Abstract

Along with the intensive development of international criminal law, the role of the jurisdiction whose primary connecting factor does not focus on protection of individual state's vital interests is becoming more important. The concept refers to universal jurisdiction which is not based upon traditional grounds of jurisdiction i.e. upon principle of territoriality, principles of active and passive personality and protective principle. Instead, it builds upon the interests and needs of the entire international community in preventing certain international crimes. It primarily refers to international crimes stricto sensu (core crimes): the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In cases where, for whatever reason, the reaction of an international adjudicative body such as the International Criminal Court is lacking, or where a state which usually has a forum but in particular case refuses to prosecute (usually because of political opportunism) or cannot prosecute - the universal jurisdiction could step in and ensure criminal prosecution. In other words, the concept of universal jurisdiction refers to genuine international interest in putting an end to impunity for perpetrators of grave crimes, as specified in the Preamble of the Resolution on Universal criminal jurisdiction with regard to the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In comparative law, the universal jurisdiction also refers to some crimes other than core crimes. In the first place, it refers to the so-called treaty-based crimes, essentially transnational crimes. In this paper we have discussed whether this concept when envisaged for transnational crimes, or for that matter any other concept deriving from the aut dedere aut judicare rule, contributes to their universal character i.e. their positioning as crimes with universal significance. In that matter, we have analyzed two cases from international jurisprudence: the Ould Dah case and the ruling issued by the International Court of Justice in case Belgium v. Senegal, Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite.

Highlights

  • MSP je rešio spor na osnovu Konvencije protiv torture – i to prvenstveno na osnovu čl. 6, st. 2 i čl. 7, st. 1 – tzv. haškog modela u pogledu tretiranja ekstradicije, prema kom obaveza/mogućnost države da procesuira nije vezana za postojanje prethodno podnesenog zahteva za ekstradiciju, odnosno odbijanje takvog zahteva, već postoji u svim slučajevima kad učinilac nije ekstradiran, a nalazi se na teritoriji određene države, odnosno pod njenom jurisdikcijom

  • Utisak je da je do rešenja u obe odluke upravo došlo zbog dela na koje su se odnosile

  • The concept of universal jurisdiction refers to genuine international interest in putting an end to impunity for perpetrators of grave crimes, as specified in the Preamble of the Resolution on Universal criminal jurisdiction with regard to the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes

Read more

Summary

Slučaj Ould Dah

Tokom 1990−1991. u Mauritaniji su eskalirali etnički sukobi. Pratio ih je masakr arapsko-berberskog stanovništva, a oko 3.000 lica tog porekla je bilo lišeno slobode i zatočeno u logorima. 2 Konvencije protiv torture i pritom istaklo da te odredbe u konkretnom slučaju omogućuju univerzalnu jurisdikciju francuskih sudova i obaranje zakona o amnestiji koji je donela druga država ako se njime krše međunarodne obaveze Francuske i ako takav zakon čini neefektivnim princip univerzalne jurisdikcije koji je predviđen u njenom zakonodavstvu za takva dela Odnos amnestije i univerzalne jurisdikcije u pogledu međunarodnih krivičnih dela stricto sensu može se razmatrati na nekoliko nivoa: na nivou dejstva amnestije u okviru države koja je donosi, na nivou njenog dejstva pred međunarodnim sudskim telima – npr. Državu koja procesuira core crime na osnovu univerzalne jurisdikcije obavezuje amnestija druge države. Opšteprihvaćen stav koji je u skladu sa generalnim dejstvom amnestije u pogledu core crimes jeste da amnestija data u jednoj državi ne lišava drugu državu prava da procesuira na osnovu univerzalne jurisdikcije kad su u pitanju krivična dela protivna međunarodnom pravu.. Aktuelne prepreke da se neko delo procesuira, kao što su amnestija i zastarelost, irelevantne su (Jessberger, 2007, p. 35 fn. 6)

Presuda
Umesto zaključka: tortura
Summary
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call