CYIL Vol. 4, 2013

PETRA BAUMRUK CYIL 4 ȍ2013Ȏ recognized standards of due process, they not only protect their own interests and values, but also the interests common to the international community . Universal jurisdiction is said to derogate from the ordinary rules of criminal jurisdiction requiring a territorial or personal link with the crime, the perpetrator or the victim, but the rationale behind it is broader. It is based on the notion that certain crimes are so harmful to international interests that states are entitled – and even obliged – to bring proceedings against the perpetrator, regardless of the location of the crime and the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. In other words, it is a jurisdiction that depends solely on the nature of the offence . 10 As a result, states exercising universal jurisdiction act as a surrogate for the whole international community, carrying out an “actio popularis”, 11 against persons who are “hostis humani generis” (that the perpetrators are considered enemies of all mankind). 12 The types of crimes falling under universal jurisdiction are acts so heinous that all states have an interest and the authority to arrest and prosecute the perpetrator. 13 Additionally, international tribunals and courts currently have jurisdiction over only a limited number of cases, according to their statutes. Therefore, universal jurisdiction has become a necessary and important element in preventing, or at least reducing, impunity for core international crimes. 2.2 Crimes Subject to Universal Jurisdiction An important factor in the fight against impunity is finding an internationally accepted definition of the content of crimes subject to universal jurisdiction. Nevertheless, with respect to certain crimes a holistic and objective definition might be impossible to find (such as for acts of terrorism), thus leading to the gradual acknowledgment and usage of universal jurisdiction. Defining heinous crimes under international law is important because an act cannot constitute a crime fit for any jurisdiction, let alone universal jurisdiction, unless an appropriate definition has been accepted. 14 For that reason a brief survey of some of the main features and content of core international crimes will follow. In recent decades the category of serious crimes subject to universal jurisdiction has expanded considerably, and one might divide them into three evolutionary stages: (a) universal jurisdiction over piracy and slavery (beginning in the sixteenth century); (b) war crimes and crimes against humanity (following the Second World War); and (c) genocide, terrorist acts (such as hijacking), torture and other human rights violations (in the postwar decades). In addition, according to the author, the list of crimes is expanding due to possibly new emerging international threats, and thus 10 Dixon, Martin: op. cit., p. 147. 11 An action popularis is the exercise of universal jurisdiction, where a state acts on behalf of the international community because it has an interest in the preservation of world order as a member of that community. See Bassiouni, M. Cherif: Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes , op. cit ., 88. 12 Bassiouni, M. Cherif: Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes , op. cit ., p. 96. 13 Mazzochi, Sarah: op. cit ., p. 98; Jordan, Jon B.: op. cit ., p. 5. 14 Maazochi, Sarah: op. cit ., p. 101.