary foundation and treaty recognition. Torture jurisdiction is strongly shaped by treaty obligations. War crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity require attention to custom, treaty law, domestic implementation, immunities, presence requirements, and procedural safeguards.

A broad Lotus argument would damage the doctrine. Universal jurisdiction needs legal precision because it allows national courts to address crimes with a limited territorial connection. Its legitimacy depends on careful grounding in accepted sources, not on residual freedom alone.

4.2 Enforcement Jurisdiction

Enforcement jurisdiction is the authority to apply the law through coercive acts. It includes arrest, detention, search, seizure, compulsory production of evidence, interrogation under legal compulsion, and police operations. This is the field where broad Lotus reasoning is most dangerous.

International law draws a sharp distinction between making laws and enforcing them. A state may prescribe rules with foreign elements in some circumstances. It may not enforce those rules inside another state’s territory without consent or a recognised legal basis. Territorial sovereignty gives the territorial state control over coercive acts within its borders.

Lotus itself does not authorise enforcement abroad. The Turkish prosecution occurred after the Lotus arrived in Constantinople, and Turkish authorities acted within Turkish territory. The case did not approve foreign police operations on the territory of another state. Using Lotus to justify cross-border enforcement is a serious doctrinal error.

Modern legal cooperation exists because unilateral enforcement is restricted. Extradition, mutual legal assistance, police cooperation, and transfer of proceedings are not bureaucratic extras. They are legal mechanisms designed to manage the limits of enforcement authority in a system of sovereign states.

4.2.1 Coercion on Foreign Territory

Coercion on foreign territory is normally unlawful without consent. A state may not send officers into another state to arrest a suspect, seize documents, compel testimony, or search premises merely because its domestic law authorises the operation. Domestic authority does not equal international authority.

The rule protects territorial sovereignty. It also protects individuals against conflicting exercises of state power. If several states could enforce their laws directly inside another state, the legal order would collapse into competition between police powers.

Consent may alter the position. A territorial state may allow foreign officers to assist in an investigation, participate in a joint team, observe proceedings, or conduct limited acts under agreed conditions. Treaty frameworks may also regulate cross-border cooperation. Without such consent or legal basis, enforcement abroad remains barred.

The rule is especially relevant in digital investigations. A state may access data stored abroad, request platform records, or compel a company under its jurisdiction to produce information. Each scenario raises different questions. The label “cyber” does not remove the basic distinction between prescription and enforcement.

4.2.2 Consent and Legal Cooperation

Because enforcement abroad is restricted, states rely on cooperation. Extradition allows one state to surrender a person to another state for prosecution or punishment under agreed legal conditions. Mutual legal assistance allows states to obtain evidence, serve documents, freeze assets, or conduct procedural steps through the authorities of the territorial state.

Transfer of proceedings can avoid duplication where more than one state has a claim to prosecute. Joint investigation teams allow coordinated action, but their authority depends on consent and legal instruments. Diplomatic channels may also be used when no treaty mechanism applies.

These mechanisms show how modern international law manages concurrent jurisdiction. It does not assume that the state with an interest may act wherever it chooses. It channels overlapping authority through consent, procedure, and institutional cooperation.

Lotus remains relevant because it explains why overlapping claims may exist. It does not answer how those claims should be enforced. That second question belongs to the law of cooperation, territorial sovereignty, criminal procedure, extradition, mutual assistance, and human rights.

4.3 Adjudicative Jurisdiction

Adjudicative jurisdiction concerns the authority of courts to hear disputes with foreign elements. It includes criminal trials, civil claims, administrative proceedings, and constitutional review where foreign parties, events, property, or legal interests are involved.

Domestic law usually defines the competence of courts. International law sets outer limits. A national court may have jurisdiction under domestic legislation, yet still face international constraints. These constraints may arise through immunities, treaty rules, human rights obligations, due process requirements, or rules limiting extraterritorial claims.

In criminal matters, adjudicative jurisdiction usually follows prescriptive jurisdiction. A court may try a case where the state has a valid basis to prescribe and where the accused is properly before the court. Yet additional rules may apply. Immunities may bar proceedings against certain foreign officials. Extradition conditions may limit charges. Human rights law may require fair trial guarantees.

In civil proceedings, foreign elements raise questions of forum, service, recognition of judgments, state immunity, and fairness. A court may decline jurisdiction when another forum is more appropriate, depending on domestic rules. International law does not regulate all aspects of private litigation, but it does prohibit certain forms of jurisdictional overreach.

Lotus should not be stretched into a rule that domestic courts may hear any case not expressly prohibited by international law. Courts must examine the basis of jurisdiction, procedural fairness, immunities, treaty limits, and the connection between the dispute and the forum. The judicial forum is part of state power, and state power remains legally structured.

4.4 Concurrent Jurisdiction

Concurrent jurisdiction exists when more than one state has a legal basis to regulate or prosecute the same event. It is common in transnational crime, maritime incidents, cyber operations, terrorism, corruption, environmental harm, financial misconduct, and international crimes.

Lotus is best read through this lens. France had a connection to the incident through the French flag and the nationality of the demons. Turkey claimed a connection through the Turkish vessel and Turkish victims. The central issue was not whether any state had jurisdiction. The issue was whether France’s jurisdiction was exclusive or Turkey could also act (PCIJ, 1927).

Modern international law often accepts overlapping jurisdiction, but it must manage the consequences. Multiple states may investigate the same conduct. Several may claim the right to prosecute. Evidence may be located in different countries. Victims, accused persons, witnesses, companies, and assets may be spread across several legal systems. Without coordination, concurrent authority can become a legal conflict.

Coordination may occur through extradition rules, prosecutorial discretion, transfer of proceedings, ne bis in idem protections, mutual legal assistance, diplomatic negotiation, or treaty priority clauses. In some fields, special regimes assign priority. UNCLOS Article 97 is one example for high-seas collisions. International criminal law offers another model through complementarity and cooperation rules.

Concurrent jurisdiction confirms the limited value of a crude Lotus formula. The real legal problem is rarely pure freedom. It is allocation, coordination, priority, restraint, and procedure. Lotus helps explain why more than one state may have a claim. It does not remove the need to decide which claim should prevail, how enforcement may occur, and which limits protect other states and individuals.

5. Maritime Codification after Lotus

5.1 The Treaty Response to the Judgment

The specific maritime result in Lotus did not survive as the modern rule for high-seas collision cases. The judgment remained famous, but treaty law later moved in a different direction. States chose a more predictable model for penal and disciplinary proceedings arising out of navigation incidents. That model limits prosecution to states with a strong personal or flag connection.

This development matters because it shows the difference between a judgment’s historical importance and its present operative force. Lotus still shapes debates about legal silence and jurisdictional reasoning. It no longer supplies the governing rule for criminal proceedings after collisions on the high seas.

The treaty response began before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 11 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas provided that, in cases of collision or any other incident of navigation involving penal or disciplinary responsibility, proceedings could be brought only before the judicial or administrative authorities of the flag state or the state of nationality of the person concerned (United Nations, 1958). That rule directly narrowed the space that the PCIJ had left open in 1927.

UNCLOS later preserved the same basic solution. The codified rule favours certainty, navigational order, and protection against multiple prosecutions by states with weaker links. It also reflects a practical judgment: the flag state and the state of nationality are usually best placed to discipline the master or crew member involved in a navigation incident.

This is not a minor technical correction. It is a clear example of lex specialis replacing the open texture of earlier law. Where a detailed treaty rule governs a question, a general Lotus argument becomes secondary. The modern lawyer must begin with the treaty regime, not with the residual freedom suggested by the old slogan.

5.2 High-Seas Collisions under UNCLOS

Article 97 of UNCLOS is the central modern provision. It states that, in the event of a collision or any other incident of navigation concerning a ship on the high seas and involving penal or disciplinary responsibility of the master or any other person in the service of the ship, proceedings may be instituted only before the judicial or administrative authorities of the flag state or the state of nationality of that person (United Nations, 1982).

The rule is narrow but important. It does not regulate every crime at sea. It concerns collisions and incidents of navigation. It also focuses on penal or disciplinary proceedings against the master or another person serving on the ship. Within that field, however, the rule is clear. A state cannot rely on the broad reasoning of Lotus to prosecute merely because the incident caused harm to its interests.

Article 97 also limits arrest and detention. No arrest or detention of the ship, even as a measure of investigation, may be ordered by authorities other than those of the flag state. That reinforces the central role of the flag state in navigational incidents on the high seas. It also protects maritime activity against fragmented enforcement by multiple states.

The provision illustrates how codification can transform the relevance of a case. Lotus remains part of the legal history of jurisdiction. Yet a lawyer advising on a modern collision case would not treat Lotus as the governing rule. The correct starting point would be UNCLOS, supplemented by any relevant domestic law, criminal procedure, and treaty obligations.

This also shows why legal silence must be assessed carefully. In 1927, the PCIJ found no established prohibitive rule excluding Turkey’s jurisdiction. Modern law now contains a prohibitive rule in the relevant field. The legal conclusion changes because the sources have changed.

5.3 Flag-State Authority on the High Seas

Flag-state jurisdiction is one of the organising principles of the law of the sea. A ship on the high seas is linked to the state whose flag it flies. That link gives the flag state authority and responsibility. It also prevents the high seas from becoming a legal vacuum.

UNCLOS provides that ships sail under the flag of one state only and, save in exceptional cases provided for in treaties or in the Convention, are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that state on the high seas (United Nations, 1982). This exclusivity is not merely a privilege. It carries duties. The flag state must exercise effective jurisdiction and control over administrative, technical, and social matters concerning ships flying its flag.

The system depends on genuine regulatory responsibility. The flag state is expected to maintain a register, assume jurisdiction over the ship, ensure safety at sea, regulate crew qualifications, and investigate certain casualties. A flag without control weakens maritime order. That is why the law of the sea ties freedom of navigation to duties of supervision.

Flag-state authority is not absolute. UNCLOS recognises exceptions. Warships may board foreign ships in limited situations, including piracy, slave trade, unauthorised broadcasting, statelessness, or cases where the ship is in reality of the same nationality as the warship despite flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag. Other treaty regimes may also authorise enforcement in specific fields, such as drug trafficking, fisheries, sanctions, or maritime security.

Lotus should be read against this modern structure. The high seas are not unregulated space. They are governed by a balance between freedom of navigation, flag-state control, limited exceptions, and cooperation. That balance has little room for a loose claim that any non-prohibited assertion of jurisdiction is automatically lawful.

5.4 Freedom of the Seas and Legal Discipline

Freedom of the seas is a principle of liberty, not a principle of legal emptiness. It protects navigation, overflight, laying submarine cables and pipelines, fishing subject to legal limits, scientific research, and other lawful uses of the high seas. Yet each freedom operates within a disciplined legal framework.

Navigation is linked to flag-state duties. Fishing is limited by conservation obligations and cooperation duties. Scientific research must respect the rights and interests of other states. Submarine cables and pipelines are protected by treaty rules. Ships must comply with safety obligations and duties to render assistance at sea. These rules show that freedom and regulation are not opposites in the law of the sea.

The same pattern appears in enforcement. Piracy is subject to universal jurisdiction because pirates have long been treated as enemies of all. The slave trade is subject to special rules. Stateless vessels may be boarded because the absence of nationality threatens the flag-state system. These exceptions do not destroy high-seas freedom. They make it legally workable.

Environmental protection has added another layer of discipline. UNCLOS imposes duties to protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent pollution, and cooperate through global and regional rules. A state cannot invoke high-seas freedom to ignore marine pollution obligations. Freedom is exercised within the Convention’s broader legal order.

The maritime lesson is valuable beyond the law of the sea. A freedom may exist, but its exercise is rarely isolated from duties, procedures, and institutional controls. Lotus is often used to emphasise freedom. Maritime codification shows why freedom must be read with structure.

5.5 The Surviving Maritime Lesson

Lotus no longer governs high-seas collision prosecutions under the modern law of the sea. Article 97 of UNCLOS has displaced the specific result that made the case controversial. In that narrow field, the codified rule is now the controlling legal point.

The case still teaches an important method. It shows how courts reason when a state alleges that another state has acted without legal authority. It also shows how the framing of a question affects the burden of argument. The PCIJ asked if Turkey had acted contrary to international law. That pushed the Court toward the search for a prohibitive rule (PCIJ, 1927).

The modern maritime framework also teaches the opposite lesson. Once states codify a field, legal silence shrinks. A state cannot bypass a specific treaty rule by invoking a general presumption of freedom. Lex specialis controls the matter. The old residual argument loses force.

The surviving value of Lotus is not operational but methodological. It helps lawyers analyse legal silence, jurisdictional links, concurrent authority, and the proof of restrictions. It also warns against assuming that every later dispute can be solved by the same formula. Law develops. The answer in 1927 is not automatically the answer under UNCLOS.

6. Lotus in ICJ Legal Reasoning

6.1 Reparation for Injuries and Implied Powers

The ICJ’s advisory opinion in Reparation for Injuries shows that international legal reasoning does not always depend on express textual authorisation. The question was if the United Nations had the capacity to bring an international claim for injury suffered by one of its agents. The Charter did not contain a direct provision answering the question. The Court recognised the Organisation’s international legal personality by implication from its functions, purposes, and responsibilities (ICJ, 1949).

This reasoning stands apart from a rigid version of Lotus. The Court did not ask only if a rule prohibited the United Nations from bringing a claim. It examined the structure and function of the Organisation. It found that the United Nations needed an international personality to perform the tasks entrusted to it.

The opinion is important because it treats legal silence as a problem of interpretation, not as automatic permission or automatic prohibition. The Court reasoned through institutional necessity. It connected legal capacity to the effective performance of functions under the Charter.

For the modern reading of Lotus, the lesson is direct. Absence of express text does not always leave a legal vacuum. International law may recognise implied powers, institutional capacities, and necessary legal consequences when they follow from the structure of a legal regime.

6.2 Nuclear Weapons and Legal Silence

The Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion is often linked to Lotus because the ICJ considered the absence of a comprehensive and universal prohibition of nuclear weapons as such. A shallow reading would stop there and say that silence permitted the conduct. The opinion is more complex.

The Court examined the UN Charter rules on the use of force, the law of self-defence, international humanitarian law, treaty obligations on specific weapons, environmental considerations, and principles such as necessity, distinction, and proportionality. It did not treat the absence of one complete prohibition as the end of the inquiry (ICJ, 1996).

The opinion also showed the difficulty of legal uncertainty. The Court concluded that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, especially humanitarian law. Yet it could not conclude definitively on the legality or illegality of such use in an extreme circumstance of self-defence where the very survival of a state would be at stake (ICJ, 1996).

That conclusion is not a simple victory for Lotus. It is an example of disciplined judicial reasoning under legal pressure. The Court did not create a general permission. It mapped the applicable legal regimes and identified the point at which the available law and facts did not allow a definitive conclusion.

The opinion is useful because it shows that prohibition-based reasoning can survive without becoming a general doctrine of state liberty. The proper inquiry is not “Is there one express ban?” The proper inquiry is which legal regimes govern the conduct and how their rules interact.

6.3 Kosovo and Prohibition-Based Analysis

The Kosovo advisory opinion is another modern example of prohibition-based reasoning. The ICJ was asked if the unilateral declaration of independence by the Kosovo authorities was in accordance with international law. The Court framed the issue by asking if general international law prohibited the declaration (ICJ, 2010).

The answer was limited. The Court found that general international law contained no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence as such. It also examined Security Council resolution 1244 and the Constitutional Framework governing Kosovo’s interim administration. The Court concluded that the declaration did not violate those instruments (ICJ, 2010).

The opinion did not create a general right of secession. It did not decide that Kosovo was a state. It did not approve of all unilateral independence movements. Its conclusion concerned the legality of the declaration itself, not every legal consequence that might follow.

Kosovo illustrates both the use and the danger of Lotus-style reasoning. The use lies in asking if a legal prohibition exists. The danger lies in reading a narrow answer as a broad entitlement. A finding that a declaration is not prohibited is not the same as a general right to statehood, recognition, or territorial separation.

The case confirms the need for precision. The legality of a declaration, the legality of secession, the creation of statehood, and the duty of other states to recognise or not recognise are different questions. Lotus reasoning can help with one question only if the question is framed with care.

6.4 Arrest Warrant and Personal Immunity

An arrest warrant shows that jurisdictional freedom is limited by procedural immunities. Belgium issued an arrest warrant against the sitting Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Belgium argued that the alleged crimes were serious enough to support criminal proceedings. The ICJ accepted the importance of accountability, but held that an incumbent foreign minister enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability before foreign national courts (ICJ, 2002).

The case is a direct warning against broad Lotus reasoning. Even where a state claims jurisdiction over grave international crimes, it may still be barred from exercising that authority against certain officials while they hold office. Immunity does not erase criminal responsibility. It restricts the forum and timing of proceedings.

The Court distinguished between substantive responsibility and procedural immunity. A person may remain responsible under international criminal law, but a foreign domestic court may be unable to proceed at a particular moment. That distinction is essential to modern jurisdictional analysis.

The opinion also shows that the absence of a prohibition on prosecuting serious crimes is not enough. A state must also account for immunities, procedural bars, and the status of the accused. A Lotus argument that ignores immunity is incomplete.

An arrest warrant narrows the practical reach of residual freedom. It confirms that jurisdiction cannot be assessed through subject matter alone. The identity and official status of the person concerned may change the legal result.

6.5 Jurisdictional Immunities and Legal Form

Jurisdictional Immunities confirms the importance of legal form in international adjudication. Italian courts allowed civil claims against Germany for serious violations committed during the Second World War. Germany argued that Italy had violated its state immunity. Italy answered, among other points, that the gravity of the alleged violations and the jus cogens character of the underlying norms justified denying immunity (ICJ, 2012).

The ICJ held that Italy had breached Germany’s immunity. The Court accepted the seriousness of the underlying conduct, but maintained the distinction between substantive rules and procedural immunity. A rule prohibiting grave breaches does not automatically remove the procedural protection that prevents one state from being sued before the courts of another state (ICJ, 2012).

This reasoning is important for Lotus. It shows that modern international law is not built on a simple contrast between prohibition and permission. A claim may concern a breach of a high-ranking substantive norm, but the forum may still be barred by procedural law. The legal system contains layers.

The case also shows that jus cogens does not solve every jurisdictional problem. Peremptory norms have hierarchical force in relation to conflicting substantive rules. State immunity is treated as procedural. The Court did not accept that the hierarchy of the substantive norm automatically displaced the procedural rule (ICJ, 2012).

For a Lotus-based argument, the lesson is strict. Even where a state has a moral and legal interest in accountability, it must identify a lawful forum and a lawful procedure. Silence or gravity alone does not create adjudicative authority.

6.6 Barcelona Traction and Community Interests

Barcelona Traction introduced one of the most important limits on a purely bilateral view of international law. The ICJ distinguished ordinary obligations owed to particular states from obligations owed to the international community as a whole. The latter are known as erga omnes obligations (ICJ, 1970).

This matters for Lotus because the classic permissive reading assumes a legal order centred on reciprocal state consent and bilateral injury. Barcelona Traction shows a broader structure. Some obligations protect collective legal interests. Their breach is not merely a private matter between two states.

The Court gave examples, including obligations concerning aggression, genocide, slavery, racial discrimination, and basic rights of the human person (ICJ, 1970). Later case law and ILC work have developed the consequences of this category. The point for Lotus is that not all legal interests are reducible to the immediate consent or injury of one state.

Community obligations narrow the space for a broad presumption of freedom. A state cannot treat silence as permission when the conduct affects interests protected for the international community. The legal inquiry must account for the public character of the obligation.

Barcelona Traction does not abolish Lotus. It changes the setting in which Lotus operates. State freedom remains relevant, but it exists alongside obligations that protect shared legal interests and may be invoked beyond the directly injured state.

6.7 Climate Change and Systemic Duties

The ICJ’s 2025 advisory opinion on climate change provides a contemporary contrast to a broad Lotus approach. Climate change could not be analysed through a simple question: is there one express rule prohibiting every state's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions? The Court examined a network of obligations drawn from treaty law, customary law, environmental due diligence, cooperation, prevention, and human rights considerations (ICJ, 2025).

The opinion treated the duty to prevent significant environmental harm as applicable to the climate system. The Court also linked compliance to due diligence, a standard that depends on the circumstances of the state, the risks involved, scientific knowledge, and the measures reasonably available. This is not an outcome that follows from a bare search for express prohibitions.

The advisory opinion also recognised the importance of cooperation. Climate change is cumulative and global. No single state controls the whole problem, but each state has obligations in relation to activities under its jurisdiction or control. That structure makes a purely individualised Lotus-style freedom unsuitable.

The opinion is also significant because it connects climate obligations with the law of state responsibility. A state does not incur responsibility simply because a desired environmental result is not achieved. Responsibility may arise where the state fails to exercise due diligence or breaches a relevant primary obligation (ICJ, 2025).

Climate law shows how far contemporary international law has moved beyond the narrow conditions of 1927. Legal duties may arise through treaty frameworks, custom, scientific risk, due diligence, human rights impact, and cooperation obligations. Silence on a specific factual pathway does not mean full freedom to contribute to systemic harm.

6.8 The Court’s Post-Lotus Discipline

The ICJ has never turned Lotus into a universal master rule. Its modern method is more structured. The Court identifies the legal field, examines applicable treaties, tests customary law, considers general principles, evaluates institutional context, and then states the legal consequence.

This can produce different outcomes. In Reparation for Injuries, silence was addressed through implied powers. In Nuclear Weapons, the Court moved through several legal regimes and reached a carefully limited conclusion. In Kosovo, it asked if a declaration was prohibited, while refusing to decide broader questions not before it. In Arrest Warrant and Jurisdictional Immunities, procedural limits controlled even where serious allegations were present. In Barcelona Traction, community interests narrowed a purely bilateral model. In the climate advisory opinion, systemic duties displaced any simple freedom-based analysis.

The pattern is clear. The Court may ask if a prohibition exists, but that is rarely the only question. It also asks which legal regime applies, which source carries authority, which procedural limits matter, and which interests international law protects.

This post-Lotus discipline is the proper model for contemporary legal argument. A lawyer should not use Lotus as a shortcut. The case is a starting point for reasoning about silence and jurisdiction, not a substitute for source analysis.

The modern conclusion is balanced. Lotus survives where it reminds lawyers not to invent restrictions without a legal basis. It fails where it is used to ignore treaties, customs, immunities, the UN Charter, community obligations, due diligence, or specialised regimes. Its value lies in a disciplined method, not in unrestricted state freedom.

7. Sources That Narrow State Freedom

7.1 Treaty Law before Residual Freedom

A serious Lotus argument must begin with treaty law. If a treaty governs the subject, residual freedom becomes secondary. The question is no longer whether international law is silent in the abstract. The question is what the treaty requires, permits, excludes, or regulates.

This point follows from the basic structure of international obligation. Treaties bind the parties and must be performed in good faith. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties expresses that rule through pacta sunt servanda and the principle that treaty interpretation must consider text, context, object, and purpose (United Nations, 1969). A state cannot avoid a treaty regime by describing the issue at a high level of generality and then invoking Lotus.

The treaty does not need to use the word “prohibited” to limit state freedom. Some treaties restrict conduct through jurisdictional allocation, procedural duties, institutional competence, reporting duties, notification duties, consultation duties, or standards of due diligence. A rule may narrow discretion even when it is not drafted as a direct ban.

The law of the sea gives a clear example. After the Lotus case, treaty law addressed high-seas collisions through Article 11 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas and later Article 97 of UNCLOS. Those provisions allocate penal and disciplinary proceedings to the flag state or the state of nationality of the person concerned (United Nations, 1958; United Nations, 1982). A state cannot revive the broader reasoning of the 1927 judgment once a specific treaty rule governs the matter.

Treaty law also matters because many modern fields are built as regimes rather than isolated rules. Diplomatic relations, human rights, trade, investment, civil aviation, environmental protection, international criminal cooperation, and maritime zones all contain dense treaty frameworks. In such fields, Lotus has little independent work to do until the treaty framework has been interpreted with care.

7.2 Customary Law and Legal Evidence

The absence of a treaty does not prove the absence of law. Customary international law may bind states independently of treaty membership. The modern method for identifying custom requires two elements: a general practice and acceptance of that practice as law, often called opinio juris (ILC, 2018).

This two-part method is essential because it prevents both overstatement and underenforcement. It prevents lawyers from inventing custom based on moral preference or repeated political convenience. It also prevents states from claiming full freedom merely because no treaty provision covers the issue.

Custom is especially important in fields where treaty law is incomplete or unevenly ratified. Jurisdiction, immunities, the use of force, environmental due diligence, diplomatic protection, state responsibility, and parts of international criminal law all rely heavily on customary reasoning. A Lotus argument that ignores custom is incomplete.

The evidence must be handled with discipline. A few examples of state conduct will rarely be enough. A general statement in a political forum may not show acceptance as law. A judicial decision may be relevant, but it does not create custom by itself. The question is how states act and how they explain the legal meaning of that conduct.

7.2.1 Practice of States

State practice can appear in many forms. It may include national legislation, executive conduct, diplomatic correspondence, official protests, military manuals, operational instructions, pleadings before courts, national judgments, treaty practice, votes in international organisations, and explanations of vote. The form matters less than the legal relevance of the conduct.

Not all practice carries the same weight. Practice by states specially affected by the subject may be particularly relevant, but it does not automatically control the law. Practice must also be assessed for consistency, representativeness, and connection to the legal question under examination (ILC, 2018).

Diplomatic protest is often important. If one state acts and others object on legal grounds, those objections may prevent the emergence of a permissive customary rule. Silence may sometimes matter, but only when the circumstances call for a reaction and the state has knowledge of the conduct. Silence cannot be treated as legal consent in every situation.

Domestic legislation also requires caution. A statute asserting jurisdiction may show state practice. It may also provoke objections that weaken the claim. The legal significance depends on how the rule is justified, how other states react, and whether the practice is repeated across legal systems.

Operational conduct is equally complex. Military, maritime, cyber, or law enforcement activity may evidence practice, but secrecy, ambiguity, or political denial can reduce its value. In areas such as cyber operations, custom is difficult to identify because states often avoid explaining their conduct in legal terms.

7.2.2 Acceptance as Law

Opinio juris is what gives practice its legal character. States often act for political, economic, strategic, or administrative reasons. Repetition alone does not make conduct law. The practice must be accompanied by a belief that the conduct is legally required, legally permitted, or legally prohibited.

This element is crucial for Lotus. If states repeatedly refrain from conduct because it is inconvenient or costly, that restraint may not prove a legal prohibition. If they refrain because they accept that international law requires restraint, the evidence becomes stronger. The same distinction applies to permissive claims. A state may act because it believes the conduct is useful, not because it believes international law grants a legal entitlement.

Opinio juris may be found in official statements, legal pleadings, diplomatic notes, resolutions, national court decisions, military manuals, explanations of votes, and treaty negotiations. The language used by states matters. Words such as “obligation,” “right,” “duty,” “lawful,” “unlawful,” and “required by international law” may be significant when supported by practice.

The difficulty is that states do not always speak with legal clarity. They may use political language to avoid legal commitment. They may invoke the law selectively. They may support a rule in principle while resisting its application to their own conduct. Customary law analysis must account for these tensions.

For that reason, a court or lawyer should not infer opinio juris too quickly. The ILC’s approach requires careful evidence of both practice and acceptance as law (ILC, 2018). This method narrows the space for careless Lotus arguments because legal silence must be tested against the full evidentiary record.

7.2.3 Divided Practice

Divided practice creates one of the hardest problems in international law. If states act inconsistently, and their legal explanations also differ, it may be impossible to identify a settled customary rule. A court may then refuse to find the alleged prohibition or permission.

That result should not be misunderstood. Failure to prove a customary prohibition does not always create a positive legal right. It may only mean that the evidence does not establish the rule with enough certainty. This distinction is central to the modern reading of Lotus.

The Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion illustrates the point. The ICJ examined extensive materials, including treaty practice, UN resolutions, humanitarian law, and state positions. It did not find a comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons as such, but it also did not treat that absence as simple permission in all circumstances. The Court continued to test the issue against other legal rules (ICJ, 1996).

Divided practice also appears in debates over extraterritorial jurisdiction, cyber operations, universal civil jurisdiction, and unilateral sanctions. Some states assert broad authority. Others object. Some remain silent. The legal conclusion depends on the pattern, the quality of objections, and the legal explanations offered.

A responsible Lotus argument must treat uncertainty honestly. It should not turn weak evidence of prohibition into full freedom. It should state the narrower conclusion: the alleged rule is not established, or the claim is not proven on the available record.

7.2.4 Persistent Objection

Persistent objection is a limited doctrine within customary international law. A state that clearly and consistently objects to an emerging customary rule while the rule is forming may avoid being bound by that rule once it crystallises. The objection must be maintained over time and must be expressed as a legal objection, not merely as a political disagreement (ILC, 2018).

The doctrine reflects the continuing role of state consent and sovereign equality in custom. It gives a state a way to resist an emerging rule before it becomes binding. It also limits the claim that custom can always bind every state regardless of its conduct during the rule’s formation.

Its limits are equally important. Persistent objection cannot defeat treaty obligations. A state party to a treaty remains bound by that treaty even if it objects to a similar customary rule. Persistent objection also cannot defeat jus cogens. Peremptory norms bind all states and admit no derogation (ILC, 2022).

The doctrine also has little practical value once a customary rule is already established. A late objection does not free a state from an existing rule. The objection must be persistent during formation, not invented after the rule becomes inconvenient.

For Lotus analysis, a persistent objection shows both freedom and restraint. It protects a state against some emerging restrictions. It also confirms that freedom must be asserted through a recognised legal method. A state cannot simply claim silence after the law has already developed.

7.3 General Principles as Gap Control

General principles of law help prevent legal gaps from becoming legal disorder. They do not allow courts to invent rules at will. They provide recognised legal reasoning where treaty and custom are incomplete, especially on questions of procedure, responsibility, good faith, legal stability, and fairness.

Good faith is one of the most important examples. It requires states to exercise rights and perform obligations honestly, consistently, and without defeating the object of the legal relationship. Good faith appears in treaty performance, negotiations, estoppel, abuse of rights, and the interpretation of legal commitments (United Nations, 1969).

Due process also matters. International law does not leave individuals entirely exposed to arbitrary procedure when states exercise jurisdiction. Fair trial guarantees, notice, access to remedies, and basic procedural regularity may restrict the way state power is exercised, especially in criminal and administrative contexts.

Estoppel and acquiescence can also shape legal outcomes. A state that has accepted a position, induced reliance, or failed to object in circumstances requiring protest may be prevented from later taking an inconsistent legal position. These doctrines do not abolish consent. They discipline legal conduct and protect stability.

Responsibility and reparation also control gaps. If a state breaches an international obligation, it must cease the wrongful conduct where it continues, offer assurances or guarantees of non-repetition where appropriate, and make full reparation for the injury caused (ILC, 2001). These consequences do not depend on a new treaty for every case. They flow from the general law of responsibility.

General principles narrow Lotus by reminding lawyers that silence in treaty and custom does not always mean unstructured freedom. Legal reasoning may still be guided by principles already recognised across legal systems and international practice.

7.4 Judicial Decisions as Subsidiary Means

Judicial decisions are subsidiary means for determining the rules of law. They are not legislation. The Statute of the International Court of Justice places judicial decisions alongside scholarly writings as subsidiary means, not as independent sources equal to treaties, custom, and general principles (ICJ Statute, 1945).

This point is essential for Lotus. The judgment is influential, but it is not a code. It must be read through its facts, the question submitted, the arguments presented, the law of the time, the reasoning of the majority, the dissenting opinions, and later legal developments.

A case may remain important even after its specific result has been displaced. Lotus is the best example. Its maritime conclusion on high-seas collision prosecutions has been overtaken by treaty law. Its methodological importance remains because lawyers still debate legal silence, residual freedom, and the burden of proving restrictions.

Later cases may also narrow the meaning of earlier decisions. Reparation for Injuries shows that implied legal powers may arise from institutional function (ICJ, 1949). Nuclear Weapons shows that the absence of a direct prohibition does not end the inquiry (ICJ, 1996). Arrest Warrant and Jurisdictional Immunities show that procedural limits can restrict national courts even where serious allegations are made (ICJ, 2002; ICJ, 2012).

Judicial reasoning must be used with precision. A sentence from a judgment should not be detached from the question before the court. This is the central mistake in many uses of Lotus. The judgment remains valuable, but only when treated as legal reasoning in context.

7.5 Institutional Materials and Law Formation

Institutional materials play a significant role in contemporary international law. They may clarify legal obligations, contribute to treaty interpretation, evidence state practice or opinio juris, or shape the development of new rules. Their legal value depends on the institution, the instrument, the mandate, the voting record, the language used, and the response of states.

Security Council resolutions may be binding when adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and expressed in mandatory terms. Such resolutions can directly affect state obligations and leave little room for residual freedom. A state cannot invoke Lotus against a binding Security Council decision (United Nations, 1945).

General Assembly resolutions have a different status. They are not usually binding as such, but they may evidence opinio juris, contribute to the development of custom, articulate principles, or influence interpretation. Their legal value depends on content, support, consistency, and later practice. The Friendly Relations Declaration is a leading example of an instrument with major legal significance beyond ordinary political recommendation (United Nations, 1970).

The work of the International Law Commission is also important. The ILC’s articles on state responsibility, conclusions on customary international law, and conclusions on peremptory norms are not treaties unless states adopt them as such. Yet they carry high authority because they synthesize practice, jurisprudence, and doctrine. Courts and states frequently use them as reliable statements or evidence of the law (ILC, 2001; ILC, 2018; ILC, 2022).

Treaty bodies and specialist institutions may also influence legal understanding. Human rights committees, maritime bodies, environmental conferences, and international criminal institutions may clarify obligations within their mandates. Their outputs must be read carefully, but they cannot be ignored in a modern source analysis.

Institutional materials narrow state freedom by making legal silence harder to claim. In a dense legal order, relevant guidance may exist outside a single treaty article or court judgment. A modern Lotus argument must account for this institutional setting.

8. Hierarchy, Community, and Restraint

8.1 The Charter Order after 1945

The UN Charter changed the legal environment in which the Lotus case must be read. The world of 1927 was not governed by the same constitutional framework for peace, security, and collective responsibility. Since 1945, state freedom has operated within the Charter order.

Article 2(1) affirms sovereign equality. Article 2(3) requires the peaceful settlement of disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Article 2(7) protects domestic jurisdiction, subject to enforcement measures under the Charter. These provisions create a legal structure that limits unilateral action (United Nations, 1945).

The prohibition on force is especially important. A state cannot argue that force is lawful merely because no special treaty provision addresses the exact factual situation. The Charter establishes a broad prohibition, and the acting state must bring its conduct within a recognised legal basis, such as self-defence under Article 51 or Security Council authorisation.

The Charter also institutionalised collective security. Security Council decisions may impose obligations, authorise measures, or restrict state conduct. This institutional structure narrows the role of residual freedom in matters of peace and security.

Lotus remains relevant to legal method, but the Charter order prevents its expansion into a general theory of unilateral state power. State freedom now operates inside a framework that prioritises peace, restraint, cooperation, and collective authority.

8.2 Peremptory Norms

Peremptory norms, or jus cogens, mark a decisive limit on consent-based reasoning. These norms are accepted and recognised by the international community of states as a whole as norms from which no derogation is permitted. They can be modified only by later norms of the same character (United Nations, 1969; ILC, 2022).

This category directly limits any broad reading of Lotus. A state cannot invoke silence, consent, domestic law, treaty arrangements, or contrary practice to justify conduct that violates jus cogens. Peremptory norms occupy a higher position in the international legal order.

Examples commonly associated with jus cogens include the prohibitions of aggression, genocide, slavery, torture, racial discrimination, crimes against humanity, and the right of self-determination (ILC, 2022). The exact scope and consequences of each norm require careful analysis, but the hierarchy point is settled: some rules stand above ordinary consent.

The legal consequences are serious. Treaties conflicting with jus cogens are void. States must not recognise as lawful situations created by serious breaches of peremptory norms. They must cooperate to bring such breaches to an end through lawful means (ILC, 2001; ILC, 2022).

Jus cogens does not answer every jurisdictional or procedural question automatically. Jurisdictional Immunities shows that a peremptory substantive norm does not always remove procedural immunity before a foreign national court (ICJ, 2012). Still, peremptory norms sharply restrict any claim that legal silence leaves states free to act.

8.3 Obligations to the International Community

Erga omnes obligations are obligations owed to the international community as a whole. The ICJ gave this category its classic formulation in Barcelona Traction, distinguishing ordinary obligations owed to particular states from obligations in which all states have a legal interest (ICJ, 1970).

The category matters because it limits the purely bilateral model of international law. Under a bilateral model, a breach mainly injures one state, and only that state has a direct legal interest. Erga omnes obligations protect shared legal interests. Their breach concerns all states because the obligation has a public character.

The ICJ linked this idea to obligations concerning aggression, genocide, slavery, racial discrimination, and basic rights of the human person (ICJ, 1970). Later jurisprudence and the law of responsibility have developed the consequences of obligations owed to the international community as a whole.

This development narrows broad Lotus reasoning. A state cannot treat the absence of a directly injured protesting state as proof of freedom where the obligation protects collective interests. The legal order may recognise a wider interest in compliance.

The point is not that erga omnes obligations abolish state freedom. They reshape the legal context. They require lawyers to ask whose legal interest is protected, who may invoke responsibility, and how collective interests affect the consequences of breach.

8.4 Human Rights and State Power

Human rights law limits the way states exercise power over individuals. This is one of the clearest changes since Lotus. The 1927 judgment dealt with the authority of states in relation to each other. Contemporary international law also asks how state power affects individuals under jurisdiction or control.

Human rights obligations may limit detention, trial procedure, surveillance, migration control, counterterrorism measures, policing, use of force by law enforcement, expulsion, and treatment in custody. A state cannot rely on general freedom if a human rights treaty or customary rule applies to the conduct.

Extraterritorial human rights obligations are especially important. A state may owe human rights duties outside its territory when it exercises effective control over territory, authority over persons, or certain forms of power recognised by the relevant treaty system. The precise tests vary across regimes, but the broader point is clear: territorial borders do not always end human rights responsibility (ICJ, 2004; Human Rights Committee, 2018).

This matters for Lotus because a jurisdictional basis to act does not settle the legality of how the state acts. A state may have competence to prosecute, detain, regulate, or remove a person. It must still comply with fair trial rights, non-discrimination, protection against torture, liberty guarantees, family life protections, and other applicable norms.

Human rights law replaces crude permissive reasoning with structured review. The question is not only whether the state may act. It is also how the state acts, against whom, under what procedure, with what safeguards, and with what remedies.

8.5 Due Diligence and Transboundary Harm

Due diligence is a major limit on state freedom in fields involving risk. It requires a state to take reasonable measures to prevent, reduce, or control harm arising from activities under its jurisdiction or control. The standard is not strict liability. It is an obligation of conduct assessed by risk, capacity, knowledge, and available measures.

The prevention of significant transboundary harm is a central example. The Trail Smelter arbitration stated that no state has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in a manner that causes serious injury in or to the territory of another state (Trail Smelter Arbitration, 1941). Later jurisprudence developed duties of prevention, cooperation, notification, consultation, and environmental impact assessment.

In Pulp Mills, the ICJ treated environmental impact assessment as a requirement under general international law where there is a risk of significant transboundary harm (ICJ, 2010). In later environmental cases, the Court reinforced the importance of prevention and cooperation. These duties restrict the idea that a state is free whenever no specific ban exists.

Due diligence is especially relevant to climate change, cyber operations, hazardous industries, shared watercourses, marine pollution, and activities by private actors under state jurisdiction. A state may not be the direct physical author of every harm, but it may still have duties to regulate, supervise, warn, cooperate, or prevent foreseeable damage.

For Lotus analysis, due diligence changes the question. The issue is not only whether a specific act is prohibited. The issue may be whether the state took the measures required by law to prevent serious harm. That is a more demanding inquiry than the classical search for a prohibitive rule.

8.6 Immunities and Forum Limits

Immunities are procedural limits on jurisdiction. They show that a state may have a substantive claim without having authority to proceed in a particular forum. This distinction is essential to the modern limits of Lotus.

State immunity protects a state from being sued before the courts of another state in many circumstances. Diplomatic immunity protects diplomatic agents and mission functions. Consular immunity protects consular functions within defined limits. Personal immunity protects certain high officials while they hold office. These rules are not minor exceptions. They are part of the legal architecture that allows states to interact without constant judicial interference.

Arrest Warrant illustrates the point. The ICJ held that an incumbent foreign minister enjoyed immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability before foreign courts, even when serious crimes were alleged (ICJ, 2002). Jurisdictional Immunities made a similar distinction between substantive wrongfulness and procedural immunity in civil proceedings against a foreign state (ICJ, 2012).

Immunity does not mean impunity. It may be temporary. It may not apply before some international courts. It may not protect private acts after office in the same way. It may be waived by the state entitled to invoke it. Yet while it applies, it limits the forum.

A broad Lotus argument cannot defeat immunities. The absence of a specific prohibition on a prosecution is not enough if a procedural bar applies. The question is not only whether the state has an interest in adjudication. It is whether international law permits that forum to exercise authority over that defendant at that time.

8.7 Good Faith and Abuse of Rights

Good faith is a basic principle of international law. It requires states to exercise rights and perform obligations honestly, consistently, and with respect for the legal purpose of the rule invoked. It prevents a state from using technical freedom to defeat the very legal order that recognises that freedom.

Abuse of rights is closely related. A state may have a legal power, but it must not exercise that power in a way designed to harm another state, evade obligations, or frustrate the object of a legal regime. The doctrine is not always easy to apply, but it remains important as a restraint on formalism.

These principles matter for Lotus because a narrow permissive reading can invite manipulation. A state may argue that no rule expressly forbids a particular form of pressure, surveillance, regulatory overreach, environmental risk, or jurisdictional expansion. Good faith requires a more disciplined inquiry into purpose, context, effects, and legal coherence.

Good faith also operates in treaty interpretation and performance. A state cannot interpret a treaty in a way that empties its obligations of practical meaning. Nor can it rely on silence in one provision to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty as a whole (United Nations, 1969).

The modern legal order does not treat freedom as a loophole-hunting exercise. State freedom remains important, but it must be exercised consistently with good faith, legal stability, cooperation, and respect for the rights of others. That is the final restraint on a careless use of Lotus.

9. Special Regimes and Lex Specialis

9.1 Legal Priority in Special Regimes

Lex specialis is a rule of legal priority. Where a specialised body of law governs a subject, the general background rule gives way to the more specific rule. This matters for Lotus because many areas that once appeared open or uncertain are now regulated by detailed treaty systems, institutional procedures, and specialised doctrines.

A broad Lotus argument is strongest where the legal field is genuinely open and no applicable rule restricts the state’s conduct. It becomes weak where a special regime already allocates authority, creates procedures, or defines limits. In that situation, the lawyer must begin with the special regime, not with residual state freedom.

The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility reflect this logic. Article 55 provides that the general rules on responsibility do not apply where the conditions for the existence of an internationally wrongful act, or the content or implementation of responsibility, are governed by special rules of international law (ILC, 2001). The point is wider than state responsibility. Special rules often control the legal field before any general presumption can operate.

This is why Lotus cannot be used as a universal shortcut. A lawyer cannot say that a state is free because no general prohibition has been found while ignoring a treaty framework that regulates the conduct. Lex specialis changes the order of analysis. It asks first what the relevant regime says, how it allocates authority, and what limits it imposes.

Special regimes also prevent selective reasoning. A state cannot rely on the freedoms of a regime while avoiding its duties. Maritime navigation, diplomatic protection, international criminal justice, human rights supervision, space activities, and climate obligations all combine freedom with legal discipline. Lotus has little force where that discipline already exists.

9.2 Law of the Sea

The law of the sea is the clearest example of a special regime that narrows residual freedom. UNCLOS regulates maritime zones, navigation, flag-state authority, coastal-state powers, high-seas freedoms, environmental protection, marine scientific research, seabed resources, and dispute settlement. It is not a loose collection of isolated rules. It is a structured legal order for ocean space (United Nations, 1982).

The displacement of Lotus in high-seas collision cases shows this clearly. Article 97 of UNCLOS allocates penal and disciplinary proceedings for high-seas collisions or incidents of navigation to the flag state or the state of nationality of the person concerned. That rule directly narrows the earlier space in which the PCIJ allowed Turkey to act (PCIJ, 1927; United Nations, 1982).

The same pattern appears across the Convention. In the territorial sea, the coastal state has sovereignty, subject to innocent passage. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal state has sovereign rights over natural resources, but other states retain navigation and overflight freedoms. On the continental shelf, the coastal state has rights over seabed resources. On the high seas, all states enjoy freedoms, but those freedoms are subject to flag-state duties and obligations of cooperation.

Enforcement powers are also carefully allocated. Coastal states may enforce certain laws in maritime zones, but only within limits. Flag states retain primary authority over their vessels on the high seas. Other states may board foreign vessels only under defined exceptions, such as piracy, slave trade, unauthorised broadcasting, statelessness, or treaty-based enforcement arrangements (United Nations, 1982).

Environmental obligations add another layer. UNCLOS requires states to protect and preserve the marine environment and to prevent, reduce, and control pollution. The ITLOS advisory opinion on climate change and the marine environment confirmed that these duties apply with legal seriousness and cannot be reduced to political discretion (ITLOS, 2024).

The law of the sea shows the modern fate of Lotus. General freedom still exists in maritime law, but only inside a treaty structure. The legal question is not simply whether conduct is prohibited. It is which maritime zone is involved, which state has authority, which duties apply, and which procedures control enforcement.

9.3 Diplomatic and Consular Law

Diplomatic and consular law leaves little room for free-standing Lotus reasoning. The field is governed mainly by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. These treaties regulate privileges, immunities, inviolability, receiving-state duties, consular access, waiver, termination of functions, and the status of mission premises (United Nations, 1961; United Nations, 1963).

The rules are specific because diplomacy requires stability. Diplomatic agents must be able to perform official functions without coercion by the receiving state. Mission premises are inviolable. Diplomatic archives and documents are protected. Diplomatic agents enjoy personal inviolability and broad immunity from criminal jurisdiction. These rules are not optional courtesies. They are treaty obligations.

Consular law is more limited but still structured. Consular officers enjoy functional immunity for acts performed in the exercise of consular functions. Consular premises receive protection, though not identical to diplomatic premises. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations regulates communication with detained nationals and has generated important litigation before the ICJ (United Nations, 1963; ICJ, 2001; ICJ, 2004).

Persona non grata is another example of a legal structure. The receiving state may require the sending state to recall a diplomatic agent or terminate their functions. This remedy allows the receiving state to respond to misconduct without disregarding immunity. The treaty regime balances the protection of diplomatic functions with the receiving state’s interest in order and security.

Lotus has little role here. A receiving state cannot prosecute a diplomat by arguing that no special prohibition applies to the facts. The treaty already controls the issue. The correct question is not residual freedom, but immunity, waiver, persona non grata, inviolability, and the duties imposed by the Vienna regime.

Diplomatic and consular law shows why special regimes matter. They convert sensitive areas of interstate relations into defined legal procedures. Where such procedures exist, a broad claim of freedom is not an analysis. It is the avoidance of the governing law.

9.4 International Criminal Law

International criminal law also resists a broad Lotus approach. It deals with crimes of international concern, but it does not create unlimited national jurisdiction. Criminal authority depends on treaty provisions, customary law, domestic implementation, custody, extradition, immunities, cooperation duties, and the statutes of international courts.

The Rome Statute is a central example. The International Criminal Court may exercise jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression when the conditions of the Statute are satisfied. Its jurisdiction is shaped by state consent, Security Council referrals, territorial and nationality links, admissibility rules, complementarity, and cooperation obligations (United Nations, 1998).

Complementarity is especially important. The ICC is not designed to replace national courts in every case. It acts where national systems are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute. This model shows that criminal accountability is structured through the allocation of authority, not through a simple presumption that any state or institution may act whenever no prohibition appears.

National courts also require a legal basis. A state may prosecute crimes committed on its territory, crimes committed by its nationals abroad, crimes against its nationals in some contexts, or crimes subject to universal jurisdiction. Yet universal jurisdiction is exceptional. It must be grounded in the nature of the offence, treaty law, custom, and domestic implementation. It cannot be justified by Lotus alone.

Immunities create further limits. An arrest warrant confirms that certain incumbent high officials enjoy immunity before foreign national courts, even where serious international crimes are alleged (ICJ, 2002). The issue is not the moral gravity of the crime alone. The legal forum, the status of the accused, and the procedural rules all matter.

International criminal law also depends on cooperation. Extradition, mutual legal assistance, surrender to international courts, evidence-sharing, witness protection, and enforcement of sentences all require legal frameworks. This field shows the weakness of the idea that the absence of prohibition equals full power. Criminal law is coercive. Coercive authority must be legally grounded and procedurally controlled.

9.5 Human Rights Systems

Human rights systems also narrow residual freedom. Universal and regional instruments impose obligations on states in relation to individuals under their jurisdiction or control. These obligations regulate detention, fair trial, non-discrimination, privacy, family life, expression, assembly, migration control, surveillance, use of force by law enforcement, and protection against torture or arbitrary deprivation of life.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a central universal instrument. It requires states to respect and ensure rights to individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction (United Nations, 1966). Regional systems, including the European, Inter-American, and African systems, add judicial and quasi-judicial supervision. The precise scope of obligations varies by regime, but the basic point is the same: state discretion is legally limited.

Human rights law is especially important when a state exercises power outside its territory. The ICJ has accepted that human rights treaties may apply extraterritorially where a state exercises relevant authority or control (ICJ, 2004). The Human Rights Committee has also interpreted the ICCPR to apply where a state exercises power or effective control over individuals outside its territory (Human Rights Committee, 2018).

This affects Lotus directly. A state may have a jurisdictional basis to regulate or prosecute, but it must still comply with human rights. Criminal proceedings must satisfy fair trial guarantees. Detention must not be arbitrary. Interrogation must not involve torture or ill-treatment. Surveillance must comply with legality, necessity, and proportionality standards where applicable.

Human rights law also affects counterterrorism and migration. A state cannot rely on security discretion to remove a person to a place where there is a real risk of torture. It cannot remain indefinitely without a legal basis. It cannot use border control as a zone outside the law. In these areas, residual freedom is heavily constrained.

Human rights systems show that the modern legal order does not ask only what states may do to each other. It also asks what states may do to individuals. That shift limits the classical state-centred reading of Lotus.

10. Lotus beyond Classical Jurisdiction

10.1 Cyber Operations

Cyber operations are often presented as a modern testing ground for Lotus. The field is technically complex, state practice is uneven, and opinio juris is still developing. Some states argue that existing international law applies fully to cyberspace. Others avoid clear statements on specific rules. This creates a difficult environment for legal analysis (United Nations General Assembly, 2015; United Nations General Assembly, 2021).

The temptation is to say that anything not expressly prohibited in cyber law is permitted. That would be a poor use of Lotus. The correct inquiry begins with existing rules: sovereignty, non-intervention, the prohibition on the use of force, due diligence, state responsibility, countermeasures, human rights, and international humanitarian law where armed conflict exists.

Sovereignty is central but contested in application. Some states treat certain cyber operations affecting another state’s territory, infrastructure, or governmental functions as violations of sovereignty. Others frame sovereignty more as a principle than as a standalone rule. The debate shows why cyber law cannot be reduced to a bare permissive formula.

Non-intervention offers a more established limit. A cyber operation may violate the rule where it interferes coercively with matters reserved to another state, such as elections, public institutions, or essential governmental functions. The challenge lies in defining coercion and proving attribution.

Due diligence is also debated. Some expert writings and state positions suggest that a state should not knowingly allow its territory or infrastructure to be used for cyber operations causing serious adverse consequences to other states. Yet the precise status and content of that duty in cyberspace remain contested (Schmitt, 2017; United Nations General Assembly, 2021).

Cyber operations show both the attraction and the danger of Lotus. Legal uncertainty exists, but uncertainty is not the same as unrestricted freedom. A responsible analysis must identify the rule invoked, the operation’s effects, the target, the actor, attribution, the threshold of harm, and any applicable response measures.

10.2 Extraterritorial Regulation

Extraterritorial regulation is another field where Lotus is often invoked indirectly. States regulate foreign-linked conduct through sanctions, export controls, anti-corruption laws, competition laws, tax rules, supply-chain duties, anti-money laundering laws, and human rights due diligence legislation. These measures often affect foreign companies, foreign transactions, or conduct taking place abroad.

The central issue is not simply permission. It is a connection. A state must show why the regulated conduct is sufficiently linked to its territory, nationals, market, security, financial system, victims, or protected legal interests. Without a meaningful connection, extraterritorial regulation risks interfering with another state’s legal order (Ryngaert, 2015).

Competition law gives a common example. A cartel formed abroad may still affect prices or consumers inside the regulating state. Effects-based jurisdiction may be plausible if the effect is direct and substantial. If the claimed effect is remote or speculative, the jurisdictional claim weakens.

Anti-corruption law offers another example. A state may regulate bribery committed abroad by its nationals, companies incorporated under its law, or issuers using its financial markets. Treaty regimes such as the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention strengthen such jurisdictional claims by requiring states to criminalise and cooperate against foreign bribery (OECD, 1997).

Unilateral sanctions are more contested. A state may restrict its own nationals, companies, markets, and financial systems. More controversial are secondary sanctions that pressure foreign persons for conduct with a limited connection to the sanctioning state. The legal debate concerns jurisdictional links, non-intervention, sovereign equality, trade law, and the risk of coercive interference.

Human rights due diligence laws create a newer form of foreign-linked regulation. They may require companies to assess and address risks in global supply chains. Such laws are stronger when tied to companies incorporated, domiciled, operating, or selling into the regulating state. They become more vulnerable when they attempt to control foreign actors with weak forum links.

Lotus cannot resolve these disputes alone. The better method is to test the jurisdictional basis, the degree of interference, the regulatory purpose, treaty commitments, reactions by other states, and the availability of cooperation mechanisms.

10.3 Outer Space

Outer space law shows how freedom and regulation can coexist. The Outer Space Treaty recognises freedom of exploration and use of outer space by all states. It also provides that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, use, occupation, or any other means (United Nations, 1967).

This structure matters for Lotus. Space is not governed by territorial sovereignty, but it is not lawless. States are internationally responsible for national activities in outer space, including activities carried out by non-governmental entities. They must authorise and continuously supervise those private activities (United Nations, 1967).

The treaty system also includes duties of due regard and cooperation. States must conduct activities with due regard to the corresponding interests of other states. They must avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies. They may need to consult where an activity could cause potentially harmful interference.

Liability and registration add further discipline. The Liability Convention establishes rules on international liability for damage caused by space objects. The Registration Convention requires registration of space objects launched into Earth orbit or beyond (United Nations, 1972; United Nations, 1975). These instruments connect space freedom to accountability and transparency.

Private space activity makes the point even more important. Commercial launches, satellite constellations, lunar missions, space debris risks, and resource-related activities cannot be analysed through residual freedom alone. States remain responsible for authorisation and supervision. Domestic licensing regimes operate within international obligations.

Outer space law rejects both extremes. It rejects territorial appropriation, but it also rejects legal emptiness. The lesson for Lotus is precise: freedom in a global commons is always structured by duties, responsibility, and the rights of others.

10.4 Climate Harm

Climate harm exposes the weakness of narrow prohibition reasoning. Greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative, global, and produced by many public and private actors. Asking only whether international law contains one direct prohibition on every emission source misses the structure of climate obligations.

The legal framework includes the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, customary duties of prevention, due diligence, cooperation, environmental impact assessment, and human rights obligations (United Nations, 1992; United Nations, 2015; ICJ, 2025). These sources do not operate as a single criminal-style prohibition. They create a network of conduct obligations, procedural duties, and standards of care.

The ICJ’s 2025 climate advisory opinion confirms this systemic approach. The Court assessed climate obligations through treaty law, customary international law, due diligence, cooperation, prevention of significant harm, and the protection of human rights affected by climate change (ICJ, 2025). That approach leaves little room for a simplistic Lotus argument.

Due diligence is central. A state may not be strictly responsible for every tonne of emissions linked to its economy, but it must take appropriate measures in light of risk, capacity, knowledge, and available means. Climate science also affects legal assessment because foreseeability and risk are part of the due diligence inquiry.

Environmental impact assessment is another example. Where there is a risk of significant transboundary harm, states may be required to assess environmental effects before authorising activities. This procedural duty constrains freedom even when no treaty provision names the exact project or technology (ICJ, 2010).

Human rights deepen the analysis. Climate harm affects life, health, home, private life, food, water, and cultural survival. Courts and human rights bodies increasingly treat climate in connection with rights protection, especially where state inaction exposes individuals to serious foreseeable risks (ECtHR, 2024; ICJ, 2025).

Climate law shows that the absence of a single direct prohibition is not the end of legal analysis. Modern international law often works through standards, duties of conduct, cooperation, and risk prevention. Lotus has little force where systemic duties already govern the field.

10.5 Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence should be used cautiously in Lotus analysis. International law does not yet contain a single comprehensive treaty governing all AI systems. That does not mean states have full freedom to develop, deploy, export, or support AI tools without legal limits.

The relevant law depends on the use of the system. AI used in policing may raise human rights issues, including privacy, equality, liberty, and due process. AI used in border control may affect non-refoulement, asylum procedure, and non-discrimination. AI used in armed conflict must comply with international humanitarian law, including distinction, proportionality, precautions, and weapons review obligations. AI used in financial systems may raise questions of due diligence, regulatory jurisdiction, and cross-border harm.

State responsibility is also relevant. A state may incur responsibility where AI-related conduct is attributable to it and breaches an international obligation. Private companies are not usually subjects of the same obligations as states, but states may have duties to regulate, supervise, or prevent foreseeable harm caused by private actors under their jurisdiction or control (ILC, 2001; Human Rights Council, 2011).

The due diligence lens is useful. If a state knows that an AI system deployed under its jurisdiction creates serious foreseeable risks across borders, it may need to regulate, supervise, investigate, or cooperate. The content of the duty will depend on the field: human rights, environmental harm, cyber activity, arms control, trade, or financial regulation.

Export controls also matter. A state may restrict export of advanced chips, surveillance tools, dual-use software, or military AI systems. Such measures require attention to jurisdictional connection, trade obligations, security exceptions, human rights risks, and possible interference with other states’ legal interests.

AI also raises the problem of attribution. If a system causes harm, lawyers must ask who designed it, who deployed it, who controlled it, who benefited from it, and which state, if any, had legal responsibility for the conduct. The presence of automation does not remove the need for legal attribution.

The correct use of Lotus in AI is limited. It may help frame the problem of legal silence. It cannot answer the problem. Existing international law already supplies relevant limits through human rights, humanitarian law, state responsibility, due diligence, export control, cyber law, and domestic regulation with cross-border effects. The legal question is not whether AI is unregulated in general. It is which legal field governs the specific use.

11. Misreadings of Lotus

11.1 Silence as Automatic Permission

The most common mistake is to treat silence as automatic permission. This reading assumes that if one source does not prohibit an act, the state is free to act. That approach is too narrow because international law does not operate through one source at a time.

A treaty may be silent on a detail, but custom may still regulate the issue. Custom may be uncertain, but a general principle may shape the legal consequence. A general rule may appear open, but a special regime may control the field. A court may also find that the applicant failed to prove a prohibition without saying that the conduct is generally authorised.

Lotus itself does not justify a careless reading of silence. The PCIJ examined the question submitted by France and Turkey, the high-seas setting, the jurisdictional link with the Turkish vessel, and the absence of an established exclusive flag-state rule. The judgment was not a general statement that every legal gap belongs to the acting state (PCIJ, 1927).

The danger is practical. A state may invoke silence to justify surveillance, sanctions, cyber activity, migration control, military measures, environmental risk, or extraterritorial regulation. Yet each field has its own sources and limits. The absence of an express treaty prohibition cannot replace legal analysis.

A better reading begins with the whole legal field. The lawyer must ask which treaty rules apply, if custom exists, which principles guide the issue, if a special regime governs the matter, and if hierarchy norms restrict the claim. Only after that inquiry can residual freedom be assessed.

11.2 Prescription Confused with Enforcement

A second mistake is to confuse prescription with enforcement. Prescription is the power to make rules. Enforcement is the power to apply those rules through coercive acts. Lotus is often useful for analysing the first. It is far weaker and often irrelevant for justifying the second.

The PCIJ dealt with Turkey’s prosecution after the Lotus reached Constantinople. Turkish authorities acted within Turkish territory. The case did not approve arrests, searches, seizures, or compulsory police measures carried out inside another state. That difference is essential (PCIJ, 1927).

A state may pass a law covering foreign-linked conduct when it has a recognised connection. It may regulate nationals abroad, conduct producing substantial effects inside its territory, or offences against core state interests. But applying that law abroad is different. Coercive action on foreign territory normally requires consent, treaty authority, Security Council authority, or another recognised legal basis.

This mistake appears in cross-border investigations. A state may want evidence held abroad, a suspect located abroad, or data stored in another jurisdiction. It cannot treat its domestic law as an authority to enforce directly inside another state. Extradition, mutual legal assistance, joint investigations, and diplomatic cooperation exist because unilateral enforcement is restricted.

The same problem appears in cyber operations. A state may claim that a digital measure is only a regulation or investigation. Yet if the measure intrudes into systems located abroad, disables infrastructure, extracts data, or compels conduct beyond its territorial authority, the analysis changes. The label attached by the acting state does not control the legal classification.

Lotus does not remove territorial sovereignty. It does not convert domestic power into international enforcement authority. Its strongest role concerns legal silence and jurisdictional links, not foreign coercion.

11.3 Legality Treated as Legitimacy

A third misreading treats a narrow finding of legality, or non-violation, as proof of legitimacy. International law does not work that way. A court may decide that a rule has not been breached. That does not mean the conduct is wise, fair, moral, politically stable, or desirable.

The Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion shows the distinction. The ICJ did not find a comprehensive and universal prohibition of nuclear weapons as such, but it did not endorse nuclear weapons as legitimate instruments of policy. The Court tested the issue against the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, necessity, proportionality, and the rules of armed conflict. Its conclusion was carefully limited and marked by legal uncertainty (ICJ, 1996).

Kosovo gives another example. The ICJ found that the declaration of independence did not violate general international law or the specific instruments examined by the Court. That did not create a general right of secession, determine statehood, impose recognition, or settle every political and territorial consequence of the declaration (ICJ, 2010).

A finding of non-violation is often narrow because courts answer the question submitted to them. They may avoid broader questions of policy, legitimacy, recognition, responsibility, or institutional design. A legal answer may be technically correct and still leave deep political or moral controversy unresolved.

This distinction matters for Lotus. The principle may help decide if a restrictive rule has been proven. It does not transform every unprohibited act into good governance. Legality is a legal category. Legitimacy requires a wider assessment involving justice, prudence, democratic accountability, human impact, and institutional consequences.

11.4 A 1927 Case Treated as Timeless

A fourth mistake is to treat Lotus as if it froze international law in 1927. The judgment belonged to a different legal environment. The post-1945 order has transformed the density, reach, and hierarchy of international law.

The UN Charter changed the legal framework for force, sovereign equality, peaceful settlement, collective security, and non-intervention. Human rights law placed the individual more clearly within international legal protection. International organisations acquired legal personality and operational powers. International criminal law developed rules for crimes of concern to the international community. Environmental law created duties of prevention, cooperation, and due diligence. Peremptory norms placed some obligations above ordinary consent (United Nations, 1945; ICJ, 1949; ILC, 2022).

The law of the sea provides the clearest direct example. The specific result of Lotus on high-seas collision prosecutions has been overtaken by treaty law. UNCLOS Article 97 gives priority to the flag state or the state of nationality of the person concerned in penal or disciplinary proceedings arising out of high-seas collisions or incidents of navigation (United Nations, 1982).

Historical context does not make Lotus irrelevant. It makes careful reading necessary. The case still matters because it frames questions of legal silence, jurisdictional links, and the burden of proving restrictions. But its general language cannot be lifted out of 1927 and imposed unchanged on fields now governed by detailed rules.

Legal development is not an inconvenience. It is part of the law. A serious argument must ask what Lotus meant then, what later law has changed, and which part of the judgment still has methodological value.

11.5 A State Doctrine Applied to Private Actors

A fifth error is applying Lotus directly to corporations, platforms, armed groups, or individuals. Lotus concerns state powers and international obligations. It is a doctrine about the legal freedom of states within the international legal order. It is not a general rule that private entities may act unless international law expressly forbids them.

Private companies may be regulated by domestic law, contractual duties, sectoral rules, sanctions regimes, export controls, human rights due diligence laws, data protection rules, and civil or criminal liability. International law may influence those duties, but it does not give companies a Lotus-style residual freedom against all legal restraint.

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights illustrate the point. They distinguish the state duty to protect human rights, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and the need for remedies. The framework does not make corporations identical to states. It shows that private power is addressed through a mixture of state regulation, corporate responsibility, due diligence, and access to remedy (Human Rights Council, 2011).

Armed groups raise a different issue. They may be bound by international humanitarian law in non-international armed conflict, and individuals may incur criminal responsibility for international crimes. That does not mean Lotus applies to them as if they were sovereign states. Their legal position must be assessed through the specific rules governing armed conflict, criminal responsibility, sanctions, and domestic law.

Individuals also stand in a different position. International law may protect them, impose criminal responsibility for certain offences, or affect their treatment by states. But the residual freedom discussed in Lotus is not personal liberty in the ordinary domestic sense. It is a claim about state competence in an international legal order built around sovereign equality.

The correct approach is to identify the actor first. Once the actor is identified, the applicable legal framework changes. A state, an international organisation, a corporation, an armed group, and an individual do not occupy the same legal position.

12. Applying Lotus in Legal Argument

12.1 Identifying the Acting Entity

The first step is to identify who acts. Legal analysis changes according to the actor. A state organ, a minister, a court, a legislature, a police authority, an intelligence agency, an international organisation, a private company, an armed group, and an individual all raise different questions.

If the actor is a state organ, conduct will usually be attributable to the state under the law of state responsibility. If the actor is a private company, attribution is more difficult and may depend on control, instruction, direction, or adoption of the conduct by the state. If the actor is an international organisation, the applicable rules may concern the powers and responsibilities of that organisation rather than the ordinary freedom of states (ILC, 2001).

The identity of the actor also affects immunity. A sitting foreign minister, diplomat, consular officer, head of state, soldier, international official, or private contractor may be subject to different procedural rules. The same underlying conduct may produce different forum consequences because the person’s legal status differs.

This first step prevents a basic error. Lotus cannot be applied before the legal subject is known. The doctrine concerns state freedom and state competence. It cannot be transferred automatically to every actor involved in cross-border conduct.

12.2 Classifying the State Conduct

The second step is to classify the conduct. International law treats prescription, enforcement, adjudication, military action, diplomatic conduct, commercial regulation, environmental activity, digital operations, and private conduct attributable to a state differently.

A state that passes a law with foreign elements raises one set of questions. A state that sends officers abroad to seize evidence raises another. A court that hears a civil claim against a foreign state raises another. A military operation, a cyber response, a sanctions programme, and an environmental licensing decision also require distinct legal frameworks.

Classification matters because the burden of legal justification may shift. In some prescriptive jurisdiction disputes, the state alleging illegality must establish the restrictive rule. In the use of force, the acting state must bring its conduct within a recognised legal basis. In enforcement abroad, territorial consent or another clear legal ground is normally required.

Lotus is most relevant after classification, not before it. A lawyer who invokes the case without defining the conduct risks using a jurisdictional judgment as a general answer to unrelated legal problems.

12.3 Locating the Governing Legal Field

The third step is to locate the governing field. A dispute may concern jurisdiction, law of the sea, use of force, human rights, immunities, environmental law, diplomatic law, criminal law, cyber law, space law, trade, investment, or state responsibility. Each field has its own sources, vocabulary, and limits.

This step prevents excessive abstraction. A broad statement about state freedom may sound persuasive until the field is identified. In diplomatic law, inviolability and immunity may control the answer. In the law of the sea, UNCLOS may allocate authority. In human rights law, the issue may turn on jurisdiction over persons and procedural safeguards. In environmental law, due diligence and prevention may be central.

The field may also determine the role of institutions. Security Council powers matter in peace and security. Treaty bodies matter in human rights. ITLOS and arbitral tribunals matter in the law of the sea. The ICC matters in international criminal law. A general Lotus argument cannot bypass those institutional settings.

Locating the field is not a formal exercise. It shapes the sources to be examined and the legal consequences that may follow. The same event may also involve more than one field. A cyber operation against port infrastructure may raise cyber law, sovereignty, non-intervention, maritime security, human rights, and state responsibility at the same time.

12.4 Exhausting the Applicable Sources

The fourth step is to examine the applicable sources. The analysis should never stop at the absence of an express treaty prohibition. Article 38 of the ICJ Statute identifies treaties, custom, general principles, and subsidiary means such as judicial decisions and scholarly writings. Modern legal reasoning also considers institutional materials, treaty practice, and specialised regimes where they are relevant (ICJ Statute, 1945).

Treaties come first where the state is bound by them. They must be interpreted in good faith according to their text, context, object, and purpose. A treaty may regulate through standards, procedures, jurisdictional allocation, reporting duties, or institutional review, even without using direct prohibitory wording (United Nations, 1969).

Custom must be tested through practice and opinio juris. The absence of a treaty does not prove freedom. General principles may guide questions of good faith, due process, reparation, abuse of rights, and legal stability. Judicial decisions must be read through their facts and later treatment. ILC materials may clarify custom, responsibility, and hierarchy norms (ILC, 2001; ILC, 2018; ILC, 2022).

This step is the safeguard against superficial use of Lotus. A claim of residual freedom is credible only after the relevant sources have been examined. Before that, it is only an assertion.

12.5 Testing the Jurisdictional Link

The fifth step is to test the jurisdictional link. A state claiming authority over foreign-linked conduct should identify the connection that supports its claim. The main bases include territory, substantial effects, nationality, passive personality, protective interests, universality, consent, and treaty-based jurisdiction.

The strength of the link matters. Territoriality is usually strongest. Effects-based jurisdiction requires a substantial and legally meaningful effect. Nationality provides a recognised link between the state and its nationals. Passive personality is stronger in serious crimes and treaty-based contexts than in ordinary offences. Protective jurisdiction must be limited to core state interests. Universal jurisdiction is exceptional and must rest on the character of the offence.

Lotus itself involved overlapping links. France relied on the flag of the Lotus and the nationality of Demons. Turkey relied on the Turkish vessel and the deaths of Turkish nationals. The case was not an example of authority without connection. It was a dispute over concurrent connections and exclusivity (PCIJ, 1927).

A weak connecting factor weakens the Lotus argument. A state cannot treat residual freedom as a substitute for jurisdictional proximity. The more remote the connection, the greater the risk of interference with another state’s legal order.

12.6 Separating Prescription and Enforcement

The sixth step is to separate prescription and enforcement. This is one of the most important controls in the whole analysis. A state may sometimes legislate with foreign elements. It may not enforce its law abroad in the same way.

The prescription asks if the state may make a rule. Enforcement asks if the state may apply that rule through coercive measures. Enforcement includes arrest, search, seizure, detention, interrogation under compulsion, forced access to evidence, and police operations. These acts normally belong to the territorial state.

A state seeking evidence abroad should use mutual legal assistance, cooperation channels, treaty procedures, or consent. A state seeking custody of a suspect should use extradition, surrender arrangements, deportation where lawful, or transfer mechanisms. A state conducting cyber or intelligence activity affecting foreign systems must still consider sovereignty, non-intervention, due diligence, and state responsibility.

This distinction explains why Lotus must be handled carefully. The case may support limited reasoning about jurisdiction to prescribe. It does not authorise foreign enforcement. Any argument that treats the two as identical misuses the judgment.

12.7 Checking Hierarchy and Special Regimes

The seventh step is to check hierarchy and special regimes. Even a plausible claim of residual freedom can fail if a higher norm or a special regime governs the matter. Jus cogens, erga omnes obligations, the UN Charter, human rights duties, environmental obligations, immunities, territorial sovereignty, and lex specialis all may restrict state action.

Peremptory norms cannot be displaced by silence, consent, or contrary practice. Obligations owed to the international community protect collective legal interests. The UN Charter restricts force and structures collective security. Human rights law constrains the treatment of individuals. Environmental law may impose due diligence and prevention duties. Immunities may bar proceedings in a particular forum. Special regimes may allocate authority in detail (United Nations, 1945; ILC, 2022).

This step avoids one of the most serious errors in Lotus reasoning: treating the absence of a narrow prohibition as the end of the analysis. The more developed the field, the less room remains for a general presumption of freedom.

Special regimes are especially important. In the law of the sea, UNCLOS may control. In diplomatic law, the Vienna Conventions may control. In international criminal law, tribunal statutes, complementarity, immunities, and cooperation rules may control. In human rights law, treaty rights and procedural guarantees may control.

A Lotus argument survives only if it passes through these filters. If a hierarchy norm or lex specialis applies, the general claim of residual freedom gives way.

12.8 Stating the Legal Consequence

The final step is to state the legal consequences with precision. International legal analysis should avoid vague conclusions. The conduct may be prohibited. It may be permitted. It may be required. It may be procedurally barred. It may be governed by lex specialis. It may fall outside the question asked. It may not be proven to be unlawful on the available evidence.

These categories are not interchangeable. A finding that a prohibition has not been proven is not the same as a positive right. A procedural bar is not the same as the absence of responsibility. A special regime may regulate conduct without banning it. A court may answer one narrow question while leaving wider consequences unresolved.

This final step is where many Lotus arguments fail. They jump directly from silence to permission. A disciplined approach gives a narrower answer. It identifies the conduct, the actor, the legal field, the sources, the jurisdictional link, the enforcement issue, the hierarchy limits, and the governing regime before stating the result.

The modern use of Lotus should end with modest language. It may support the conclusion that no restrictive rule has been established in a particular setting. It may support a claim of residual prescriptive freedom where a real jurisdictional link exists. It should not be used to claim unlimited authority.

That is the safest contemporary formula: Lotus remains a method for reasoning about legal silence and jurisdictional competence, not a licence to act outside the structure of international law.

Also read

• Principles Of Jurisdiction In International Law

• Subjective and Objective Territorial Jurisdiction in International Law

• The Sources Of International Law

• Customary International Law: How It Forms and Works

• Principle of Sovereign Equality of States

• Jus cogens and the hierarchy of international norms

• Immunity of State Officials in International Law

• South China Sea Arbitration and Its Legal Impact

13. Lotus within the Modern Legal Order

13.1 Residual Freedom Preserved

Lotus still contributes something important to international legal reasoning. It reminds lawyers that international law is not a complete code and that restrictions on states must be established through recognised legal sources. A state alleging unlawfulness cannot rely only on discomfort, policy disagreement, or moral objection. It must identify the legal rule said to have been breached.

This point remains valuable in jurisdiction disputes. States often face situations where more than one legal system has a connection to the same conduct. A transnational fraud may involve one state where the act was planned, another where the victims were located, another where the money moved, and another where the suspect is found. Lotus helps explain why overlapping authority is not automatically unlawful. International law may allow concurrent jurisdiction where each state can point to a recognised link (PCIJ, 1927).

The case also preserves the importance of consent. Treaties remain central to the creation of obligations. Custom still requires evidence of practice accepted as law. A state is not bound by a restriction merely because another state presents it as desirable. The International Law Commission’s work on customary international law confirms that legal obligation must be evidenced, not assumed (ILC, 2018).

Lotus also has procedural value. It draws attention to the burden of proving restrictive rules. In some disputes, the state alleging illegality must prove the prohibition. That does not mean the acting state always wins. It means that a legal argument must be made through sources, evidence, and classification.

The modern value of Lotus is best described as disciplined residual freedom. States retain the space to act where no applicable rule restricts them. Yet that space appears only after the relevant field has been identified and the sources have been examined. Residual freedom is not the first answer. It is what remains after legal analysis has been properly conducted.

13.2 Laissez-Faire Rejected

Lotus cannot support a laissez-faire theory of international law. The idea that states may act freely whenever no express prohibition exists is too crude for the contemporary legal order. It treats law as a list of explicit bans, while modern international law often works through standards, procedures, institutional duties, jurisdictional allocation, due diligence, and rights-based limits.

The problem is clear in fields such as human rights, climate change, cyber operations, diplomatic law, and international criminal law. A human rights treaty may require fair trial guarantees without listing every prohibited procedural defect. Environmental law may impose due diligence without banning every harmful project by name. Diplomatic law may protect inviolability and immunity through a detailed regime that leaves little room for general reasoning based on silence. In these areas, the absence of a single express prohibition does not create full discretion.

The post-1945 order also limits the classical reading of Lotus. The UN Charter restricts force, requires peaceful settlement, affirms sovereign equality, and gives the Security Council special responsibilities for international peace and security (United Nations, 1945). Peremptory norms restrict consent itself. Obligations owed to the international community as a whole protect common legal interests. Human rights law limits the treatment of individuals. Environmental law imposes duties of prevention, cooperation, and due diligence.

Judicial practice confirms the same movement. In Nuclear Weapons, the ICJ did not stop with the absence of a comprehensive prohibition. It examined the Charter, humanitarian law, treaty rules, necessity, proportionality, and the principles governing armed conflict (ICJ, 1996). In Kosovo, the Court gave a narrow answer about the legality of a declaration of independence, not a broad entitlement to statehood or secession (ICJ, 2010). In Jurisdictional Immunities, procedural immunity limited national proceedings even where grave violations were alleged (ICJ, 2012).

A broad laissez-faire reading also weakens sovereign equality. If one state may expand its authority whenever no express ban is found, the legal position of other states becomes vulnerable. Sovereignty is not only freedom. It is also mutual restraint, territorial respect, and legal coordination.

For that reason, the strongest contemporary reading rejects Lotus as a general licence. The case remains useful only when it is attached to source analysis, jurisdictional connection, procedural posture, and the limits imposed by later law.

13.3 The Working Formula Today

The working formula should be narrow. Lotus operates only as a residual and rebuttable presumption where no applicable rule, special regime, hierarchy norm, jurisdictional limit, or procedural bar restricts the conduct. That formula preserves the useful part of the case without turning it into a doctrine of unrestricted power.

Residual means that Lotus applies only after other sources have been examined. Treaty law comes first where a treaty governs the issue. Custom must be tested through practice and opinio juris. General principles may control good faith, abuse of rights, reparation, estoppel, and procedural fairness. Judicial decisions must be read through their facts and later treatment. Institutional materials may clarify obligations or evidence legal development.

Rebuttable means that the presumption can be displaced. A treaty rule may allocate authority. A customary rule may prohibit or require conduct. A special regime may regulate the field. A peremptory norm may override ordinary consent. An immunity rule may block a forum. A territorial sovereignty rule may prevent enforcement abroad. A human rights rule may restrict how state power is exercised.

The formula also requires a jurisdictional link. Lotus does not justify state authority over matters with no meaningful connection. A state relying on territoriality, effects, nationality, passive personality, protective interests, universality, or treaty-based jurisdiction must show why that basis applies. The weaker the connection, the weaker the argument.

The distinction between prescription and enforcement remains decisive. A state may sometimes legislate with foreign elements. It may not carry out coercive acts in another state’s territory merely by invoking silence. Enforcement abroad requires consent or another recognised legal basis. This is one of the clearest limits on careless Lotus reasoning.

The final formula is practical: Lotus may help a lawyer argue that no restrictive rule has been established in a specific setting. It does not prove that the conduct is positively authorised in every setting. It is a method for handling legal silence, not a substitute for international law.

Conclusion

The Lotus Principle is not dead, but it has been narrowed. Its original setting was a 1927 maritime collision case about criminal jurisdiction after deaths on the high seas. Its later reputation became much broader than the judgment itself. That broader reputation is the source of many mistakes.

The lasting value of Lotus lies in its treatment of legal silence, state competence, consent, concurrent jurisdiction, and the burden of proving restrictive rules. Those themes remain important because international law still contains areas of uncertainty. States still act in fields where treaty rules are incomplete, custom is contested, and institutional practice is developing.

Yet the modern legal order no longer permits a simple formula that everything not expressly prohibited is lawful. Treaty regimes, customary rules, general principles, the UN Charter, human rights law, environmental due diligence, international criminal law, immunities, peremptory norms, erga omnes obligations, and lex specialis have all narrowed residual freedom. The specific maritime result in Lotus has also been overtaken by the law of the sea, especially UNCLOS Article 97 (United Nations, 1982).

The safest conclusion is balanced. Lotus remains relevant for prescriptive jurisdiction and for disputes where no applicable restrictive rule has been established. It does not authorise enforcement abroad. It does not override immunities. It does not defeat hierarchy norms. It does not release states from treaty regimes or specialised obligations. It does not apply directly to corporations, platforms, armed groups, or individuals as if they were sovereign states.

The practical rule for legal analysis is straightforward. Do not ask only if international law expressly prohibits the act. Ask which legal field governs it, which sources apply, what jurisdictional link exists, if enforcement power is involved, and which higher or specialised obligations limit state action. Only after that inquiry can residual freedom be identified with confidence.

That is the contemporary meaning of Lotus. It is not a doctrine of legal emptiness. It is a disciplined method for deciding how much freedom remains after international law has done its work.

References

1. Aksünger, S. (2019) ‘Evolution of the Lotus Dictum: An Inquiry for Assessing the Continuing Validity’, Law and Justice Review, 18(1), pp. 223–242. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3631199 (Accessed: 21 June 2025).

2. European Court of Human Rights (2024) Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, Application no. 53600/20, Judgment of 9 April 2024 [online]. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233206 (Accessed: 21 June 2025).

3. Handeyside, H. (2007) ‘The Lotus Principle in ICJ Jurisprudence: Was the Ship Ever Afloat?’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 29(1), pp. 71–94. Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol29/iss1/3 (Accessed: 21 June 2025).

4. Hertogen, A. (2015) ‘Letting Lotus Bloom’, European Journal of International Law, 26(4), pp. 901–926. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chv072 (Accessed: 21 June 2025).

5. Human Rights Committee (2018) General Comment No. 36: Article 6, Right to Life, CCPR/C/GC/36 [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/GC/36 (Accessed: 21 June 2025).

6. Human Rights Council (2011) Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises: Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, A/HRC/17/31 [online]. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/705860 (Accessed: 21 June 2025).

7. International Court of Justice (1949) Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 174 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/4 (Accessed: 21 June 2025).

8. International Court of Justice (1970) Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 3 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/50 (Accessed: 21 June 2025).

9. International Court of Justice (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/95 (Accessed: 21 June 2025).

10. International Court of Justice (2001) LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 466 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/104 (Accessed: 23 June 2025).

11. International Court of Justice (2002) Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 3 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/121 (Accessed: 23 June 2025).

12. International Court of Justice (2004) Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 12 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/128 (Accessed: 23 June 2025).

13. International Court of Justice (2004) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 136 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131 (Accessed: 23 June 2025).

14. International Court of Justice (2010) Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 403 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/141 (Accessed: 23 June 2025).

15. International Court of Justice (2010) Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/135 (Accessed: 23 June 2025).

16. International Court of Justice (2012) Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 99 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/143 (Accessed: 23 June 2025).

17. International Court of Justice (2025) Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of 23 July 2025 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/187 (Accessed: 24 June 2025).

18. International Court of Justice Statute (1945) Statute of the International Court of Justice [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/statute (Accessed: 24 June 2025).

19. International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 24 June 2025).

20. International Law Commission (2018) Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, with Commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_13_2018.pdf (Accessed: 25 June 2025).

21. International Law Commission (2022) Draft Conclusions on Identification and Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens), with Commentaries [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_14_2022.pdf (Accessed: 25 June 2025).

22. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2024) Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, Advisory Opinion of 21 May 2024 [online]. Available at: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/31/Advisory_Opinion/C31_Adv_Op_21.05.2024_orig.pdf (Accessed: 25 June 2025).

23. Klabbers, J. (2024) International Law. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1997) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions [online]. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/corruption/oecdantibriberyconvention.htm (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

25. Permanent Court of International Justice (1927) The Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), Judgment No. 9, PCIJ Series A, No. 10 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/pcij-series-a (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

26. Ryngaert, C. (2015) Jurisdiction in International Law. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27. Schmitt, M.N. (ed.) (2017) Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

28. Shaw, M.N. (2021) International Law. 9th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29. Trail Smelter Arbitration (1941) Trail Smelter Case (United States v. Canada), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. III, pp. 1905–1982 [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_III/1905-1982.pdf (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

30. United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

31. United Nations (1958) Convention on the High Seas [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_high_seas.pdf (Accessed: 01 July 2025).

32. United Nations (1961) Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf (Accessed: 01 July 2025).

33. United Nations (1963) Vienna Convention on Consular Relations [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf (Accessed: 01 July 2025).

34. United Nations (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [online]. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights (Accessed: 01 July 2025).

35. United Nations (1967) Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies [online]. Available at: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html (Accessed: 03 July 2025).

36. United Nations (1969) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf (Accessed: 03 July 2025).

37. United Nations (1970) Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) [online]. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/202170 (Accessed: 03 July 2025).

38. United Nations (1972) Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects [online]. Available at: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/liability-convention.html (Accessed: 03 July 2025).

39. United Nations (1975) Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space [online]. Available at: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/registration-convention.html (Accessed: 03 July 2025).

40. United Nations (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf (Accessed: 03 July 2025).

41. United Nations (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [online]. Available at: https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf (Accessed: 03 July 2025).

42. United Nations (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/romefra.htm (Accessed: 05 July 2025).

43. United Nations (2015) Paris Agreement [online]. Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (Accessed: 05 July 2025).

44. United Nations General Assembly (2015) Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, A/70/174 [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/70/174 (Accessed: 05 July 2025).

45. United Nations General Assembly (2021) Open-ended Working Group on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security: Final Substantive Report, A/75/816 [online]. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/75/816 (Accessed: 05 July 2025).