The Lotus Case (France vs Turkey)

Case Name: The Lotus Case (France vs Turkey)1 

Citation: PCIJ Ser. A No. 10 (1927) 

Name of the Court: Permanent Court of International Justice 

Judgment Given By: PCIJ, under the Presidency of Judge Max Huber. 

Date of Judgment: 09 September, 1927 

Parties in the Case: 

Applicant: France 

• In their application, France claimed that Turkey had broken international law by charging Officer Demons, a French person, for the high seas collision. 

Respondent: Turkey 

• In defense of its actions, Turkey said as Turkish citizens had been slain in the incident, it had the right to bring charges. 

Facts of the Case: 

On 2 August 1926, a French vessel named Lotus, under the command of Lieutenant Demons, was sailing towards Constantinople. Around the same time, a Turkish vessel, Boz-Kourt, captained by Hassan Bey, was navigating the high seas north of Mytilene (Greece). 

At a point roughly six miles off Cape Singri, the two ships collided. The Boz-Kourt was torn apart by the impact and sank, resulting in the deaths of eight Turkish nationals, while ten others survived the disaster. 

The Lotus continued its voyage and reached Constantinople on 3 August 1926. Upon arrival, Turkish authorities questioned Lieutenant Demons about the incident. On 5 August 1926, both Demons and Hassan Bey were arrested without prior notice. Their detention was justified on the grounds that the families of the deceased had brought charges of homicide against them. 

During the trial before the Turkish courts, Lieutenant Demons objected, claiming that Turkey had no jurisdiction to prosecute him, as he was a French citizen. The French government supported this position, formally protesting his arrest and demanding his release. France insisted that jurisdiction lies exclusively with French courts, and they pressed Turkey to transfer the proceedings. The disagreement between the two states eventually led to the matter being referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) for resolution.2 

Issue of the case: 

Whether Turkey had violated any principle of international law by exercising jurisdiction of its court in order to proceed over a crime committed by a French national or not. 

Arguments of the Parties: 

Applicant (France): 

• Exclusive Flag-State Jurisdiction: 

France asserted that only the flag state of a ship—the nation whose flag the ship is flying—has the authority to enforce international law against actions taken on the high seas. 

France claimed exclusive jurisdiction over Demons because the Lotus was a French ship.

• Violation of International Law: 

Turkey is accused of breaching French sovereignty and international law by bringing charges against Demons. 

• Customary Practice: 

According to France, only the flag state—the country whose flag the ship flies—has the authority to exercise jurisdiction over incidents occurring on the high seas, based on a long-standing principle of international law. Since the Lotus was a French ship, France argued that it alone, and not Turkey, had the right to prosecute Officer Demons. 

Respondent (Turkey): 

• Protective Jurisdiction: 

Turkey maintained that, because the collision led to the deaths of its citizens, it had a legitimate right to exercise jurisdiction. The state argued that offenses causing harm to its nationals could be prosecuted by its courts, even if they occurred outside its territorial waters. 

• Absence of Prohibition: 

Turkey argued that no rule of international law prevented its courts from prosecuting Officer Demons. Therefore, the state maintained that its actions were fully lawful. ● Sovereignty of State: 

As a sovereign state, Turkey had the right to exercise jurisdiction unless an international law explicitly forbade it. 

Judgment: 

The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) decided in favor of Turkey, concluding that there was no breach of international law in the prosecution of Lieutenant Demons. The Court acknowledged Turkey’s right to bring a foreign national to trial for actions that injured its nationals, even if such actions took place on the high seas. 

The Court also took into account whether any established customary international law prohibited a state from bringing charges against a citizen of another state. It came to the conclusion that there was no precedent or consistent practice that prohibited such trials. The lack of such a precedent, however, did not prove that Turkey’s activities were illegal. 

Reasoning Behind the Judgment: 

International law is permissive: 

The Court highlighted that international law typically functions on a permissive basis rather than a restrictive one. In other terms, a state can act in the international arena as long as there is no specific rule that clearly prohibits such actions. Limitations on a state’s sovereignty cannot be presumed or deduced; they need to be explicitly defined through treaties, customary law, or other obligatory international accords. This principle strengthens the autonomy and power of states in handling their own legal and political matters.3 

Oversight of foreign nationals: 

The Court acknowledged that a state can assert jurisdiction over a foreign national even when the purported action takes place beyond its territorial limits, including in international waters. The main factor to consider is if the action has immediate effects on the state’s own citizens or interests. In this situation, due to the collision leading to the deaths of Turkish citizens, Turkey had valid legal grounds to pursue prosecution against Lieutenant Demons. This logic illustrates the principle that nations have the right to safeguard their citizens and interests, no matter where the wrongdoing takes place.4 

Action is not prohibited by the lack of prohibitive custom: 

The Court furthermore observed that the absence of any established customary international law that specifically forbids a state from prosecuting a foreign national does not make the act illegal. A state maintains the power to initiate legal proceedings within its jurisdictional rights, even without prior examples or historical customs. This part of the decision strengthened the Lotus Principle, confirming that sovereignty and state actions are not constrained by assumptions or the absence of previous instances in international practice.5 

Implications and Significance of the Case: 

Kosovo Advisory Opinion (2010): 

In its 2010 advisory opinion regarding Kosovo’s independence declaration, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) cited the permissive character of international law set forth in the Lotus Case. The Court determined that international law does not include a ban on declarations of independence, highlighting that states are free to operate in the international sphere as long as no explicit rule forbids a particular action. 6 

1958 Convention on the High Seas: 

Article 11 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas stipulates that vessels must navigate under the flag of a single state and will be governed solely by its jurisdiction in the high seas, reflecting the flag state principle. This principle, established in the Lotus Case, maintains that a vessel on the high seas is under the jurisdiction only of its flag state, unless international treaties or conventions explicitly allow for exceptions. This provision has played a crucial role in defining the jurisdictional authorities of states over ships carrying their flags on the high seas.7 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): 

The principle of flag state is also established in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Article 92(1) states that vessels must fly the flag of a single state and, except in specific cases clearly outlined in international treaties or this Convention, will fall under its sole jurisdiction on the high seas. Moreover, Article 217(1) requires flag states to implement laws and regulations established in line with international standards and rules, encompassing those concerning the protection and conservation of the marine environment. These regulations demonstrate the lasting impact of the Lotus Case in forming the legal structure that oversees maritime jurisdiction and environmental regulation.8 

Conclusion: 

The Lotus Case (France v. Turkey) is a significant ruling in international law, mainly due to its clarification of the extent of state sovereignty and jurisdiction regarding actions taken outside a state’s territorial limits. The Permanent Court of International Justice stated that countries typically have the liberty to operate internationally unless specifically limited by international law, emphasizing the permissive character of international legal principles. 

By this ruling, the Court acknowledged that a state can assert jurisdiction over foreign individuals when their actions directly and significantly impact its citizens or interests, even if those actions take place on international waters. In dismissing France’s claim that only the flag state had prosecutorial authority, the Court highlighted the necessity of safeguarding a state’s citizens and legal rights, stressing that sovereignty cannot be disregarded but must be honored and distinctly articulated in legislation. 

Additionally, the Court’s logic emphasized that the lack of restrictive customary law does not hinder a state from pursuing legal action. This principle, later referred to as the Lotus Principle,reinforced the idea that nations have considerable freedom to claim jurisdiction unless an explicit international law prohibits them from doing so. 

Fundamentally, the case established an important precedent in international law: state sovereignty and jurisdiction are constrained not by silence or voids in customary practice, but solely by clear prohibitions. The Lotus Case remains a key reference for comprehending the permissive structure of international law, the rights of states to safeguard their citizens, and the limits of jurisdiction in cross-border occurrences. 

Reference(s): 

France v Turkey (PCIJ, Series A No 10, 1927) 

https://law.justia.com/cases/foreign/international/1927-pcij-series-a-no-10.html Accessed 18 September 2025. 

Nils Bangladesh, ‘A Case Law Analysis on the Lotus Case’ 

<https://nilsbangladesh.org/a-case-law-analysis-on-the-lotus-case/#_ftnref1> accessed 18 September 2025. 

Sean D. Murphy, ‘Reflections on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: Interpreting Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999)’ in Michael Wood and Marko Milanovic (eds), The Law and Politics of the Kosovo Advisory Opinion (Oxford University Press, forthcoming). 

United Nations, ‘1958 Convention on the High Seas’ 

<https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/1958-Convention-on-the-High-Seas.pdf> accessed 20 September 2025. 

United Nations, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) <https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf> Accessed 20 September 2025.

1 France vs. Turkey, Court of International Justice, P.C.I.J., (ser A) No. 10 (1927)

2 https://nilsbangladesh.org/a-case-law-analysis-on-the-lotus-case/#_ftnref1

3 https://law.justia.com/cases/foreign/international/1927-pcij-series-a-no-10.html

4Ibid

5Ibid 

6 Sean D. Murphy, Reflections on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: Interpreting Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), in THE LAW AND POLITICS OF THE KOSOVO ADVISORY OPINION (Michael Wood & Marko Milanovic eds., Oxford University Press, forthcoming) 

7 https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/1958-Convention-on-the-High-Seas.pdf8 https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf