A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO IMPOSE UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PRACTICE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54934/ijlcw.v3i1.87Keywords:
universal jurisdiction, international law, legal status, humanness, responsibility to protect (R2P), national judicial independence, 普遍管辖权, 国际法, 法律地位, 人性, 保护责任, 国家司法独立, independencia judicial nacional, jurisdicción universal, ley internacional, estatus legal, humanidad, responsabilidad de proteger (R2P)Abstract
The study introduces a multidimensional solution to impose universal jurisdiction by utilizing firm concepts in international law to enhance the functionality of this principle in international legal practice. Initially, it explores the current classification of the principle of universal jurisdiction in international law to determine its latest status quo. It is prominent to introduce a comprehensive presentation of the structure of universal jurisdiction and its relevant concepts in international law by reviewing international jurisprudence on this principle. Thus, the study reviews its evolution in international legal instruments and how international courts utilise them. In addition, the research analyzes the UN relevant resolutions on universal jurisdiction to draw a global portrait of its legal status in international law.
Because of the cosmopolitan humanitarian ends of universal jurisdiction, the research suggests employing the concept of humanness to justify imposing it. In addition, these ends, and the purpose of enhancing international justice, drive the study to introduce the theory of the responsibility to protect (R2P) to justify the utilization of domestic legal rules extra-territorially. Nevertheless, this utilisation might trigger the question of national judiciaries’ independence. The research analyzes this problem to establish the required foundations to strike a balance between the independence of national judiciaries and imposing universal jurisdiction to secure justice.
_________
El estudio presenta una solución multidimensional para imponer la jurisdicción universal mediante la utilización de conceptos firmes en el derecho internacional para mejorar la funcionalidad de este principio en la práctica jurídica internacional. Inicialmente, explora la clasificación actual del principio de jurisdicción universal en el derecho internacional para determinar su status quo más reciente. Es importante introducir una presentación integral de la estructura de la jurisdicción universal y sus conceptos relevantes en el derecho internacional mediante la revisión de la jurisprudencia internacional sobre este principio. Así, el estudio revisa su evolución en los instrumentos jurídicos internacionales y cómo los tribunales internacionales los utilizan. Además, la investigación analiza las resoluciones relevantes de la ONU sobre jurisdicción universal para dibujar un retrato global de su estatus legal en el derecho internacional.
Debido a los fines humanitarios cosmopolitas de la jurisdicción universal, la investigación sugiere emplear el concepto de humanidad para justificar su imposición. Además, estos fines, y el propósito de mejorar la justicia internacional, impulsan el estudio a introducir la teoría de la responsabilidad de proteger (R2P) para justificar la utilización de normas jurídicas internas extraterritorialmente. Sin embargo, esta utilización podría plantear la cuestión de la independencia de los poderes judiciales nacionales. La investigación analiza este problema para establecer las bases necesarias para lograr un equilibrio entre la independencia de los poderes judiciales nacionales y la imposición de la jurisdicción universal para garantizar la justicia.
___________
本研究提出了一种多维解决方案，即利用国际法中的明确概念来实施普遍管辖权，以提高这一原则在国际法律实践中的功能性。首先，它探讨了国际法中普遍管辖权原则的现行分类，以确定其最新现状。通过回顾有关这一原则的国际判例，全面介绍普遍管辖权的结构及其在国际法中的相关概念，这一点非常重要。因此，本研究回顾了普遍管辖权在国际法律文书中的演变，以及国际法院如何利用它们。此外，本论文还分析了联合国关于普遍管辖权的有关决议，以描述其在国际法中的法律地位。由于普遍管辖权具有世界性的人道主义目的，本研究建议采用人性概念来证明实施普遍管辖权的合理性。此外，这些目的以及加强国际正义的理想促使本研究引入保护责任（R2P）理论，以证明在域外适用国内法律规则的正当性。然而，这种适用可能会引发国家司法机构独立性的问题。本文分析了这个问题，为在国家司法机构独立性和实施普遍管辖权之间取得平衡奠定了必要的基础，以保障正义。
References
Literature
• A. Bellamy, Responsibility to Protect: Justice and Responsibility—Related but Not Synonymous. In: War Crimes Trials and Investigations. St Antony’s Series, 2018, ISBN 978-3-319-64072-3_9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64072-3_9
• A. J. Shanes, H. Sweeney, and O. B. Hoff, An Assessment of the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance, (Lawfare on 1 September 2023), https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/an-assessment-of-the-ljubljana-the-hague-convention-on-mutual-legal-assistance
• Amnesty International, Genocide: The legal basis for universal jurisdiction, September 2001, AI Index: IOR 53/010/2001.
• Amnesty International, International Justice, https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/international justice/
• A. Seibert-Fohr, Judicial Independence and DemocraticAccountability: The Function and Legitimacy of the German Federal Constitutional Court. In: European Yearbook of Constitutional Law 2019 (Ernst Hirsch Ballin, Gerhard van der Schyff, and Maarten Stremler eds.), T.M.C. Asser Press the Hague, ISBN 978-94-6265-359-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-359-7_3
• A. Hartig, Making Aggression a Crime Under Domestic Law: On the Legislative Implementation of Article 8bis of the ICC Statute, TMC Asser Press (2023), ISBN 978-94-6265-591-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-591-1
• Avocats Sans Frontières, African and the International Criminal Court: Mending France, July 2012,
https://www.asf.be/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ASF_UG_Africa-and-the-ICC.pdf
• B. Ntahiraja, The Legality and Scope of Universal Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters, 91 Nordic Journal of International Law 390, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-91030005
• B. D. Lepard, Challenges in Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: The Security Council Veto and the Need for a Common Ethical Approach, 25 The Journal of Ethics 223. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10892-021-09360-8
• B. de Oliveira Biazatti and E. Amani, The Ljubljana – The Hague Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance: Was the Gap Closed? (EJIL Talks on 12 June 2023), https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-ljubljana-the-hague-convention-on-mutual-legal-assistance-was-the-gap-closed/.
• C. H. Wheeler, The Scales of Justice: Balancing the Goals of International Criminal Trials, 30 Criminal Law Forum 145, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-019-09367-9
• C. Fehl, Probing the Responsibility to Protect’s Civilian Dimension: What Can Non-Military Sanctions Achieve? In: The Responsibility to Protect and the Third Pillar: Legitimacy and Operationalization, (Daniel Fiott and Joachim Koops eds), PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, 2015, ISBN 978-1-137-36440-1.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137364401_4
• Commissioner of Human Rights of the EU, The Independence of Judges and The Judiciary under Threat, (Human Rights Comment on 3 September 2019), https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/the-independence-of-judges-and-the-judiciary-under-threat
• C. Royer, A Responsibility to Protect Humanity from Evil, In Evil as a Crime Against Humanity. International Political Theory, 2021, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, ISBN 978-3-030-53817-0. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53817-0
• C. Wui Ling, Universal Jurisdiction through the Eyes of ASEAN States: Rule of Law Concerns and the Need for Inclusive and Engaged Discussions, TOAEP Policy Brief Series No. 141, 2022.
• C. Soler, The Global Prosecution of Core Crimes under International Law, Asser Press 2019, ISBN 978-94-6265-335-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1
• E. Zeller, Access Points for Infringements of Judicial Independence—A Practical Tour D’horizon, 20 ERAForum 129, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00550-4
• E. Skaar, Judicial Independence and Human Rights in Latin America: Violations, politics, and Prosecution. Palgrave Macmillan (2011), ISBN 978-0-230-11769-3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23322107
• E. Decaux, The Impact of Individuals and Other Non-State Actors on Contemporary International Law. In: Global Justice, Human Rights, and the Modernization of International Law (Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi and Pasquale De Sena eds.), Springer Nature Switzerland AG (2018), ISBN 978-3-319-90227-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90227-2
• European Commission, Mutual legal assistance and extradition, https://commission.europa.eu/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/types-judicial-cooperation/mutual-legal-assistance-and-extradition_en
• E. C. Azubuike, Principle of Responsibility to Protect: Implications for Sovereignty. In: International Law and Development in the Global South, (Emeka Duruigb, Remiguis Chibueze, and Sunday Gozie Ogbodo eds), PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, Cham, 2023, ISBN 978-3-031-13741-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13741-9
• G. C. Ezeh, A Case for Universal Jurisdiction in the Face of Resistance from Africa: A Critical Overview of the United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee Debate on Universal Jurisdiction Principle, 4 Journal of International Criminal Law 41, 2023. https://doi.org/10.22034/jicl.2023.172300
• G. L. Ispas and A. Manea, The International Jurisdiction, between the State Sovereignty and the Need of Sanctioning the Atrocities, The International Conference Education and Creativity for a Knowledge-Based Society – LAW, 2012, Titu Maiorescu University, p. 22-31. https://www.ceeol.com/search/journal-detail?id=2501
• H. Lauterpacht, International law. Collected papers, Vol. 5. Cambridge University Press (2004), Cambridge.
• H. Gilchrist, No Hiding from Justice: Universal Jurisdiction in Domestic Courts, Brooklyn Law School Research Paper No. 740, 2023. https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2381&context=faculty
• I. Mung’omba, Universal Jurisdiction as a Tool in Promoting Accountability for International Crimes in Africa: Exploring the Significance of Hissene Habre’s Conviction. In: National Accountability for International Crimes in Africa (E. C. Lubaale and N. Dyani-Mhango eds), Palgrave Macmillan 2022, ISBN 978-3-030-88044-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88044-6
• International Law Association, Committee on International Human Rights Law and Practice, Final Report on the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences, London, 2000.
• J. Blešić, Aut Dedare Aut Judicare in International and Domestic Law. In: Protection of human rights and freedoms in light of international and national standards, Contemporary Problems of the Legal System of Serbia (the Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade), 2022.
• J. Nyawo, The Scope and Application of Universal Jurisdiction: A Synopsis of African States’ Positions and Proposals During Plenary Sessions in the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. In: Contemporary International Criminal Law Issues: Contributions in Pursuit of Accountability for Africa and the World (Takeh B. K. Sendze, Adesola Adeboyejo, Howard Morrison, and Sophia Ugwu eds.), TMC Asser Press the Hague (2023), ISBN 978-94-6265-555-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-555-3_7
• J. McIntyre, The Judicial Function: Fundamental Principles of Contemporary Judging, Springer Singapore (2019), ISBN 978-981-32-9115-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9115-7
• K. Coombes, Universal Jurisdiction: A Means to End Impunity or a Threat to Friendly International Relations? 43 The George Washington International Law Review 419, 2011. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/gwilr43&div=23&id=&page=
• K. Lenaerts, On Judicial Independence and the Quest for National, Supranational and Transnational Justice. In: The Art of Judicial Reasoning: Festschrift in Honour of Carl Baudenbacher (Gunnar Selvik, Michael-James Clifton, Theresa Haas, Luísa Lourenço, and Kerstin Schwiesow eds.), Springer Cham, ISBN 978-3-030-02553-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02553-3_11
• L. Waldorf, Inhumanity’s law: Crimes against humanity, RtoP, and South Sudan. 53(1) International Politics 49, 2016. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/ip.2015.37
• L. María Díez-Picazo, Judicial Independence. In: Encyclopedia of Contemporary Constitutionalism (Javier Cremades and Cristina Hermida eds.), Springer Cham (2021), ISBN 978-3-319-31739-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31739-7_156-1
• M. Renzo, A Criticism of the International Harm Principle, 4 Criminal Law and Philosophy 267, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-010-9098-1
• M. S. Ellis, The Arc of Justice: From Nuremberg to the Fall of the Berlin Wall, 54(1) Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 4, 2022. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol54/iss1/4
• M. Holvoet and M. Mema, The International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect. In: The Responsibility to Protect and the Third Pillar: Legitimacy and Operationalization, (Daniel Fiott and Joachim Koops eds), PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, Cham, 2015, ISBN 978-1-137-36440-1.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137364401_3
• M. Gureghian-Hall, Hostis Humani Generis: Universal Jurisdiction in English Criminal Law and Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions in Ukraine, 8(2) Cambridge Law Review, 2023. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4575632
• M. Elmenshawy, El-Sisi Stresses State Obligation to Maintain the Independence of the Judiciary as a Firm Approach, (Elmasry Elyoum on 1 October 2023),
• N. L. Calling, The Power of Justice: How International Criminal Justice Upholds Human Rights (Raoul Wallenberg Institute: The Human Righter on 14 July 2023), https://rwi.lu.se/blog/the-power-of-justice-how-international-criminal-justice-upholds-human-rights/
• N. Berggren and J. Gutmann, Securing Personal Freedom Through Institutions: The Role of Electoral Democracy and Judicial Independence, 49 European Journal of Law and Economics 165, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-020-09643-9
• N. Cantini and D. Zavialov, Fixing Responsibility to Protect: Lessons from and Proposals for the Case of Libya, 2(1) Peace Human Rights Governance 75, 2018. https://phrg.padovauniversitypress.it/system/files/papers/2018_1_4.pdf
• Office of the Prosecutor, Report on Prosecutorial Strategy, September 2006,
• O. Nantermoz and A. Turan, Humanitarian Logics in the Evolution of International Society, International Politics, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-023-00509-w
• P. G. Ercan, The Responsibility to Protect Twenty Years. In: Rhetoric and Implementation, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2022, ISBN 978-3-030-90731-0. https://www.amazon.com/The-Responsibility-to-Protect-Twenty-Years-On_-Rhetoric-and-Implementation/dp/3030907309
• P. Pillai, Symposium on Ljubljana – The Hague Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance: Critical Reflections – Lessons Learned: Civil Society Engagement in Treaty Negotiations, (OpinioJuris on 4 August 2023), http://opiniojuris.org/2023/08/04/symposium-on-ljubljana-the-hague-convention-on-mutual-legal-assistance-critical-reflections-lessons-learned-civil-society-engagement-in-treaty-negotiations/.
• R. V. Segate, Resisting Domestic Courts’ Universal Jurisdiction over International Crimes: Comparative Notes on China and Italy. In: Patrycja Karolina GRZEBYK (ed) International Crimes in National Regulations of Selected States, Wydawnictwo Instytutu Wymiaru Sprawiedliwośc, Warsaw, ISBN 978-83-67149-25-9, 2022. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4365941
• R. Hefendehl, A. Von Hirsch, and W. Wohlers, Die Rechtsgutstheorie: Legitimationsbasis Des Strafrechts Oder Dogmatisches Glasperlenspiel? Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh & Co (2003), ISBN 978-3832901578. https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/article/roland-hefendehl-andrew-v-hirsch-und-wolfgang-wohlers-hrsg-die-rechtsgutstheorie-legitimationsbasis-des-strafrechts-oder-dogmatisches-glasperlenspiel-101628002268807781206878?no_cache=1
• R. J. Mukama, Universal Jurisdiction and the International Criminal Court in its Quest for International Criminal Justice, 5(1) BiLD Law Journal 43, 2021. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3939370
• R. Atadjanov, Humanity. In: International Conflict and Security Law (S. Sayapin, R. Atadjanov, U. Kadam, G. Kemp, N. Zambrana-Tévar, and N. Quénivet eds.), TMC Asser Press (2022), ISBN 978-94-6265-515-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7
• R. Atadjanov, Humanness as a Protected Legal Interest of Crimes Against Humanity: Conceptual and Normative Aspects. International Criminal Justice Series Volume 22 (G. Werle and M. Vormbaum eds.), TMC Asser Press (2019), ISBN 978-94-6265-299-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-299-6
• S. J. Wyatt, The Responsibility to Protect and Habermas: Theory of Constitutionalisation with a “Cosmopolitan Purpose”. In: The Responsibility to Protect and a Cosmopolitan Approach to Human Protection. New Security Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019, ISBN 978-3-030-00701-0. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00701-0
• S. Mukherjee, Universal Jurisdiction Over Crimes against Humanity, 6(2) International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 2811, 2023. https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.114262
• S. Dey, Universal Jurisdiction and Cooperation between ICC Member States in Prosecuting Nationals of non-Member States, 3(1) Trento Student Law Review, 2021. https://doi.org/10.15168/tslr.v3i1.745
• S. Clark, Humanity: Respecting What is Real, ETYKA online first, 2023, https://doi.org/10.14394/etyka.1306
• T. J. Park and Michael Switzer, R2P & Cyberspace: Sovereignty as a Responsibility, The 12th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, May 2020, Tallinn- Estonia. https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2020/05/CyCon_2020_7_Park_Switzer.pdf
• The Princeton Principles of Universal Jurisdiction, 2002,
https://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/unive_jur.pdf.
• T. Becker, C. Ionita, W. Kornelius, and R. Kuseyri., Will Victims’ Rights Be Lost in Translation? Bridging The Information Gap in Universal Jurisdiction Cases, 38(1) Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 39, 2022. https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.585
• V. Engeland, Human Rights: Between Universalism and Relativism. In: International Conflict and Security Law (S. Sayapin, R. Atadjanov, U. Kadam, G. Kemp, N. Zambrana-Tévar, and N. Quénivet eds.), TMC Asser Press (2022), ISBN 978-94-6265-515-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7
• W. Elshenawy and O. Elrouby, The Guarantees of the Judiciary Independence: A Comparative Study of Legal Regimes of Egypt, UAE, Oman, and Germany, 58 Mansoura Journal of Legal and Economic Research 286, 2015, https://doi.org/10.21608/mjle.2015.156638
International Legal Instruments
• Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Annex, 59 Stat. 1544, adopted 8 August 1945, 82 U.N.T.S. 279 (entered into force 8 August 1945).
• African Union Decision on the implementation of the Decisions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) Assembly/AU/Dec.419(XIX).
• African Union Doc PSC.PR/COMM.(DXIX) Communiqué, Peace and Security Council 519th, 26 June 2015.
• The General Assembly Draft Resolution A/C.6/72/L.23 on 7 November 2017.
• Mutual Legal Assistance Diplomatic Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 15 – 26 May 2023
• The UN General Assembly Report of the Sixth Committee on the Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction A/72/464 on 10 November 2017.
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (last amended 2010), 17 July 1998, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3a84.html.
• UN Res A/74/10.
• European Union, Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union C83 53:401, 2010.
• International Law Commission (1991) Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-third session, 29 April–19 July 1991, Vol. II, Suppl. 10. UN GAOR 46th session, A/46/10.
• The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
• The UN Charter.
• The UNGA Sixth Committee (Legal), Concluding Debate on Universal Jurisdiction Principle, Sixth Committee Speakers Wrestle with Challenging Balance between State Sovereignty, Fighting Impunity (SEVENTY-SIXTH SESSION, 15TH MEETING (AM)), GA/L/3642, https://press.un.org/en/2021/gal3642.doc.htm
• The UN General Assembly, ‘Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly: 60/1’ (UN, 2005), and the Resolution A/75/277 (UN 2021).
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UNGA Res 217A on 10 December 1948.
• UNSC Resolutions 1674 (2006), 63/308 (2009)68, 1894 (2009), and S/RES/1973 (2011).
Case laws
• CJEU, Combined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, ECLI:EU: C:2019:982, Judgment of 19 November 2019.
• ECJ, Syfait and Others, case C-53/03 EU: C:2005:333, judgment on 31 May 2005.
• Fédération Nationale de Déportés et Internés Résistants et Patriotes v Barbie (1985) 78 ILR 124.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Yassin Abdalla Abdelkarim
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
