[ad_1]
Universal jurisdiction is a principle of international law that allows certain crimes, such as war crimes and genocide, to be prosecuted by any region. It is often debated and criticized for undermining the authority of regions and violating the rights of suspects. However, proponents argue that it preserves the moral fabric and security of all regions. While there are some basic guidelines established by the United Nations, individual regions have adopted their own interpretations and exceptions. International tribunals can also take jurisdiction in high-level cases.
In international law, the question of universal jurisdiction – or the principle of universality – often serves as a source of contention between various global regions. This principle embraces the idea that some crimes are so egregious that some regions have the authority to prosecute the crime even if it did not occur within their jurisdiction; these crimes are sometimes classified as “crimes against humanity”. Various legal doctrines have supported and condemned universal jurisdiction.
The concept of jus cogens is a principle of public international law which states that there are certain universal guidelines – erga omnes, “in relation to all” – and that these guidelines must be respected by all regions. Respecting the global rules is therefore actio popularis, i.e. an action in the service of a greater common good. According to this belief, no treaty or law should modify or abolish these global principles.
Proponents of universal jurisdiction argue that according to this dictum, some criminal acts can be claimed and prosecuted by any independent region. Such crimes are so offensive and devastating that they are not simply a crime against a victim, but a crime against all of humanity. War crimes, genocide and murders are some of the crimes for which universal jurisdiction has been discussed and implemented.
The principle of universality has long been debated between regions and jurists. Many disputes arise when one region wishes to claim jurisdiction and subsequent prosecution rights over an offender, only to be thwarted by another region’s claim to jurisdiction. Often, this conflict occurs when a crime suspect has fled the region of the crime and moved to another region. Critics of universal jurisdiction argue that the principle undermines the authority of regions desiring jurisdiction and is therefore often used as a means of political maneuvering and bargaining. In such cases, the freedoms of the crime suspect may also be violated, which has led to proposals for initiatives such as the Rule of Law in Armed Conflict Project to reduce human rights violations and establish comprehensive law guidelines.
Conversely, organizations such as Amnesty International believe that universal jurisdiction preserves the moral fabric and security of all regions. The principle, they argue, bans any safe haven from the suspected offender. In fact, all regions have a moral and legal obligation to condemn certain crimes and to exercise this sentence in a lawful and just manner. This approach proposes a policy of non-tolerance on crimes and repugnant behavior, and in fact fosters a global sense of unity and brotherhood. Despite the hope for agreement and commonalities, universal jurisdiction laws differ around the world.
While United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674 provides a basic foundation for universal jurisdiction, individual regions have adopted their own interpretations and exceptions. For example, in some cases, heads of state may be granted immunity from universal jurisdiction. Some governments have enacted laws to preserve their right to prosecute citizens of their region, regardless of where the crime was committed. Many Regions have also outlined the specific types of crime for which they can claim universal jurisdiction. In high-level cases, such as the WWII-era Nuremberg Trials, international tribunals can wrest jurisdiction from any single region.
[ad_2]