[THE LOTUS PRINCIPLE / FRENCH - TURKISH RELATIONS] Beynelmilel Bozkurt - Lotus davasında Türk - Fransiz müdâfaalari. [i.e., Turkish & French defences in the international Bozkurt-Lotus case]. Translated by Menemenlizâde Edhem

[ALTAVIRA Y CREVEA, RAFAEL (Spanish jurist and historian) (1866-1951)].

Adliye Vekâleti Istatistik ve Nesriyât Müdüriyeti, Türk Ocaklari Matbaasi, Ankara, 1927.

Original trichrome wrappers. 4to. (27 x 20 cm). In Ottoman script (Old Turkish in Arabic letters). 4, 56, 72, 92, 32, 92, 41, 31, 8, 25 p., two full paged b/w plates. ----

First and only edition of detailed account of the Lotus case, an international legal case involving France and Turkey in front of the Permanent Court of International Justice, compiled by Spanish judge Altavira y Crevea and translated by Turkish Distinguished Professor of International Law Menemenlizâde Edhem (1878-1965). The case is known for establishing the so-called "Lotus principle" in international law, says that sovereign states may act in any way they wish so long as they do not contravene an explicit prohibition.

The Bozkurt-Lotus case, decided by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in 1927, became a landmark in international law, especially regarding issues of jurisdiction and the extent of a state's rights to assert criminal jurisdiction over foreign nationals. The case arose from the collision between the S.S. Lotus, a French vessel, and the S.S. Bozkurt, a Turkish ship, near the Greek island of Mytilene on 2 August 1926.

After the collision, eight Turkish nationals aboard the Bozkurt drowned. In response, Turkey arrested and charged the captain of the Lotus, Captain Demons, for causing the deaths and damages to the Turkish vessel. The Turkish courts condemned him, asserting their right to try him for the incident, even though the collision occurred in international waters and involved a French ship.

France contested the jurisdiction of Turkish courts over the captain, arguing that Turkey could not claim the right to prosecute a foreign national for actions committed on a foreign vessel in international waters. France brought the case before the PCIJ to challenge Turkey's legal authority.

The court ruled in favour of Turkey, emphasizing that, under international law, there was no general prohibition against a state asserting jurisdiction over crimes involving foreign nationals, even when the incident occurred outside its territorial waters. The PCIJ's decision established the principle that, absent an explicit prohibition in international law, states are free to exercise jurisdiction in cases where they have a legitimate interest, even if the matter involves foreign nationals and occurred in international waters.

This judgment reinforced the notion of state sovereignty in determining jurisdiction and highlighted the extent to which international law permits states to assert legal authority over incidents involving foreign nationals under certain conditions. However, it also raised important questions about extraterritorial jurisdiction and the balance between state sovereignty and international cooperation in legal matters.

“The Lotus principle or Lotus approach, usually considered a foundation of international law, says that sovereign states may act in any way they wish so long as they do not contravene an explicit prohibition. The application of this principle – an outgrowth of the Lotus case – to future incidents raising the issue of jurisdiction over people on the high seas was changed by article 11 of the Convention on the High Seas. The convention, held in Geneva in 1958, laid emphasis on the fact that only the flag state or the state of which the alleged offender was a national had jurisdiction over sailors regarding incidents occurring on the high seas.” (Wikipedia).

It is the first legal Turkish success achieved in the international arena after the proclamation of the Republic. (Karakus).

In court, the Turkish side was represented by Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, who was the Minister of Justice at the time. When Turkey adopted the formal surname system in 1934, Mahmut Esat chose the surname “Bozkurt” as a reminder of the landmark case.

Sources: Karakuş, H.Burak. (2013). Atatürk Özel Sayısı: “Genç Türkiye’nin İlk Hukuk Zaferi: Bozkurt-Lotus Davası”. Ankara: Hukuk Gündemi Dergisi., Wikipedia., Bulut, Hüseyin. (2018). Atatürk Devri Türk-Fransız İlişkileri., The Case of the S.S. Lotus, Serie A – No. 10.

Özege 2560, TBTK 6779, as of January 2024, we couldn’t find any copies in OCLC.