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.

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.