The concept of universal jurisdiction evolved out of protecting international commerce, but now it has become a necessity for protecting human values in modern times. Even though the concept is good, its misuse threatens peaceful international relations. The study propose to discuss the legal status of the concept of universal jurisdiction under international law and its conflict with other legal principles like State sovereignty, sovereign immunity and non-intervention. It will also highlight how jus cogens norms and obligatio erga omnes strengthen the concept of universal jurisdiction. Further, the study will discuss the related concepts, such as ‘responsibility to protect’ and ‘extradite or prosecute’.
However, scope of the study will be limited to the problems of universal jurisdiction under international criminal law; and it will not address the issues of active, passive and territorial jurisdictions except to the extent necessary.
Contents
I. INTRODUCTION
1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
2. DEFINITION, RATIONALE AND SCOPE
3. SCHEME OF THE STUDY
II. EVOLUTION OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
1. THE CONCEPT OF PIRACY
2. AN OPTION INTO AN OBLIGATION
3. EXPANSION OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
4. DEVELOPMENT OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
5. OTHER BASES OF JURISDICTIONS
6. APPROACH OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
6.1. Positive Approach
6.2. Negative Approach
7. THE PRINCIPLE OF NE BIS IN IDEM
8. DIFFERENT STATE PERSPECTIVES
8.1. Debate in the UN General Assembly
8.2. Opinion of the International Committee of the Red Cross
8.3. Opinion of Belgium and Spain
9. SOME CASES RELATING TO UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
9.1. Eichmann Trial
9.2. Arrest Warrant Case
9.3. Pinochet Trial
10. EXPERIENCE OF SPAIN AND BELGIUM
III. LEGAL STATUS OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
1. INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMARY AND CONVENTIONAL LAWS
1.1. International Crimes under Customary International Law
1.2. Conventional International Law
2. DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND DOUBLE CRIMINALITY
3. ABSOLUTE AND CONDITIONAL UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
4. JUS COGENS AND OBLIGATIO ERGA OMNES
5. DOCTRINES IN CONFLICT WITH UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
5.1. State Sovereignty
5.2. Sovereign Immunity
6. PARALLEL DOCTRINES
6.1. Principle of Extradite or Prosecute (EoP)
6.2. Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Origin and Development
IV. RESPONSIBILITY, USE AND ABUSE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
1. LEGAL MEANING AND MODES OF RESPONSIBILITY
1.1. State responsibility
1.2. Individual Responsibility
1.3. Joint Criminal Responsibility (JCR)
1.4. Collective Responsibility
1.5. Command or Superior Responsibility
2. USE AND ABUSE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
2.1. Use of Universal Jurisdiction
2.2. Abuse of Universal Jurisdiction
V. CONCLUSION
Research Objectives and Themes
This study provides a critical analysis of the legal status of universal jurisdiction within international criminal law, examining its evolution from a tool for protecting commercial interests to a mechanism for safeguarding human rights. The research aims to explore the conflicts between universal jurisdiction and established legal principles such as State sovereignty, sovereign immunity, and the principle of non-intervention, while assessing how norms like jus cogens and obligatio erga omnes support its application.
- Historical evolution of universal jurisdiction from piracy to modern international crimes.
- Conflicts between universal jurisdiction and principles of sovereign immunity and non-intervention.
- Legal status and functionality of parallel doctrines like 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) and 'Extradite or Prosecute' (EoP).
- Analysis of the selective use and potential abuse of universal jurisdiction by powerful States against leaders of developing nations.
- The necessity for clear codification of universal jurisdiction rules to prevent political misuse and ensure consistent application in international law.
Auszug aus dem Buch
1. THE CONCEPT OF PIRACY
Piracy is of note in international law as it is commonly held to represent the earliest invocation of the concept of universal jurisdiction. The crime of piracy is considered a breach of jus cogens, a peremptory international norm that States must uphold. Those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign States to be hostis humani generis (enemies against human race) (Kissinger 2001: 87). A universal jurisdiction, action can be taken against pirates without objection from the flag State of the pirate vessel. This represents an execution to the principle extra territorium jus dicenti impune non paretur which means “one who exercise jurisdiction out of his territory is not obeyed with impunity” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1979: 528).
The phenomenon of piracy is at the basis of origin of the universality principle. For piracy is viewed as an offence against the universal law of society. Historically, the concept of piracy existed even before the birth of Christ and is mentioned in Homer’s ‘Iliad’ novel. The word ‘pirate’ itself, derived from the Greek term ‘peirato’ and the Latin term ‘pirata’, was in classical times often used to describe brigands and other marauders on land, or essentially any group that did not formally declare war before attacking (Rubin, 2006: 4-13).
Piracy began over 2000 years ago in Ancient Greece, when sea robbers threatened the trading routes of Ancient Greece. Since then, this threat has continued amongst seafaring nations ever since. Roman ships were attacked by pirates who seized their cargoes of grain and olive oil. The Vikings (which means sea-raiders) were renowned for attacking shipping and coastal settlements. However, piracy really flourished between 1620 and 1720. This period is known as the golden age of piracy. Between sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, there have been different types of pirates, these being, privateers, buccaneers and corsairs (Royal Naval Museum Library, 2002).
Summary of Chapters
I. INTRODUCTION: Outlines the background, definition, and research scope regarding the doctrine of universal jurisdiction.
II. EVOLUTION OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: Traces the historical development of universal jurisdiction from piracy to contemporary international criminal law.
III. LEGAL STATUS OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: Analyzes the foundational international laws, customary norms, and doctrines that conflict with or support universal jurisdiction.
IV. RESPONSIBILITY, USE AND ABUSE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: Examines the legal meaning of responsibility and the critical debate surrounding the actual application and misuse of universal jurisdiction.
V. CONCLUSION: Summarizes the study's findings and provides suggestions for improving the application of universal jurisdiction.
Keywords
Universal Jurisdiction, International Criminal Law, State Sovereignty, Sovereign Immunity, Jus Cogens, Obligatio Erga Omnes, Responsibility to Protect, Extradite or Prosecute, International Crimes, Piracy, Human Rights, International Criminal Court, State Responsibility, Command Responsibility, Ne Bis In Idem.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this dissertation?
The work provides a critical legal analysis of the concept of universal jurisdiction within the framework of international criminal law, specifically focusing on its legal standing and the tensions it creates with other established international principles.
What are the primary themes discussed in the text?
The core themes include the historical transition of universal jurisdiction from protecting commerce to protecting human rights, its conflict with State sovereignty and immunity, and the dual nature of its use as both a legal tool and a potentially political instrument.
What is the central research question?
The study examines the legal status of universal jurisdiction and whether it can be applied effectively and fairly without being misused for political purposes, especially considering the influence of powerful nations.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author employs a legal-analytical approach, reviewing historical case law, international conventions, and scholarly perspectives to evaluate the evolution, challenges, and implementation of universal jurisdiction.
What topics are covered in the main section of the book?
The main sections cover the evolution of universal jurisdiction, its relationship with customary and conventional international law, the complexities of individual and collective responsibility, and the use of command responsibility under the Rome Statute.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Universal Jurisdiction, State Sovereignty, Sovereign Immunity, Jus Cogens, Responsibility to Protect, and International Criminal Law.
How does the author view the 'Arrest Warrant Case'?
The author identifies the 'Arrest Warrant Case' as a significant blow to the concept of universal jurisdiction, as the ICJ's decision prioritized sovereign immunity for high-level State officials over the potential exercise of universal jurisdiction by third States.
How does the work address the 'Command Responsibility' doctrine?
The author argues that command responsibility is a critical component of individual responsibility under Article 28 of the Rome Statute, designed to ensure that superiors are held accountable for crimes committed by subordinates, although its application remains complex and often inconsistent in practice.
What does the text suggest about the role of the ICC?
The text highlights that while the ICC is a major development in ending impunity, it faces challenges regarding its jurisdiction over non-party States and the persistent influence of political pressure from permanent members of the UN Security Council.
- Quote paper
- P. R. Ramdhass (Author), 2018, Universal Jurisdiction under International Criminal Law. A Critical Analysis, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/437750
