Sweden announces it lacks jurisdiction in the Nordstream case

Swedish officials claim that they “lacked jurisdiction” to reveal what happened and have now handed their evidence to German investigators.

“We have a picture of what has happened, and what that picture consists of we cannot go into more detail, but it leads to the conclusion that we do not have jurisdiction,” Swedish Public Prosecutor Mats Ljungqvist told Reuters. “It is not Sweden’s task to continue this investigation.”

Sweden may lack jurisdiction over the explosions in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) for several reasons:

1. International Law: Sweden may have determined that under international law, jurisdiction over the incidents falls under the principle of flag state jurisdiction. 

This principle dictates that the state whose flag the vessel carrying out the activities was flying has primary jurisdiction. Since the Nordstream pipelines are a joint project involving multiple countries, and the explosions were likely caused by a state actor, jurisdiction may fall to the state(s) whose flags the vessels involved in the explosions were flying.

This principle dictates that the flag state has jurisdiction to regulate, investigate, and prosecute incidents that occur on board its flagged vessels, regardless of where the vessel is located in international waters or the exclusive economic zones of other countries. 

The principle of flag state jurisdiction is primarily associated with ships and maritime vessels, but it can also extend to other assets such as offshore installations, pipelines, seabed cables, and similar structures. 

2. Multinational Ownership: The Nordstream 1 AG pipelines are jointly owned by Russia, Germany, the Netherlands, and France, with Russia owning 51% and the other countries collectively owning 49%. The Nordstream 2 AG is a daughter company of Russian Gazprom in which same states companies as in NS1 provided loans in the amount of 49%. 

Given this multinational ownership, determining jurisdiction may require agreement among all involved parties or may default to the flag state principle mentioned earlier.

3. Political Considerations: Sweden may also consider the geopolitical implications of asserting jurisdiction over incidents involving state actors from other countries. 

In this scenario, where the likely perpetrator is believed to be Britain, Sweden may not want to escalate tensions or become embroiled in a diplomatic dispute by asserting jurisdiction without clear legal grounds.

4. Limited Scope of Jurisdiction: Even though the explosions occurred within Sweden's (and Danish) EEZs, the scope of Sweden's jurisdiction may be limited to certain types of offenses or activities explicitly outlined in international law or domestic legislation. 

If the explosions do not fall within these defined parameters, Sweden may lack the legal authority to investigate or prosecute the incidents.

Overall, Sweden's announcement that they lack jurisdiction over the explosions in their EEZ may stem from a combination of legal principles, multinational ownership of the pipelines, political considerations, and the limited scope of their jurisdiction under international law.

More on this topic and why Sweden is compromised:

The partnership between United Kingdom and Sweden - Conflict of interests

Colletced statements of SWE main investigator Mats Ljungquist

Investigations, Sweden: Mats Ljungqvist - the Swedish investigator