The term also refers to the legal competence of a particular court to hear a certain type or class of case. 1 The legal competence of a particular court to hear a certain type or class of case. 2The geographical area covered by a particular court or legal system, or the types of cases which it has power to hear; this is not necessarily the same area as that of the national political unit. For example, in the UK, the jurisdiction of England and Wales is separate from that of Scotland. The English courts have jurisdiction over England, Wales, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and those parts of the sea included in territorial waters. In the USA, the individual states constitute separate jurisdictions; US courts must have both subject matter and territorial jurisdiction to competently hear a case. Venue is the proper place for a trial, which is normally where a crime was committed or where a court has jurisdiction to try an offence. Traditionally, venue was laid in the county where an offence was committed, but many exceptions to this rule have developed. In civil law, the idea of venue has been abolished in England and Wales, and the place of trial is fixed at the hearing of the summons for directions, and can be altered by order.
| Conflict of laws |
|---|
| Preliminary matters |
| Characterisation · Incidental question |
| Renvoi · Choice of law |
| Conflict of laws in the U.S. |
| Public policy · Hague Conference |
| Definitional elements |
| State · Jurisdiction · Procedure |
| Forum non conveniens · Lex causae |
| Lex fori · Forum shopping |
| Lis alibi pendens |
| Connecting factors |
| Domicile · Lex domicilii |
| Habitual residence |
| Nationality · Lex patriae |
| Lex loci arbitri · Lex situs |
| Lex loci contractus |
| Lex loci delicti commissi |
| Lex loci solutionis · Proper law |
| Lex loci celebrationis |
| Choice of law clause |
| Forum selection clause |
| Substantive legal areas |
| Status · Capacity · Contract · Tort |
| Marriage · Nullity · Divorce |
| Get divorce · Talaq divorce |
| Property · Succession |
| Trusts |
| Enforcement |
| Enforcement of foreign judgments |
In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin jus, juris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.
Jurisdiction in the international dimension
Public international law provides a framework within which nations and states (in the political sense of the words) can come into being and relate to each other.
International versus municipal jurisdiction
The fact that international organizations, courts and tribunals have been created raises the difficult question of how to co-ordinate their activities with those of national courts.
The concept of universal jurisdiction is fundamental to the operation of global organizations such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which jointly assert the benefit of maintaining legal entities with jurisdiction over a wide range of matters of significance to states (the ICJ should not be confused with the ICC and this version of "universal jurisdiction" is not the same as that enacted in the War Crimes Law (Belgium) which is an assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction that will fail to gain implementation in any other state under the standard provisions of public policy). Under Article 34 Statute of the ICJ only states may be parties in cases before the Court and, under Article 36, the jurisdiction comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.
Despite the safeguards built into the constitutions of most of these organizations, courts and tribunals, the concept of universal jurisdiction is controversial among those states which prefer unilateral to multilateral solutions through the use of executive or military authority, sometimes described as realpolitik-based diplomacy.
Within other international contexts, there are intergovernmental organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) that have socially and economically significant dispute resolution functions but, again, even though their jurisdiction may be invoked to hear the cases, the power to enforce their decisions is at the will of the states affected, save that the WTO is permitted to allow retaliatory action by successful states against those states found to be in breach of international trade law. For example, in Europe, the European Court of Justice has been given jurisdiction as the ultimate appellate court to the Member States on issues of European law. This jurisdiction is entrenched and its authority could only be denied by a Member State if that Member State asserts its sovereignty and withdraws from the Union. Hence, citizens in those states can invoke the jurisdiction of local courts to enforce rights granted under international law wherever there is incorporation. In states adopting this theory, the local courts automatically accept jurisdiction to adjudicate on lawsuits relying on international law principles. Dualism This theory regards international and municipal law as separate systems so that the municipal courts can only apply international law either when it has been incorporated into municipal law or when the courts incorporate international law on their own motion. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution makes all treaties that have been ratified under the authority of the United States and customary international law, …the "Supreme Law of the Land" (U.S. Const.art.
The jurisdiction of courts between and within states
This now concerns states in the technical legal sense of the word and the relationships both between courts in different states, and between courts within the same state.
Supranational
At a supranational level, countries have adopted a range of treaty and convention obligations to relate the right of individual litigants to invoke the jurisdiction of state courts and to enforce the judgments obtained. For example, the Member States of the EEC signed the Brussels Convention in 1968 and, subject to amendments as new states joined, it represents the default law for all twenty-five Member States of what is now termed the European Union on the relationships between the courts in the different countries. Sometimes when the areas of separate governmental entities overlap one another—for example, between a state and the federation to which it belongs—their jurisdiction is shared or concurrent jurisdiction. When jurisdiction is concurrent, one governmental entity may have supreme jurisdiction over the other entity if their laws conflict.
State level
Within each state, it is for the government to determine the allocation of jurisdiction:
There must be physical distribution of courts and tribunals throughout the territory which should be divided into convenient functional divisions to provide an effective service to the local communities. Hence, it may be convenient for there to be an extensive network of smaller local courts having a criminal law jurisdiction so that neighborhoods can have a disposition system administered by those familiar with their locality and its needs (see criminal jurisdiction). Under normal circumstances, the supervisory function of the courts will be built into the constitutive process for each tribunal or body, or the courts will allow their jurisdiction to be invoked, e.g. (Discuss)|
|
|
United States Federal civil procedure doctrines |
|---|
| Justiciability |
| Advisory opinions |
| Standing · Ripeness · Mootness |
| Political questions |
| Jurisdiction |
| * Subject-matter jurisdiction: |
| Federal question jurisdiction |
| Diversity jurisdiction |
| Supplemental jurisdiction |
| Removal jurisdiction |
| Amount in controversy |
| * Personal jurisdiction: |
| Jurisdiction in rem |
| Minimum contacts |
| Federalism |
| Erie doctrine · Abstention |
| Sovereign immunity · Abrogation |
| Rooker-Feldman doctrine |
|
Adequate and independent state ground |
| edit this template |
The primary distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are codified at a national level. As a common law system, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the person of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; In the U.S. States, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States District Courts may hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens.
Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.
It is also necessary to distinguish between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. A court of original jurisdiction has the power to hear cases as they are first initiated by a plaintiff, while a court of appellate jurisdiction may only hear an action after the court of original jurisdiction (or a lower appellate court) has heard the matter. For example, in the U.S. federal court system, the United States District Courts have original jurisdiction over a number of different matters (as mentioned above), and the United States Courts of Appeals have appellate jurisdiction over matters appealed from the district courts. The U.S. Supreme Court, in turn, has appellate jurisdiction (of a discretionary nature) over the Courts of Appeals, as well as the state supreme courts, by means of writ of certiorari. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1251, the Supreme court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over controversies between two or more states, and original (but non-exclusive) jurisdiction over cases involving officials of foreign states, controversies between the federal government and a state, actions by a state against the citizens of another state or foreign country.
Franchise jurisdiction
In the history of English common law, a jurisdiction could be held as a form of property (or more precisely an incorporeal hereditament) called a franchise. Types of franchise courts included Courts Baron, Courts Leet, merchant courts, and the Stannery Courts which dealt with disputes involving the tin miners of Cornwall.
User Comments Add a comment…