Talk:Jurisdiction (area)

It is necessary to have a page specific to statehood and the law. In too many instances, references are being made from technical legal pages to political or geographic material that is completely irrelevant to the issues involved. -David91 09:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

extradition/outside jurisdiction

I think it may be important to note that you could be prosecuted for a crime in one jurisdiction, even if you didn't commit it there, usually people think you are only subject to the jurisdiction where you committed the crime but this isn't true, so it should be noted that "jurisdictions can have jurisdiction outside their jurisdiction" though I'm not sure how, but it happens.The snare (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment to UK element

My original version listed England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and then, "the Channel Islands and Sark" as being the relevant states within the UK. An amendment was made to the following form of words: "and is associated through the Crown with the Crown dependencies: the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey."

Would someone with up-to-date legal knowledge please confirm which version is correct. Rather than have incorrect information on public display pending clarification, I have removed all reference to the UK.

On my side, I refer to what I would take to be a standard formulation as in section 1(1)(b) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1949, 12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6, ch. 100, which applied as long as the husband was not domiciled elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man. Similar jurisdiction was available in proceedings for annulment; see section 1(2); see also 13 HALSBURY, supra note 31, ¶ 502 (discussing the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1937).

The Channel Islands is the coded entity for domicile purposes at http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Bz_zSZ-RJfcJ:www.lsc.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/e6mgdl22ejan6jwl4y6n7lxvqojwzrzovj6vn3zgzsue67gzwlle54cbop3uk73me5txhxvxxlgq5h/AnnexD200506v1.doc+UK+Gov+domicile+Channel+Islands&hl=en

On the other side, the following information is offered:

There are no "Channel Island laws": each of the bailiwicks passes and registers its own laws, and has its own legislature. The bailiwicks have their own courts - with the exception that there is a Channel Islands appeal court (which hears appeals under the laws of the relevant bailiwick). The Bailiwick of Guernsey is quasi-federal, with Sark and Alderney being autonomous jurisdictions within the Bailiwick. According to the States of Alderney website "The Court of Alderney deals with all civil matters and is administered by six Jurats and a Chairman. Appeals are made to the Royal Court in Guernsey and then to the Channel Islands' Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council." How this fits in with the definition of state you are attempting to set out, I leave to your legal interpretation! Man vyi 06:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I take the fact that there is a single appellate court for the Channel Islands as supporting my view that it is the Channel Islands as a whole that represent the state, perhaps accepting that Sark is not a separate state. All comments gratefully received.

-David91 07:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting information on the Channel Islands Court of Appeal: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] — Insta ntnood 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man' - this is not accurate as the Isle of Man should had been put with the channel islands as a crown dependency. This correction should had been inserted here, "and is associated through the Crown with the Crown dependencies: the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey." 82.11.223.222 (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very erroneous

Article begins with saying:

For the purposes of Public International Law and Private International Law, a state is a defined group of people, living within defined territorial boundaries and more or less subject to an autonomous legal system exercising jurisdiction through properly constituted courts.

I don't think that is correct. I don't know much about private international law, but the most common usage of "state" in public international law is in the sense of a "soverign state", not a (possibly non-soverign) separate legal jurisdiction. So, this article is at least 50% incorrect. --SJK 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent confusion of the term

I'm going to throw my proposal in on what's likely wrong here. There is another page for the sovereign political entity. I think what we are looking for with this page is the representatives of the state. The origin of this would be first Rex and Regina, when criminal prosecutions were done in the name of the king or queen. In the US, where there is no king or queen, we needed a new name. Actually, we've had (and continue to use) multiple terms. People, State, and even the name of the state itself. In the case of the Feds they use the US. So for example, a criminal trial against defendant John Doe in the US might be US v. Doe, State v. Doe, People v. Doe, or Wisconsin v. Doe, depending on the jurisdiction. This is the definition we're looking for, no? I'm going to wait a week or two, see if anyone complains, then fix the pag to what I think it was intended for.

I also have noted there is no legal definition for Rex, Regina or People as I am indicating. I'll probably throw up links to this page from their disambig pages rather than generate separate pages for each as they all explain a similar concept. Ikeinthemed

While this may be a relevant thing to include in the article, I don't see that as being its main point at all. The purpose is to explain the difference between the meanings of "state" in Public International Law and Private International Law, and the article is linked to from elsewhere to explain this difference. Please don't remove this. Martin Orr 10:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definately an understandable position. Here's how I see it. The definition I am proposing is, in my experience, used far more often. It is used every time a criminal case comes to court in 99% of English-speaking nations (and at times, as a civil litigant depending on jurisdiction). The current international law definition is instead only used in very rare circumstances, and in a very narrow area of the law. International law could qualify as a rather small subcategory of civil law, whereas my definition permeates all areas of the law - even Family Law (for back child support and ailimony/maintenance payments) if you can believe that! I think that because the definition I am proposing is more common it should go on this page.

I did not mean to imply this page's definition should be removed, merely relegated to a further more specific disambig page, perhaps State (International Law). So State (law) would have Rex (law), Regina (law) and People (law) revert to it and include my proposed (to come) definition. What this page currently contains would be relegated to State (International Law) due to it's less common prevalence. Sorry if I wasn't clear the first time I proposed a change.

So I suppose my argument in summary is that my definition is the primary topic of the term State (law) and the current definition is more specific. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation, particularly the primary versus specific topic area. Further comments welcome. Ikeinthemed

Seems reasonable Martin Orr 21:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on here

Based on what I've read, what is really going on here is this. There are two concepts:

the private international law / conflict of laws notion of jurisdiction, which is a territory (either a soverign state, or a subnational entity) which has laws, courts etc. The issue here, is that it has to be decided which courts will hear a case, and which laws will apply to the case
the public international law notion of a state, which is a soverign entity (e.g. the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Australia, etc.), with the power to engage in foreign relations, enter into treaties, possess territory in an ultimate sense, levy war and make peace, &c., &c.

Now, the problem is that the terminology (as usual here is a bit confused). Meaning (1) is often referred to as jurisdiction, or country, or state. Meaning (2) is always (formally) referred to as state, but it also often informally called a country, etc. So, we have two brances of the law (private international law, and public international law), which use the same term in two different ways. The problem with the current article is that its all about meaning (1), and doesn't mention meaning (2) at all. --SJK 12:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public international law

The lead says "in public international law, State most commonly refers to a sovereign state which is a direct subject of international law." What about associated states and non-self-governing states? Or parts of countries that have separated but are not recognized? Are these considered states as well? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename to Jurisdiction (area)

I propose to rename this article "Jurisdiction (area)". If done the lead would read as follows:

"A jurisdiction is an area with a set of laws under the control of a system of courts which are different to neighbouring areas. Unitary states usually form single jurisdictions, whilst each state in a federal state will form a separate jurisdiction. Although sometimes certain laws in a federal state will uniform across the constituent state and enforced by a set of federal courts; thereby forming a single jurisdiction for that purpose."

I think jurisdiction is a fairly commonly used word to describe this and avoids some of the problems with using state or country. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it commonly used in private and public international law? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. Well not that commonly but I'd like to propose it as a neutral term if nothing else. In conflict of laws books authors frequently use the phrase "state or country" but this isn't much good here. "State, country or jurisdiction" is also sometimes used but admittedly it gets considerably less hits on Google. As far as jurisdiction on its own in concerned, here's some examples:

Creative commons use the word instead of state [7].

Some US state bar councils use it as well [8] [9].

Here's an article form the Financial Times [10].

Both uses of the word jurisdiction are demonstrated in this excerpt from a article book on private international law:

"This chapter concerns the rules for declining jurisdiction as applied in the common law jurisdictions of Canada, that is, the twelve Canadian court systems whose law is derived from English law. These include the courts of the nine provinces other than Quebec, the courts of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and the Federal Court of Canada."

— Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should set up an RfC on this before changing the name. That should attract various opinions on the matter. In the meantime, you could set up "Jurisdiction (area)" as a redirect page. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure RfC is for dispute resolution, and creating a redirect might just make it more difficult to move the page. The place to go would be Wikipedia:Requested moves, but to be honest I'm tempted to go ahead and be bold. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. Since no one else seems to care one way or the other I think I go ahead and move the article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State (law) → Jurisdiction (area) — A more neutral and less confusing term. (A more detailed explanation is on the article's talk page) — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the basic unit of private international law. Most textbooks on the topic refer to them simply as a "state or country". Some refer to it as "state, country or jurisdiction". Unfortunately neither of these is really any use on English Wikipedia. As it stands the article title, "State (law)" is particularly deficient as the term "state" means quite different things in municipal law, public international law and in private law.

A rename to "State (private international law)" would clarify this but it would still be deficient in so far as places such as Scotland, the Isle of Mann and Washington D.C. would be described as states when no one would ever describe them as such. (Such a description also verges on original research.) This is why I'd like to move the article to "Jurisdiction (area)" (assuming no one has a better idea for disambiguation brackets). Jurisdiction has the benefit of being a fairly neutral legal term. And while there are states which cannot be described as countries and countries which cannot be described as state, both states and countries can be described as jurisdictions.

Some examples of usage

Creative commons [11].

As do some US state bar councils [12] [13].

An article on private international law in Canada [14]

Here's an article form the Financial Times [15].

Wikipedia's own article on UK law says that the UK is divided in three jurisdictions.

In Ireland it is quite common to describe the island as being divided into two jurisdictions [16].

Lead

Using the term state for the basic unit of private international law has resulted in a convoluted and confused lead. As part of this proposed move I propose to change the lead to read:

"A jurisdiction is an area with a set of laws under the control of a system of courts which are different to neighbouring areas. Unitary states usually form single jurisdictions, whilst each state in a federal state will form a separate jurisdiction. Although sometimes certain laws in a federal state will uniform across the constituent state and enforced by a set of federal courts; thereby forming a single jurisdiction for that purpose."

— Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Will there be more info than this?

I don't think that this article is entirely accurate as the UK is a unitary state but has different jurisdictions. Meanwhile I wouldn't mind seeing more information on Jurisdiction (Area) and why we have them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.223.222 (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jurisdiction (area). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723025307/https://www.iardc.org/2010%20Rule%205.5.htm to https://www.iardc.org/2010%20Rule%205.5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]