CYIL Vol. 4, 2013

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.