The State’s Authority in Determining the International Jurisdiction of Its National Courts

Abstract

This study examines the State’s authority in determining the international jurisdiction of its national courts in disputes involving a foreign element, considering such jurisdiction as an expression of state sovereignty through which the State independently regulates its judicial competence by means of direct national rules. The research aims to clarify the specific nature of rules governing international judicial jurisdiction and to distinguish them from domestic jurisdiction and conflict-of-laws rules, as well as to explain how the State exercises its power to expand or restrict the jurisdiction of its courts based on personal and territorial connecting factors.

The study concludes that the State enjoys broad discretion in delineating the scope of its courts’ international jurisdiction. It may expand such jurisdiction by relying on criteria such as nationality, domicile, or even mere transient presence, and may restrict it by requiring residence or a substantial territorial link to the dispute. It further demonstrates that territorial factors—such as the location of property or the place where the harmful act occurred—constitute key bases for determining judicial competence. The study recommends regulating certain issues, particularly the jurisdiction of courts in bankruptcy proceedings involving companies, and granting judges wider discretionary authority in adjudicating disputes with a foreign element, thereby achieving a balance between considerations of sovereignty and the requirements of international justice.