Whose Justice? Reconciling Universal Jurisdiction with Democratic Principles

Global governance has become a topic of interest to many contemporary political theorists. Issues arising from the nature of global markets and multinational corporations can no longer be locally contained. These developments signal the decline of the nation state and therewith the end of the liberal moral and political theory that justified national institutions. The alternative possible orders appear bleak, including anarchy, hegemonic power orthe most horrific of all specters, the liberty crushing Kant's cosmopolitan theory of justice can provide a third way between nationalism and its bleak alternatives, providing a measure of global governance upheld by nations without recourse to a world state. My thesis is that a juridical society of states is necessarily founded upon cosmopolitan right having universal jurisdiction and that the implementation of the norms of hospitality underlying cosmopolitan right requires global institutions based upon democratic representation and accountability.

The article is devoted to the issue of state jurisdiction in case of a crime against a citizen of Ukraine in the territory of another country, a positive obligation of law enforcement agencies to conduct an effective investigation within the limits of their authority using the mechanism of international legal assistance. The absence of universal jurisdiction of one state for the territory of the other does not exclude the need to protect the rights of victims who are victims abroad. Powers are limited to the sovereignty of another state, but this does not exempt from the obligation to conduct an effective investigation. Refusing to open a criminal case to the applicant is a restriction on access to justice. Trafficking in persons is a transnational crime, which increases the risk of becoming a victim of people in the territory of another country. Applicants who are unable to apply to law enforcement agencies have the right to appeal and protect their relatives abroad. Refusal to initiate criminal proceedings on the fact of trafficking in persons with the reference to the fact that the Convention in art. 4 does not provide protection against this type of crime is a direct violation of convention standards. The European Court has never considered the provisions of the Convention the only normative basis for the interpretation of the rights and freedoms enshrined therein. One of the basic principles for the application of the provisions of the Convention is that the Court does not apply them in isolation. Like any international agreement, the Convention should be interpreted in the light of the rules of interpretation established by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23.05.1969. Therefore, there is no doubt that trafficking in human beings is a threat to human dignity and the fundamental freedoms of its victims and that it can not be considered compatible with a democratic society and the values that are protected by the Convention. GRETA believes that the Ukrainian authorities should increase their efforts to conduct joint or parallel investigations and other forms of international cooperation in human trafficking cases in order to provide for the possibility of arrest and conviction not only of recruits in Ukraine, who organizes trafficking in human beings and profit from the exploitation of those who have suffered from it. Such cooperation should be strengthened, in particular with the countries of destination of Ukrainian victims of trafficking in human beings.

Ever since the arrest of General Augusto Pinochet by British authorities in October 1998—and the trial that followed it over the next two years—the judicialization of Chilean politics has been associated with this landmark case. Indeed, given the spectacular nature of the trial of one of the world’s most notorious dictators in a procedure that seemed to inaugurate the era of universal jurisdiction in cases involving gross human rights violations, it is only natural that journalistic and academic attention has focused on the role of the Chilean courts in this case, as well as in others dealing with human rights violations perpetrated during the 17-year-long regime initiated with the military coup of 1973. As a result of this interest, there has been a considerable amount of research over the past few years that have addressed the origins, trajectory, and potential consequences of the Pinochet and related trials for the future of Chile’s democratic system.1