Nordstream and Lack of Jurisdiction by Sweden and Denmark

Sweden and Denmark closed their pre-investigation cases.

They stated that they Lack Jurisdiction over the explosions in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
It could be for several reasons:

International Law:

Sweden and Denmark 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.

Multinational Ownership:

The Nordstream pipelines are jointly owned by Russia, Germany, the Netherlands, and France, with Russia owning 51% and the other countries collectively owning 49%. Given this multinational ownership, determining jurisdiction may require agreement among all involved parties or may default to the flag state principle mentioned earlier.

Political Considerations:

Sweden and Denmark 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.

Limited Scope of Jurisdiction:

Even though the explosions occurred within Sweden's and Denmark´s EEZs, the scope of Sweden's and Denmark´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.

Flag state jurisdiction

Flag state jurisdiction is a principle of international law that assigns primary legal responsibility and authority over vessels to the state whose flag the vessel is 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.

For example, in the case of offshore installations such as oil rigs or wind farms, the flag state of the vessel or platform used in the construction, operation, or maintenance of these installations would typically have jurisdiction over activities and incidents related to that installation, even if it is located within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of another country.

Similarly, pipelines and seabed cables may also fall under the jurisdiction of the flag state of the vessels involved in their construction, maintenance, or operation. However, the application of flag state jurisdiction to these assets can vary depending on specific international agreements, treaties, and domestic laws governing their operation and jurisdictional issues.

In summary, while the principle of flag state jurisdiction is traditionally associated with ships, it can extend to other maritime assets such as offshore installations, pipelines, seabed cables, and similar structures, subject to applicable international agreements and domestic laws.

Summary:

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.

The SWE decision