2016•Työväentutkimus VuosikirjaOpen access

Application of Universal Jurisdiction in International Law

Justina Skyrelyte

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

States have applied universal jurisdiction for the past 20 years and even after the creation of the International Criminal Court, universal jurisdiction remains the main tool in fighting the impunity from international crimes. This jurisdiction is asserted to prosecute grave breaches of international law constituting international crimes, without regard to the territory where the acts constituting a crime took place and the nationality of the alleged perpetrator. However, recently this State practice has caused great tensions between African and European States. African States have claimed that the principles of non-interference into domestic affairs and of equality among the sovereign States have been violated when Europeans have asserted universal jurisdiction to prosecute their nationals. Furthermore, international scholarship is divided on a subject and there is no general agreement on the legal status of universal jurisdiction under international law. Not even the International Court of Justice has interpreted clearly this issue in its jurisprudence. This thesis aims to explain, why it is so difficult to apply universal jurisdiction in practice and also whether this principle may be applied in the future. Martti Koskenniemi observes that formal rules of international law basically leave room for their contrary application. In this thesis the rule of universal jurisdiction is going to be established meeting the requirements set for the international Rule of Law. However, the disputes related to its application could not be solved with the reference to the rule itself. The analysis will reveal that the arguments used in order to support the application of universal jurisdiction, could be interpreted so as to support the argument against its application. As both of the positions observe the formal criteria for international legal rules, the solution to normative problem seems impossible in terms of objective international law. The recourse to the contextual application of international legal rules is suggested.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

States have applied universal jurisdiction for the past 20 years and even after the creation of the International Criminal Court, universal jurisdiction remains the main tool in fighting the impunity from international crimes. This jurisdiction is asserted to prosecute grave breaches of international law constituting international crimes, without regard to the territory where the acts constituting a crime took place and the nationality of the alleged perpetrator. However, recently this State practice has caused great tensions between African and European States. African States have claimed that the principles of non-interference into domestic affairs and of equality among the sovereign States have been violated when Europeans have asserted universal jurisdiction to prosecute their nationals. Furthermore, international scholarship is divided on a subject and there is no general agreement on the legal status of universal jurisdiction under international law. Not even the International Court of Justice has interpreted clearly this issue in its jurisprudence. This thesis aims to explain, why it is so difficult to apply universal jurisdiction in practice and also whether this principle may be applied in the future. Martti Koskenniemi observes that formal rules of international law basically leave room for their contrary application. In this thesis the rule of universal jurisdiction is going to be established meeting the requirements set for the international Rule of Law. However, the disputes related to its application could not be solved with the reference to the rule itself. The analysis will reveal that the arguments used in order to support the application of universal jurisdiction, could be interpreted so as to support the argument against its application. As both of the positions observe the formal criteria for international legal rules, the solution to normative problem seems impossible in terms of objective international law. The recourse to the contextual application of international legal rules is suggested.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

States have applied universal jurisdiction for the past 20 years and even after the creation of the International Criminal Court, universal jurisdiction remains the main tool in fighting the impunity from international crimes. This jurisdiction is asserted to prosecute grave breaches of international law constituting international crimes, without regard to the territory where the acts constituting a crime took place and the nationality of the alleged perpetrator. However, recently this State practice has caused great tensions between African and European States. African States have claimed that the principles of non-interference into domestic affairs and of equality among the sovereign States have been violated when Europeans have asserted universal jurisdiction to prosecute their nationals. Furthermore, international scholarship is divided on a subject and there is no general agreement on the legal status of universal jurisdiction under international law. Not even the International Court of Justice has interpreted clearly this issue in its jurisprudence. This thesis aims to explain, why it is so difficult to apply universal jurisdiction in practice and also whether this principle may be applied in the future. Martti Koskenniemi observes that formal rules of international law basically leave room for their contrary application. In this thesis the rule of universal jurisdiction is going to be established meeting the requirements set for the international Rule of Law. However, the disputes related to its application could not be solved with the reference to the rule itself. The analysis will reveal that the arguments used in order to support the application of universal jurisdiction, could be interpreted so as to support the argument against its application. As both of the positions observe the formal criteria for international legal rules, the solution to normative problem seems impossible in terms of objective international law. The recourse to the contextual application of international legal rules is suggested.

Key concepts: Law, Jurisdiction, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Application of Universal Jurisdiction in International Law — Research Paper | ScholarLens