Talk:Lotus case

Irrelevant list

Hi- The list on other nations that have objected to the ICC is clearly off topic on this case; the fact that the US invoked the Lotus principle regarding the ICC just barely so. 130.64.110.168 14:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)cdoten

I agree with the irrelevance of other nations objecting to the ICC is irrelevant, and indeed, has the effect (if not with the intent) of disparaging the US for failing to be involved in the ICC. The use of the Lotus principle to oppose the ICC, however, is relevant. --146.201.173.194 01:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The list of countries is clearly irrelevant, why haven't you deleted it? Is that bad etiquette? Also, though the use of the lotus principle to oppose the ICC is probably relevant, it doesn't say how it's used... thus the information is useless. if anybody knows could you please add it? --Ondra2 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lotus principle not overruled by the 1958 High Seas Convetion

The Lotus principle as currently described in the article is essentially a rule to say that when a sovereign state is not explicitly prohibited from acting in a certain way by international law, it is allowed to so act, again under international law. Again, as currently described in the article, the 1958 High Seas Convention gave an explicit rule about which sovereign state could exercise jurisdiction over sailors on the high seas. To overrule a principle is to make it so it is no longer a rule or no longer applies. In this case, however, the convention does not overrule the principle itself, it just changes the result of the principle's application with regard to exercising jurisdiction on sailors in the high seas. IMHO (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lotus case. 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/20101210073754/http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1927/1927.09.07_lotus.htm to http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1927/1927.09.07_lotus.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927023939/http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_A/A_10/30_Lotus_Arret.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_A/A_10/30_Lotus_Arret.pdf

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) 14:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)