The Principle of Universal Jurisdiction & the International Criminal Court

Abstract

This article visits the concept of “universal jurisdiction” in the field of international criminal law. Also known as “universality principle” and “principle of universal justice,” universal jurisdiction is a controversial jurisdictional principle with strong proponents and opponents. The author starts with a brief account of how international law transitioned from exclusively recognizing states as the only subjects thereof to recognizing individual criminal responsibility, at least for the most heinous international crimes. He also covers the historical events that gave rise and momentum to the theory of universal jurisdiction in the 20th century. Following a brief reference to other main jurisdictional bases of criminal responsibility, the article continues with an analysis of the main tenets of the universality principle and an assessment of its strengths, weaknesses and of the role it may play (alone or in combination with other jurisdictional bases) in the fight against international crime. The article’s last part includes a review of the role and functions of the International Criminal Court, the crimes over which it has jurisdiction and the interrelationship between the Court and the principle of universal jurisdiction. The Court does not consider itself as exercising universal jurisdiction but the author finally argues that, in essence, the Court does and may exercise at least quasi-universal jurisdiction, given the UN Security Council’s role in referring cases to the Court’s prosecutor.