has jurisdiction in It is not intended to be maximal, in the sense that if a has_jurisdiction_in b, and b is not part of c, then a NOT has_jurisdiction_in c. in other words, it is perfectly fine to say: a disjoint b c has_jurisdiction_in a c has_jurisdiction_in b otherwise, we'd end up creating some mereological sum of all the islands, contiguous land masses, etc. of the United States, calling it "United States territory", asserting United States has_jurisdiction_in United States territory, then figuring out all the parts of that territory like islands, etc. We'd end up doing the same thing for every sovereign state, major administrative subdivision (at least those like Hawaii that are multiple), etc. Seems like an unnecessary duplication of entities. a governmental organization has jurisdiction in particular territories (areas of land), which means that it can make and enforce laws that govern peoples living in those territories. if a has_jurisdiction_in b, then a has_jurisdiction_in all parts of b. land mass governmental organization