Universal Jurisdiction Research Articles

Univerzální jurisdikce a postih závažných porušení Ženevských úmluv z r. 1949

Violations of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) are characterized by two sets of legal consequences. Some of them are considered to be so serious that entail not only international responsibility of States for wrongful acts but also criminal responsibility of individua! perpetrators. The criminal repression of grave breaches of IHL, called also war crimes, is not just a matter of domestic law, but it results from international law. Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 have not only defined grave breaches (Articles 50/1, 51/11, 130/111, 147/IV) and provided for their investigation and prosecution, but set up also the obligatory universal jurisdiction of States Parties with respect to the grave breaches (Articles 49/I, 50/11, 129/III, 146/IV). It is a kind of paradox that in 2009, after 60 years from the adoption of the Geneva Conventions, the universal jurisdiction is perceived, by a number of States, mostly developing States, as being problematic. As evidence, there is a recent proposal of the African Union leading to the adoption the UN General Assembly resolution on “The scope of application of the principle of universal jurisdiction”. The universal jurisdiction has been established in customary international law in relation to the crime of piracy since the 17th century. In the second half of the 20th century, this principle has been embodied into treaty law, such as the Geneva Conventions or the 1984 Convention against Torture. The universal jurisdiction has its place in international law. In practice, however, it appears mainly in a narrow, subsidiary form, where a perpetrator is found in the territory of the State and cannot be extradited to another State. Lt is linked to the treaty obligation aut dedere aut judicare. On the contrary, the absolute universal jurisdiction is rather exceptional and has permissive rather than obligatory nature. The obligatory universal jurisdiction, as set up in the Geneva Conventions, is rare and in practice hardly enforced. The primary jurisdiction rests with the States applying territorial or persona! jurisdiction. The principle of universality is a kind of safeguard against impunity of certain crimes based on a horizontal complementarity. Its impact has to be assessed in the light of the current development of international law, including the ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court. The binary obligation aut dedere aut judicare has been completed with a surrender as the third possibility.

MZV a humanitární právo

This article deals with the examination of the measures for the ensuring of the respect of the international humanitarian law in the context of the serious breaches from the standpoint of MFA of the Czech Republic. Those mechanisms are International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, principle of the universal jurisdiction and international criminal tribunals and courts. All of these measures have some limitation. The issue is whether existing IHL implementing mechanisms are adapted to actual and new challenges.

Living with impunity versus living in fear: Universal jurisdiction defendants, due process, and the use of democracies by autocracies to prosecute their opponents

Living with impunity versus living in fear: Universal jurisdiction defendants, due process, and the use of democracies by autocracies to prosecute their opponents

Prosecutions Across Borders

Abstract The practice of universal jurisdiction (UJ), meaning the prosecutions of international crimes before national courts regardless of where the crimes took place, who committed the crimes and against whom these crimes were committed, has been facing critique and praise alike. This article analyses the practice of UJ from the perspective of the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL). It has been argued that over the years, UJ practice has also reflected the double standards that characterize the practice of international criminal law (ICL) more broadly. The reasons for this are manifold. UJ, like international (criminal) law in general, comes with certain foundational challenges, systematically and substantively. On the one hand, the modern practice of ICL is often critiqued for its selective and uneven enforcement, both in international and national courtrooms. On the other hand, we encounter systemic and doctrinal obstacles to the prosecution of Western actors, including most importantly Western corporations. There are only limited grounds within the UJ system for addressing the root causes of the structural violence that inform a hegemonic ‘dynamic of difference’ between the ‘Third World’ peoples and Western states and corporations. This article explores the duality of this system and practice as it unfolds in Germany under the Code of Crimes Against International Law (‘V ölkerstrafgesetzbuch’, VStGB), using a TWAIL lens. We argue that the practice of UJ needs to be viewed in a nuanced manner: while there is a risk of furthering Eurocentrism, with Western European states selectively pursuing low- to mid-level perpetrators predominantly from countries of the so-called Global South, while Western actors enjoy impunity, this practice is also the result of mobilization and efforts of victims/non-state actors who see UJ processes as an important avenue for accountability, empowerment and agency.

Tinjauan Hukum Internasional dalam Menangani Kasus Piracy Jure Gentium Berdasarkan Yurisdiksi Universal

This study discusses the application of universal jurisdiction in addressing piracy jure gentium based on international law. Universal jurisdiction allows a country to prosecute perpetrators of serious crimes, such as piracy, regardless of the crime's location or the nationality of the perpetrator and victim. Rooted in customary international law, which recognizes piracy as a threat to the collective interests of all nations, every country has the right and obligation to act against pirates. This research employs a normative legal approach, focusing on analyzing relevant international legal regulations. The findings indicate that the international legal framework, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), provides guidance for enforcing laws against piracy. However, while the principle of universal jurisdiction offers a solution, challenges such as a lack of international consensus on the definition of piracy, resource limitations in developing countries, and the need for stronger international cooperation hinder its implementation. This study emphasizes the importance of inter-state cooperation, including support from developed countries to developing nations, to enhance law enforcement capacity. Moreover, the application of universal jurisdiction contributes to international justice, where consistent law enforcement reflects the international community's commitment to protecting maritime safety and global trade. Thus, this research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the application of universal jurisdiction in the context of piracy in international waters and its implications for the overall international legal system.

Implementation and Interpretation of The Definitions of International Crimes in The National Jurisdiction of Ukraine

The article consists of two parts, the first of which discusses the problems associ ated with implementing the provisions of international law in the Ukrainian legal system regarding the understanding of the concept of “international crimes”. It underscores that the different definitions are due to the fact that Ukraine is not a party to the Rome Statute. However, it should be noted that most provisions of international law regarding interna tional crimes regarding war crimes, the crime of aggression and the crime of genocide are part of the Ukrainian legal system. At the same time, there are no crimes against human ity in Ukrainian national criminal law. The second part addresses the issues regarding Ukrainian courts’ interpretation of the national criminal law and international treaties on international crimes: interpreting the provisions of United Nations acts and the Rome Statute, applying the principle of “nullum crimen sine lege”in the context of prosecuting the crime of Holodomor, interpreting the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in connection with the use of trial in absentia in the case of Russian war criminals and interpreting provisions regarding universal jurisdiction in Ukrainian law.

The Inadmissibility of Jurisdictional Immunity of Persons Responsible for the Commission of International Crimes in Terms of Domestic Universal Jurisdiction Proceedings

This article addresses the complex issue of immunity for State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, with a focus on the ILC’s role in codifying and ensuring the compatibility of international legal acts. It underscores the calls for exceptions to functional immunity, particularly concerning ius cogens norms, and it highlights how the current framework often impedes accountability for international crimes. However, the ILC’s limitation of Art. 7 to immunity ratione materiae, excluding jurisdictional immunities, presents a legislative gap that hampers prosecution under universal jurisdiction. This underscores the need for international codification and progressive development to reconcile immunity doctrines with the imperative of accountability for serious international crimes. The article highlights the lack of a clear international position due to: (1) the absence of uniform definitions for immunity ratione personae, ratione materiae and jurisdictional immunity, (2) the identification of various exceptions limiting the invocation of immunities in domestic and third-State courts and (3) the inconsistent interpretation of immunity exclusions for ius cogens violations. It argues for harmonising legal norms at the international level to adequately initiate and conduct criminal proceedings by specifying the circumstances that exclude jurisdictional, ratione materiae and ratione personae immunities, thus re-establishing criminal accountability for international crimes.

Championing Accountability: Lithuania’s Leadership in Investigating Russian Crimes in Ukraine

This article explores the role of Lithuania in seeking accountability for Russia’s crimes in Ukraine since 2022. This small Baltic state, being both an EU and NATO member for twenty years now, is advocating on behalf of their Ukrainian colleagues in many international arenas and forums. However, more than two years into the brutal war, some organisational and legal challenges have started to emerge. These include the challenges resulting from the complex international institutional framework, as well as legal ones related to universal jurisdiction and the scope of crimes included under current criminal investigations.

Universal Jurisdiction as International Solidarity with Survivors of Atrocity Crimes

Abstract The primary justification for universal jurisdiction (UJ) is its use as a tool to end impunity for certain international crimes. It is also linked to deterrence, as perpetrators of such crimes can face, and have indeed faced, legal action when they travel or reside overseas. Yet, UJ is also the subject of concerns, including the risk of politically motivated prosecutions and the undermining of fair trial rights and legal process. This article contends that the case for UJ can be strengthened, taking as its starting point scholarship that foregrounds the experiences of diaspora communities, rather than the traditional grounding of UJ in abstract appeals to shared humanity. Building on the insights that this earlier work enables us to uncover, this article seeks to reinforce the normative case for UJ by reframing it as international solidarity with survivors of atrocity crimes. First, international solidarity, as a unity of interests in accountability and effective remedies among survivors, other members of the diaspora, states, civil society and international organizations, underlines the connectedness among different actors that play a role in UJ. Secondly, uncovering such connectedness adds to the justifications for UJ the need to rebuild the trust of survivors in the (inter)national criminal justice system by underlining shared interests in access to justice. This is particularly timely in the context of Afghanistan, where survivors are often left without recourse to effective remedies for past and ongoing atrocities. In building the case for UJ from a solidarity perspective, the article incorporates lessons from a project the author is involved in concerning the potential of UJ for holding members of the Taliban accountable for atrocity crimes; a collective effort commissioned by diaspora from Afghanistan. It contributes to this project by strengthening the call for survivors to form a central part of accountability efforts across the world.

Codification of International Legal Rules on Universal Criminal Jurisdiction: Current Status and Prospects

The process of codifying universal criminal jurisdiction has been taking place for more than 15 years. An informal and official codification are tacitly distinguished. The unofficial principles include the Princeton and Krakow principles, which highlighted the gaps in the study and application of universal criminal jurisdiction. Formal codification includes the work of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations, in which universal criminal jurisdiction is studied in more detail on the basis of positions provided by UN member states. The issues of application and codification of criminal jurisdiction require further study by the international community, which is aware of the need for universal jurisdiction in view of the particularly serious nature of certain crimes committed in the world, in which jurisdiction extending to the sovereign territory of a state often proves powerless. Universal jurisdiction is a key definition in the fight against impunity for crimes in the 21st century, requiring legal regulation for its implementation in accordance with international law. The paper examines the issues on which states must reach a consensus: the scope and coverage of universal criminal jurisdiction, the conditions of its application, the crimes falling under it and, of course, the definition of the term.

Reconceptualizing Corruption as an International Crime: A Review of International Law

The discourse surrounding corruption as an international crime is increasingly urgent, as it transcends national borders and contributes to economic crises, conflicts, and various crimes that threaten global security. Scholars such as Christensen (2017), Peters (2018), Davis (2018), and Rothe (2010) have linked corruption to human rights violations, revealing that states often struggle to address it effectively. This research seeks to explore how corruption can be redefined as an international crime and what legal accountability mechanisms exist for perpetrators within international law, while also examining the opportunities for the international community to recognize corruption as an international crime. The findings suggest that corruption crimes impacting security, human rights, and environmental integrity, particularly in contexts where states are unable or unwilling to act, should be classified as international crimes, necessitating a global commitment to amend the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) accordingly. Furthermore, the potential for universal jurisdiction over corruption is explored, whether through amending the 1998 Rome Statute or establishing an ad hoc international tribunal, although significant obstacles remain due to states’ commitments to their sovereignty and criminal jurisdiction.

Comparing universal jurisdiction in Europe and in Latin America: a vehicle for international justice or for colonial reckoning?

ABSTRACT A particular concern in recent years has been the limited options for prosecutions of persons responsible for atrocities in States not amenable to ICC jurisdiction. The need for accountability for atrocities builds on long histories of human rights and humanitarian law practice, both treaty-based and customary in nature, which has been driven also by the work of the ECtHR and the IACtHR mechanisms. At the domestic level, ever since the Pinochet decision, universal jurisdiction (UJ) has been considered a promising way to fill the lacuna. Indeed, some commentators have observed a resurgence in the use of UJ in recent years based on a number of trials of ex-ISIS and Syrian regime members in European courts. Yet UJ as it has been practised has serious limitations. While there are exceptions, many European states are steadily turning the exercise of UJ into the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction based on active or passive personality, especially in relation to their former colonies. In Latin America too, there have been some recent examples of investigations and prosecutions on the basis of ‘pure’ UJ, but the vast majority of exercises of jurisdiction are in furtherance of extraditions, particularly at the behest of former colonial powers. This article compares the recent uptick in European and Latin American usages of UJ, concluding that to date both regions still exhibit little appetite for pursuing ‘pure’ UJ. It warns that significant colonialist pressures in both regions threaten to limit this crucial mechanism for international justice.

Le concept du contrat du transport maritime de marchandises et les Conventions qui le rglementent

Somalian Piracy constitutes one of the main threats not only to internAlthough the contract of carriage sometimes looks similar to other contracts such as the contract of affreightment and tonnage contract, the legal system that governs it is different. Several Conventions, Protocols or International Rules regulate the carriage of goods. We can mention the American Harter Act, the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading signed at Brussels on 25 August 1924 (The Hague Rules), the Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading signed at Brussels on 23 February 1968 (Visby Rules), the Protocol amending the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading of 25 August 1924 (The Hague Rules), as amended by the Protocol of 23 February 1968, signed at Brussels on December 21st, 1979. We can also mention the United Nations International Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea adopted in Hamburg on March 31st, 1978 (Hamburg Rules). In an effort to organize the maritime transport of goods in an equitable manner, each Convention is intended to fill the gaps of the previous one and maintain a balance between the various parties to the contract of carriage. At the beginning of the century, each mode of international carriage continues to be governed by autonomous Rules. For the sake of globalization of trade and trade facilitation, jurists acted for the unification of the rules of international carriage. Thus, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted on July 3rd, 2008, the "Draft of Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea". On December 11, 2008, the United Nations General Assembly formally adopted the "the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea", and recommended that the rules laid down in the Convention are from now on known as the "Rules of Rotterdam". This Convention has since then been open to ratification by the states. It shall enter into force one year after the ratification meeting at least twenty states. These Rules have advantages, but they also have some disadvantages. A study of these advantages and disadvantages is interesting.: Piracy, international legal system, International Law, sovereign territory, non-liquet, UN resolutions, Universal Jurisdiction, United Nations Charter, Non-State Actor

Foundational Doctrines of International Law: balancing sovereignty, justice, and global order

This paper explores twelve foundational doctrines of international law, each playing a crucial role in shaping the global legal order. These doctrines—including sovereignty, non-intervention, recognition, and universal jurisdiction—balance the principles of state autonomy with the need for international cooperation and justice. By examining landmark case laws, such as ‘The Island of Palmas’ and ‘Nicaragua v. United States’, the paper illustrates how these doctrines are applied in practice. This analysis provides insight into the complex interplay between national interests and global governance, highlighting the evolving nature of international law.

Revisiting Veto Power in the Context of Atrocity Crimes: the Syrian Conflict as a Case Study

The excessive, abusive use of veto power during the war in Syria has prompted the international community to seek ways to overcome this veto power, mainly when doing so is necessary to prevent atrocities. The use of veto power to advance the national or regional interests as well as the economic, political, or strategic interests of a Security Council’s permanent member state on a way that impair a vital humanitarian interest of a state under conflict or the international community as a whole, undermines the Security Council’s role to maintain the international peace and security. This usage may also affect other states’ compliance with the veto power. In other words, the veto system could eventually lose its effectiveness if the international community continues to find justifications to non-compliance with the veto. This paper sheds light on events that have occurred during the Syrian war that give rise to Grotian Moments, or have the potential to do so, to create new customary international law rules governing the use of the veto power. Furthermore, this paper sorts out the principles invoked during those events as legal justifications to restrict or overthrow the veto power. Moreover, this paper identifies legal circumstances to facilitate any discussions regarding setting limitations on or obstructions to veto power in the context of atrocities. This research stresses the importance of determining a proper environment to overcome the veto power. This environment consists of unified, clear, and fair circumstances acceptable to all states, regardless of whether they are permanent or non-permanent members of the Security Council. Therefore, this proposal seeks to advance the legal system governing the use of the veto power for fighting brutality. Keywords: International criminal law, human rights law, universal jurisdiction, veto, customary international law, international organizations.

Between Politics and Justice: International Criminal Law in Hungary

Abstract Hungary has had an intense engagement with international criminal justice. During communism and democracy alike, the normative framework and language of international criminal law was used to delegitimise the political opponent. This article aims to describe the way international criminal law was repeatedly instrumentalized to not simply serve as a genuine tool for justice but also as a potent political pawn through presenting the use of international criminal law in four different time periods: (1) during the post-World War ii war crimes trials at the People’s Tribunals; (2) the adoption of universal jurisdiction during the communist era as a tool of Cold War status competition; (3) in the 1990s, as an instrument of transitional justice; and finally, (4) in the post-2010s, as a tool for memory politics and anti-migration propaganda.

Conceptual basis of international jurisdiction

Constant changes in international relations and global challenges in the geopolitical arena disrupt the effectiveness and relevance of existing approaches to international justice. In this context, there is a need to analyze the conceptual foundations of this field in order to adapt to modern realities. The main goal of this study is to analyze the conceptual foundations of international justice, taking into account the latest scientific achievements and global perspectives. The focus of the research is the formation of new theoretical approaches and conceptual frameworks for the analysis and understanding of international criminal law. The methodological basis of the study is based on the analysis of scientific works in the field of international criminal law, as well as the use of modern scientific approaches to information processing. The article reveals new aspects and perspectives of the study of the conceptual foundations of international justice, which can contribute to the further development of the theory and practice of disclosure and investigation of serious violations of international law. The author highlights four conceptual ideas that underlie International Criminal Justice. The first concept concerns the principle of legality, which takes into account not only legal norms, but also social and legal transformations. The second idea considers the principle of international crime, which covers serious violations of international law. The third concept concerns individual responsibility for international crimes, regardless of the social status and official position of the subject of the offense. The fourth idea is the principle of universal jurisdiction, which provides a legal response to serious violations of international law, regardless of the circumstances and the subject of their commission. These concepts reflect the goal of international criminal justice, which is the inevitability of punishment for serious violations of international law, since their commission threatens the security of all humanity.

The Adjudication of Slavery Crimes against the Yazidi by German Courts Evolving Jurisprudence and the Need for Rectifying Legal Amendments in German Law

This article examines the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the German Code of Crimes against International Law (CCAIL) and the German Criminal Code (GCC) to the slave trade and slavery conduct committed against the Yazidi by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, IS or Da'esh). Specifically, the article takes an intersectional approach to reviewing in detail the cases of Sarah O (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) and Taha Al J (Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt) while drawing observations from other German cases concerning slavery crimes against the Yazidi. These were in the majority, if against German nationals, conducted under the principle of active personality or, in the alternative, under the principle of universal jurisdiction. The article shows how German prosecutors and courts did not shy away from creatively grappling with slave trading, slavery and trafficking conduct committed by ISIL.Cases, such as Nadine K, demonstrate a positive evolution towards cumulative charging and convictions that afford comprehensive legal redress to persons affected by the slave trade, slavery and trafficking. Still, the absence of the slave trade as an enumerated provision of crimes against humanity and war crimes in the CCAIL can be felt and must be rectified to realise legal protection as envisioned by customary international law.

Universal Jurisdiction: The Complex Implementation

The article discusses the concept of universal jurisdiction and its implementation in international law. It explores the relationship between universal jurisdiction and treaty law, as well as customary international law. The author emphasizes the importance of universal jurisdiction in holding individuals accountable for serious international crimes, even when they flee to another country. The article also discusses the concept of hot pursuit and its connection to universal jurisdiction. Real-life geopolitical events are presented to illustrate the complexities and challenges of implementing universal jurisdiction. The author argues that universal jurisdiction can contribute to peace and security by redefining international relations and moving away from traditional approaches. The article draws on various primary and secondary sources to support its arguments.

A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO IMPOSE UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PRACTICE

The study introduces a multidimensional solution to impose universal jurisdiction by utilizing firm concepts in international law to enhance the functionality of this principle in international legal practice. Initially, it explores the current ‎classification of the principle of universal jurisdiction in international law to ‎determine its latest status quo. It is prominent to introduce a comprehensive presentation of the ‎structure of universal jurisdiction and its relevant concepts in international ‎law by ‎reviewing international jurisprudence on this principle. Thus, the study reviews its evolution in international legal instruments and how ‎international courts utilise them. In addition, the research analyzes the UN ‎relevant resolutions on universal jurisdiction to draw a global portrait of its ‎legal status in international law.‎ Because of the cosmopolitan humanitarian ends of universal jurisdiction, the research suggests employing the concept of humanness to justify imposing it. In addition, these ends, and the purpose of enhancing international justice, drive the study to introduce the theory of the responsibility to protect (R2P) to justify the utilization of domestic legal rules extra-territorially. Nevertheless, this utilisation might trigger the question of national judiciaries’ independence. The research analyzes this problem to establish the required foundations to strike a balance between the independence of national judiciaries and imposing universal jurisdiction to secure justice.