216 / 350
PETRA BAUMRUK
CYIL 4 ȍ2013Ȏ
1. Introduction
In recent years, the international community has debated intensely the topic
of universal jurisdiction. Although the concept is not new under international
law, there still exists a divergence of views on its purpose, definition, usefulness
and exercise in practice. Universal jurisdiction has been the focus of much policy
and normative debate. Its supporters claim that universal jurisdiction denies safe
havens for perpetrators of heinous offences and ensures that their crimes do not
go unpunished due to lack of will or means. In contrast, critics warn that universal
jurisdiction threatens international relations, international justice, and the right of
the accused.
1
The aim of this article is not to exhaustively discuss all issues pertaining to
universal jurisdiction but primarily to give an overview on how the principle can play
an important role in the slowly emerging international system of justice in denying
safe havens to those responsible for the most serious offences such as war crimes,
genocide, crimes against humanity, terrorist crimes and torture.
2
Indeed, one can
consider whether the list of core international crimes can be broadened in order to
encompass additional acts such as serious environmental threats. Furthermore, whereas
international criminal courts and tribunals have sometimes limited jurisdiction and
capacity to try perpetrators and states can be unwilling or unable to try the suspects,
universal jurisdiction becomes an
important tool in reducing the impunity gap
.
3
As fundamental values and norms of the international system have evolved, so
have the number of crimes established by international law. Hence, when discussing
the principle of universal jurisdiction one has to begin by establishing what
international offences have become subjects to universal jurisdiction. Consequently,
for those crimes to which it does apply, does universal jurisdiction merely provide
states with the option of exercising jurisdiction, or does it oblige them to do so? Are
there any limiting principles?
1
Reydams, Luc:
Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspective.
Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003, pp. 1-2. Bassiouni, M. Cherif: Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes:
Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice.
Virginia Journal of International Law,
Vol. 42 (1),
2001, p. 82 [hereafter cited “Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes”]; Cryer, Robert
et al
.:
An
Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure
. 2
nd
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2010, p. 50.
2
See, for example, Macedo, Stephen (ed.):
Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of
Serious Crimes Under International Law.
Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2004, pp. 3-4.
3
Hall, Christopher K.: The Role of Universal Jurisdiction in the International Criminal Court
Complementary System. In Bergsmo, Morten (ed.):
Complementary and the Exercise of Universal
Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes
, Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2010, p. 214;
Mazzochi, Sarah: The Age of Impunity: Using the Duty to Extradite or Prosecute and Universal
Jurisdiction to End Impunity for Acts of Terrorism Once and For All.
Northern Illinois Universal Law
Review
, Vol. 32, 2011-2012, p. 99.