Skip to main content
Article
The Enrica Lexie and St. Antony: A voyage into jurisdictional conflict
QUT Law Review
  • Danielle Ireland-Piper, Bond University
Date of this Version
1-1-2014
Document Type
Journal Article
Publication Details

Published version

Ireland-Piper, D. (2014). The Enrica Lexie and St. Antony: A voyage into jurisdictional conflict. QUT Law Review, 14(2), 74-89.

Access the journal

© Copyright Danielle Ireland-Piper, 2014

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

2014 HERDC submission

Disciplines
Abstract

The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Republic of Italy v Union of India illustrates the legal and diplomatic complexities that can arise when nations, and states within those nations, have competing claims to jurisdiction over the prosecution of criminal offences. In our increasingly interconnected world, competing claims to jurisdiction are more likely. The decision, among other things, is concerned with legal aspects of coastal state jurisdiction in a federal system and sovereign immunity under international law. This decision is of interest because Australia, like India, is a coastal nation that divides power between federal and state governments. This case note sets out the factual background and legal frameworks that gave rise to the decision, considers the arguments made by each of the parties before the Supreme Court, and summarises the findings of the two presiding Judges. It then seeks to understand the relevance of the decision and any lessons that can be taken from it.

Citation Information
Danielle Ireland-Piper. "The Enrica Lexie and St. Antony: A voyage into jurisdictional conflict" QUT Law Review Vol. 14 Iss. 2 (2014) p. 74 - 89 ISSN: 2201-7275
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/danielle_irelandpiper/18/