State parties involved in the case.1 It is the

  State jurisdiction is the capacity of a state under international law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the state sovereignity and constitues its vital and central feature. It refers to the exercise of the state court authority. The state court has the right to make legally binding decisions that affect the parties involved in the case.1 It is the authoity of the state over persons, property and events which are primarily within the territories. It involves the powers to prescribe the rules of law, to enforce the prescribed rules of law and to adjudicate.2 State jurisdiction exists over any matter in which the state has a vested interest. There are three types of State jurisdiction namely:-
1.Legislative jurisdiction:- It is capacity of state to prescribe the rule of law. Although the legislation is primarily enforceable within the state jurisdiction but in certain circumstances, it may extend beyond its territory. It may be challenged in the cases where a state has adopted the law which are contrary to the rules of the international law. A state can be held liable for the breach of international law if it abuses its rights to legislate for its nationals abroad.
2.Executive jurisdiction:- It is a capacity of state to act and to enforce its laws within its territory. It simply means that no state have an authority to carry out their functions on foreign territory as they are independent of each other and possess territorital sovereignity. It is does so then it will be liable for the breach of international law.
3.Judicial jurisdiction:- It is the capacity of the courts of the state to try legal cases. While creating courts and assigning it their jurisdiction and to lay down the procedures which has to be followed, the state can not alter the way in which the court from other country operates.
  The issue of the permission that the international law gives the state to exercise its jurisdiction over the person or things in its territory and sometimes abroad, is an aspect of the sovereignity of states. It has also been reflected in the principle of equality of states and non- interference in the state’s domestic affairs. The domestic jurisdiction has two main forms namely prescription (making of law) and enforcement (implementation of the law by the judiciaryand the executive).3 International law leaves a fair measure of jurisdictional discretion to states, which can assert jurisdiction if this can be justified by a permissive rule of international law. The principles of jurisdiction in civil matters and criminal matters are different. But the exercise of civil jurisdiction by courts of a state has been claimed upon far wider grounds than has been the case in criminal matters. In the civil matters the international law does not impose any restrictions on the jurisdiction of courts. There are 5 types of jurisdiction upon which the court of the specific state claims jurisdiction:-
1. TERRITORIAL PRINCIPLE:- It is a primary basis for the jurisdiction. It is derived from the concept of state sovereignty. It means that a state has the primary jurisdiction over all events taking place in its territory.4 Except when the freedom is restricted by the treaty, the state is free to legislate and enforce the legislation within its territory.5 The laws can also be applied to the ships that are flying its flags or aircraft registered with it and also it is applicable to the person on board. Acts committed on board foreign-registered aircraft are primarily subject to the jurisdiction of the state of registration even though the state has sovereignty over its airspace. The exercise of criminal or disciplinary jurisdiction over members of the foreign armed forces will depend on agreement with the host state and this will usually be in a status of forces agreement. Every state claims jurisdiction over crimes committed in its own territory even though it is committed by the foreigners. Sometimes a criminal act may begin in one state and be completed in another. For example if a man shoot across a frontier and kill someone on the other side then both states would have jurisdiction.6 The state where the act commenced has jurisdiction under the subjective territorial principle and ton the other hand the state where the act is completed has jurisdiction under the objective territorial principle.7 Lotus case was based on objective territoriality where a Turkish and French ship had collided on the high seas. In this the Permanent Court of International Justice held that the effects of the collision were felt by Turkey thats whyTurkey could claim jurisdiction. The court did so by ignoring the fact that the collision took place on the high seas. This equated the Turkish ship with the Turkish territory. It was then corrected by the United Nation Convention on the Law of Sea stating that in the collisions that takes place on the high seas, the state which can exercise jurisdiction are the flag state of the ships concerned or the state of nationality of the accused.8 Jurisdiction is not exclusive beacsue a state is free to confer upon other states the right to exercise certain jurisdiction within its national territory. States are also free to arrange the right of each one to exercise certain jurisdiction within each national territory. For example the 1994 israel-jordan peace treaty under which the Israeli criminal laws are applicable to the Israeli nationals and the activities involving only them in the specified areas under jordan’s sovereignty and measures can be taken in the areas by Israel to enforce such laws.9 The immunity of foreign diplomats and states from the jurisdiction of domestic courts does not mean that there is no territorial jurisdiction over them. It just means that it cannot be exercised unless immunity is waived.10 
2. NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE:- It has been considered as a secondary basis for jurisdiction. It recognizes that a sovereign can adopt criminal laws which govern the conduct of the sovereign’s nationals while outside of the sovereign’s borders. Such as under this principle a sovereign can make it a crime for its nationals to engage is sexual relations with minors while outside of its borders or to pay bribes outside of its borders to public officials of another sovereign. Whether a person holds a nationality of particular state is usually determined by the municiple law of that state. International law can decide the limits for the states to precribe which criteria is relevant for the natonality. State can claim states can claim authority over their nationals no matter where they are. It is based upon the notion that the link between the state and its nationals is personal one despite of the location.11 The courts of the United States also accept nationality as a basis for jurisdiction. For example the US nationals has to pay taxes to the USA and it does not matter if they reside elsewhere. But it is more commonly used in the criminal law where if a German national is a suspect murder in India, then also he/she can be prosecuted by the German authorities. In case someone hold a dual nationality, then both the states the right to claim the authority.12 This rule is universally accepted, and continental countries make extensive use of it. The United States and the United Kingdom have consistently opposed this principle in the past. In the Cutting case (1886), a court in Mexico assumed criminal jurisdiction over an American citizen for the publication of a defamatory statement against a Mexican citizen in a Texas newspaper. The United States protested against this but the case was dropped because the affected Mexican citizen withdrew the charges.13 The Restatement (Third) notes14:-
 “The principle has not been generally accepted for ordinary torts or crimes, but it is increasingly accepted as applied to terrorist and other organized attacks on a state’s nationals by reason of their nationality, or to assassination of a state’s diplomatic representatives or other officials”
3. PASSIVE PERSONALITY PRINCIPLE:- This principle holds that a state can prosecute anyone who harms its nationals no matter where this occurs. The passive personality principle takes the nationality of the victim and in doing so it has resurrected the classic idea that injuring a citizen of a state is akin to injuring that state. This principle has been highly controversial. It states or send message to the other state that its legal system is not good enough and for example a crime committed against Italians in France could under this idea better be dealt with in Italy than in France.15Although previously opposed to it, in response to the growing number of terrorist attacks on US nationals abroad in the 1980’s the United States enacted legislation under which such crimes can be tried in the United States, although previously it was opposed. The legislation seems to have been used only to deal with terrorist offences, and the principle is now found in various counter-terrorism conventions.16 
4. PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE:- This principle provides that states may exercise jurisdiction over aliens who have committed an act abroad which is deemed prejudicial to the security of the particular state concerned even if the act is not an offence under the local law. It is also generally accepted that states can claim jurisdiction over activities that endanger them. It doesnot matter if those activities take place elsewhere and are ascribed to non-nationals. For example immigration fraud like smuggling people in or out of a country.17 Although there is a danger that some states might try to interpret their security too broadly but most countries use this principle to some extent and that’s why seems to be valid. For example if an article has been published in United Kingdom which criticizes United States Of America, it would be unreasonable to suggest that United States of America has the jurisdiction to charge the editor for sedition. The protective principle is often used in treaties providing for multiple jurisdictional grounds with regard to specific offences. The protective principle of jurisdiction must not be confused with the diplomatic protection which refers to the right of a state to intervene diplomatically or to raise an international claim on behalf of its nationals against another state.18 This principle was applied in the British case named as Joyce v. Directive of Public Prosecutions. He was born in America but fraudulently acquired the British passport in 1933 claiming that he was born in Ireland. Then he moved to Germany and started working in a radio and claimed that he have acquired the Geramn nationality. The case turned on whether the British court had jurisdiction to try him after the war, on a charge of treason. The House of Lords decided that jurisdiction did exist in this case. Joyce had held himself out to be a British subject and had availed himself of the protection of a British passport. Accordingly he could be deemed to owe allegiance to the Crown and be liable for a breach of that duty. The fact that the treason occurred outside the territory of the UK was of no consequence since states were not obliged to ignore the crime of treason committed against them outside their territory. Joyce was convicted and suffered the penalty for his actions.19