The Legitimacy and Rationality of Universal Jurisdiction

Abstract

In March, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin, meaning that International Criminal Court (ICC) member states, including South Africa, are obliged to arrest him and transfer him to The Hague for trial if he sets foot on any of their territories. But the recent indictment of the South African government for its public refusal to execute an arrest warrant as a member of the International Court of Justice has again raised questions about international crime and the willingness of states to get involved in it. This paper attempts to discuss the relevant issues of universal jurisdiction from the perspective of case studies, normative analysis and social effects of legal norms, and finally concludes that universal jurisdiction lacks the necessary elements to form customary international law at the level of legal norms, and universal jurisdiction fails to achieve its purpose at the level of practical effects, and lacks the rationality of existence. At the same time, given the current reality of the exercise of universal jurisdiction, this paper suggests that the types of international crimes should be strictly limited, the universal jurisdiction should be separated from states, and the authority of the exclusive jurisdiction of the international court for international crimes should be established.