Application of Universal Jurisdiction in International Law
Justina Skyrelyte
Abstract
Justina Skyrelyte
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.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
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