Thinking of the S.S. Lotus

As I mentioned before, the Lotus case is a central starting point in each International Law class I have taken. I was thinking today about the difference between the positions of France and Turkey. Who has the burden in arguments of jurisdiction? Should the state claiming jurisdiction show the law that allows such jurisdictional reach, or should the opposing state be required to prove why the other DOESN'T have jurisdiction. Keep in mind, the vote was 6-6 in the Lotus case. Although the current thinking is that a state asserting jurisdiction has the burden - couldn't this view shift as international law becomes more established?