FACTOID # 20: Statistically, Delaware bears more cost of the US Military than any other state.
 
 Home   Encyclopedia   Statistics   States A-Z   Flags   Maps   FAQ   About 
 
WHAT'S NEW
 

SEARCH ALL

FACTS & STATISTICS    Advanced view

Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 

 

(* = Graphable)

 

 


Encyclopedia > Universal jurisdiction

Universal jurisdiction or universality principle is a controversial principle in international law whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a crime against all, which any state is authorized to punish. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that certain international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as the concept of jus cogens - that certain international law obligations are binding on all states and cannot be modified by treaty. This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. ... A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. ... In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning law and dicere meaning to speak) is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area... Residency is a stage of postgraduate medical training in North America which leads to eligibility for board certification in a primary care or referral specialty. ... This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality. ... A peremptory norm (also called jus cogens, Latin for compelling law) is a fundamental principle of international law considered to have acceptance among the international community of states as a whole. ...


This controversial concept received a great deal of prominence with Belgium's 1993 "law of universal jurisdiction", which was amended in 2003 in order to reduce its scope following a case before the International Court of Justice regarding an arrest warrant issued under the law, entitled Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000. The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 reduced the perceived need to create universal jurisdiction laws, although critics of the ICC observe that it is not entitled to judge crimes committed before 2002. 1993 (MCMXCIII) was a common year starting on Friday of the Gregorian calendar and marked the Beginning of the International Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination (1993-2003). ... The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Court or ICJ; French: ) is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. ... Official logo of the ICC. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, crime of aggression, and war crimes, as defined by several international agreements, most prominently the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. ... For album titles with the same name, see 2002 (album). ...


According to the proponents of universal jurisdiction, certain crimes pose so serious a threat to the international community as a whole, that any state ought to be able to prosecute an individual responsible for it; no place should be a safe haven for war criminals (including criminals involved in genocides) and human rights violators. Amnesty International also includes torture, "disappearances" and extrajudicial executions in this list. In the context of war, a war crime is a punishable offense under International Law, for violations of the laws of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. ... Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or... A human rights abuse is abuse of people in a way that violates any fundamental human rights. ... Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) comprising a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights.[1] Founded in the UK in 1961, AI compares actual practices of human rights with internationally accepted standards and demands compliance where these... Torture is defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he... Disappear redirects here. ... Extrajudicial execution and extrajudicial punishment are terms to describe death sentences and other types of punishment, respectively, executed without prior proper judicial procedure. ...


Opponents argue that universal jurisdiction is a breach on each state's sovereignty: all states being equal in sovereignty, as affirmed by the United Nations Charter, no state has authority to try a crime, no matter how heinous, in another state's jurisdiction, if it has no sovereign interest in the matter. As a practical matter, since any number of states could set up such universal jurisdiction tribunals, the process could quickly degenerate into politically-driven show trials to attempt to place a quasi-judicial stamp on a state's enemies or opponents. The United States, People's Republic of China, and Russia are strong opponents of any kind whatsoever of international jurisdiction. Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e. ... A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... The term show trial serves most commonly to label a type of public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the accused: the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and... This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality. ...

Contents

Debate over universal jurisdiction & progress of international law

War crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture may be subjected to universal jurisdiction. However, it remains a controversial matter.


The controversy has two aspects: a legal aspect (Is the exercise of universal jurisdiction for these crimes permitted, at the present stage of its development, by customary international law?), and a political aspect (Is the application of universal jurisdiction to these crimes a good idea? Will it actually be effective at preventing them? Is it an unwarranted interference in the sovereignty of other states? Is it open to abuse for political purposes? Will its widespread use lead to instability in international relations?).


A separate but related issue is whether heads of state, ministers of government and diplomatic representatives of a state possess immunity in relation to these crimes. It is generally recognized by governments that it would be very difficult to accommodate a law allowing judgement of actual heads of state.


Extraterritorial jurisdiction and international courts throughout the 20th century

International jurisdiction differs from "territorial jurisdiction", where justice is exercised by a state in relation to crimes committed on its territory (territorial jurisdiction). States can also exercise jurisdiction on crimes committed by their nationals abroad (extraterritorial jurisdiction), even if the act the national committed was not illegal under the law of the territory in which an act has been committed. E.g., see Age of consent. Alternatively, a "double criminality requirement" means that the act has to be forbidden in both countries. The territoriality principle gives legal authority for a state to exercise jurisdiction in a case, due to location of the crime. ... Worldwide age of consent laws. ...


States can also in certain circumstances exercise jurisdiction over acts committed by foreign nationals on foreign territory. This form of jurisdiction tends to be much more controversial. There are three bases on which a state can exercise jurisdiction in this way. The least controversial is that under which a state can exercise jurisdiction over acts which affect the fundamental interests of the state, such as spying, even if the act was committed by foreign nationals on foreign territory. The Information Technology Act 2000 of India largely supports the exterritoriality of the said Act. The law states that a contravention of the Act that affects any computer or computer network situated in India will be punishable by India - irrespective of the culprits location and nationality. Spy and Secret agent redirect here. ...


More controversial is the exercise of jurisdiction where the victim of the crime is a national of the state exercising jurisdiction. In the past some states have claimed this jurisdiction (e.g., Mexico[citation needed]), while others have been strongly opposed to it (e.g., the United States, except in cases in which an American citizen is a victim[citation needed]). In more recent years however, a broad global consensus has emerged in permitting its use in the case of torture, "forced disappearances" or terrorist offences (due in part to it being permitted by the various United Nations conventions on terrorism); but its application in other areas is still highly controversial. For example, former dictator of Chile Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London in 1998, on Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon's demand, on charges of human rights abuses, not on the grounds of universal jurisdiction but rather on the grounds that some of the victims of the abuses committed in Chile were Spanish citizens. Spain then sought his extradition from Britain, again, not on the grounds of universal jurisdiction, but by invoking the law of the European Union regarding extradition; and he was finally released on grounds of "health concerns". Argentinian Alfredo Astiz's sentence is part of this juridical frame. The foundation of the U.N. The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate co-operation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues. ... Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte[1] (November 25, 1915–December 10, 2006) was a general and President of Chile. ... Baltasar Garzón Real (born October 26, 1955 in Torres, Jaén, Spain) is a prominent judge (investigating magistrate) of Spain. ... Extradition is the official process by which one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. ... Image:AstizArg. ...


Universal jurisdiction asserted by a state must also be distinguished from the jurisdiction of an international tribunal, such as the International Criminal Court, established in 2002 (the US is not signatory to the treaty), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (1994) and International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (1993), or the Nuremberg Trials (1945-49). In these cases criminal jurisdiction is exercised by an international organization, not by a state. The legal jurisdiction of an international tribunal is dependent on powers granted to it by the states which established it. In the case of the Nuremberg Trials, the legal basis for the tribunal was that the Allied powers were exercising German sovereign powers which had been transferred to it by the German Instrument of Surrender. Official logo of the ICC. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, crime of aggression, and war crimes, as defined by several international agreements, most prominently the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. ... Wanted poster for the ICTR The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a court under the auspices of the United Nations for the prosecution of offenses committed in Rwanda during the genocide which occurred there during April, 1994, commencing on April 6. ... The Tribunal building in The Hague. ... The Süddeutsche Zeitung announces The Verdict in Nuremberg. ... An international organization, or more formally intergovernmental organization (IGO), is an organization, such as the European Community or the WTO, with sovereign states or other IGOs as members. ... The German Instrument of Surrender, 1945 refers to the legal instrument of World War II in which the High Command of Nazi Germany surrendered simultaneously to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force and to the Soviet High command. ...


Established in The Hague (Netherlands) in 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an international tribunal empowered with the right to prosecute state-members' citizens for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as defined by several international agreements, most prominently the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court signed in 1998. It provides for ICC jurisdiction over-state party or on the territory of a non-state party where that non-state party has entered into an agreement with the court providing for it to have such jurisdiction in a particular case (consent). Arms of The Hague Flag of The city of The Hague. ... Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Opened for signature June 17, 1998[1] at Rome Entered into force July 1, 2002 Conditions for entry into force 60 ratifications Parties 99[2] The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (or Rome Statute) is the treaty which established the International...


However, Amnesty International argues that since the end of the Second World War more than a dozen states have conducted investigations, commenced prosecutions and completed trials based on universal jurisdiction for the crimes or arrested people with a view to extraditing the persons to a state seeking to prosecute them. These states include: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, Senegal, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States [1]. Indeed, answering to the legal aspect of the controversy, Amnesty International claims that universal jurisdiction for these above-mentioned crimes, including torture, is not only permitted, but encouraged, at the present stage of its development, by customary international law.

"All states parties to the Convention against Torture and the Inter-American Convention {aka Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture} are obliged whenever a person suspected of torture is found in their territory to submit the case to their prosecuting authorities for the purposes of prosecution, or to extradite that person. In addition, it is now widely recognized that states, even those which are not states parties to these treaties, may exercise universal jurisdiction over torture under customary international law." [2] The United Nations Convention Against Torture is an international human rights instrument, organized by the United Nations and intended to prevent torture and other similar activities. ...

According to Amnesty International, crimes such as "genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, extrajudicial executions and disappearances, and certain ordinary crimes of international concern" fall under international jurisdiction: "This legal memorandum is designed to serve as a self-contained, comprehensive explanation for prosecutors, judges and ministries of justice and foreign affairs of the solid basis in customary and conventional international law for universal jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, extrajudicial executions and disappearances, so that they can ensure that such jurisdiction is exercised effectively." [3] Extrajudicial execution and extrajudicial punishment are terms to describe death sentences and other types of punishment, respectively, executed without prior proper judicial procedure. ... Disappear redirects here. ...


Belgium's 1993 "law of universal jurisdiction" & Spain's 2005 court decision

In 1993, Belgium's Parliament voted "law of universal jurisdiction", allowing it to judge people accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. In 2001, four Rwandan people were convicted of sentences from 12 to 20 years of prison for their involvement in 1994 Rwandan genocide. But there was quickly an explosion of suits deposed; Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was accused of involvement in the 1982 Sabra-Shatila massacre in Lebanon, conducted by a Christian militia ostensibily under his control, while some Israelis deposed a suit against Yasser Arafat for his presumed responsibility for terrorist actions. In 2003, Iraqi victims of a 1991 Bagdad bombing deposed a suit against George H.W. Bush, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney. Confronted with this sharp increase in deposed suits, Belgium established the condition that the accused person must be Belgian or present in Belgium. However, in September 2005, Chad's dictator Hissène Habré (dubbed the "African Pinochet") was indicted for crimes against humanity, torture, war crimes and other human rights violations by a Belgium court. Arrested in Senegal following requests from Senegalese courts, he is now under house arrest and waiting for (an improbable) extradition to Belgium. An arrest warrant issued in 2000 under this law against the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic People's Republic of the Congo was challenged before the International Court of Justice in the case entitled Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium). The ICJ's decision at paragraph 43 specifically found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the question of universal jurisdiction, instead deciding the question on the basis of immunity of high ranking State officials. However, the matter was addressed in separate and dissenting opinions, such as the separate opinion of President Guillaume at paragraph 12, where he concluded that universal jurisdiction exists only in relation to piracy; and the dissenting opinion of Judge Oda who at paragraph 12 recognized piracy, hijacking, terrorism and genocide as crimes subject to universal jurisdiction. 1993 (MCMXCIII) was a common year starting on Friday of the Gregorian calendar and marked the Beginning of the International Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination (1993-2003). ... The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass extermination of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutu sympathizers in Rwanda and was the largest atrocity during the Rwandan Civil War. ...   (Hebrew: , also known by his diminutive Arik אָרִיק) (born February 27, 1928) is a former Israeli politician and general. ... The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre) was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Maronite Christian militias in then-Israeli-occupied Beirut, Lebanon. ... Not to be confused with Yasir Arafat (cricketer). ... Combatants UN Coalition Republic of Iraq Commanders Norman Schwarzkopf, Peter de la Billière, Khalid bin Sultan, Saleh Al-Muhaya, Mohamed Hussein Tantawi Saddam Hussein Strength 883,863 360,000 Casualties 378 dead, 1,000 wounded 25,000 dead, 75,000 wounded The Gulf War or the Persian Gulf War... George H. W. Bush - Wikipedia /**/ @import /skins-1. ... General Colin Luther Powell, United States Army (Ret. ... Richard Bruce Dick Cheney (born January 30, 1941) is the 46th and current Vice President of the United States, serving under President George W. Bush. ... 2005 : January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December- → Deaths in September September 28 : Constance Baker Motley September 25 : M. Scott Peck September 25 : Don Adams September 20 : Simon Wiesenthal September 14 : Robert Wise September 10 : Hermann Bondi September 8 : Donald Horne September 7 : Moussa Arafat... Hissène Habré (born 1942), also spelled Hissen Habré, was the leader of Chad from 1982 until he was deposed in 1990. ... General Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte1 (born November 25, 1915) was head of the military government that ruled Chile from 1973 to 1990. ... The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Court or ICJ; French: ) is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. ...


In September 2005, the Spanish Constitutional Court declared that the "principle of universal jurisdiction prevails over the existence of national interests", following a suit deposed in 1999 against atrocities committed in Guatemala between 1978 and 1986 [4] // The Maya civilization thrived throughout much of Guatemala and the surrounding region for close to 2000 years before the Spanish arrived in the early 16th century. ...


While Spain and Belgium for some time were the only countries providing expressly for universal jurisdiction over a number of serious international crimes, today several, particularly European countries- including Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom -have universal jurisdiction provisions in their respective legislations. Consequently, it is particularly in Europe, where universal jurisdiction is applied in practice. In 2005, 7 perpetrators of crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture have been brought to justice based on universal jurisdiction provisions in France, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Belgium.


A new concept?

There is disagreement over whether universal jurisdiction is an old or new concept. Kissinger argues that it is a new one, citing the absence of the term universal jurisdiction from an authoritative law dictionary. Beside, the principle of universal jurisdiction itself applies to genocide and crimes against humanity, modern notions invented during the Nuremberg trials. Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or... This article is in need of attention. ... The Süddeutsche Zeitung announces The Verdict in Nuremberg. ...


Others contend that the concept itself is quite an old one, giving the example of piracy. Since at least the nineteenth century, pirates have been recognized as hostes humani generis ("enemies of the human race"), a juridical status close to Giorgio Agamben's homo sacer [1]. The exercise of jurisdiction over pirates by any state which may capture them is well settled practice.[citation needed] This article is about sea pirates. ... Giorgio Agamben (born 1942) is an Italian philosopher who teaches at the Università IUAV di Venezia. ... Homo sacer (Latin for the sacred man) is an obscure figure of Roman law: a person who is banned, may be killed by anybody, but may not be sacrificed in a religious ritual. ...


However, supporters of the idea that universal jurisdiction is a new concept respond by arguing that pirates were subject to the jurisdiction of any state because they were outlaws, deprived of any citizenship, and not under the jurisdiction of any state.[citation needed] Thus, they argue, a state's exercise of jurisdiction over these outlaws could not breach the sovereignty of any other state. They point to the distinction between pirates (who rob ships for themselves) and privateers (employed by states to rob the ships of their enemies): the exercise of jurisdiction over a privateer could impinge the sovereignty of the state of the privateer, and rather than being outlaws they were considered prisoners of war. The distinction is based on two questions: Was the act committed by agents of the military/government of a state, or by non-state actors such as rebels, guerillas, terrorist groups? Was the act committed on the territory of a state, or outside of the territorial jurisdiction of any state (unclaimed land, international waters, outer space, etc.)? In the case of piracy, the answer to these questions is the latter, and thus the exercise of jurisdiction does not threaten the sovereignty of any state; in the case of many more modern proposed exercise of jurisdiction, the answer is the former. Thus, they propose to distinguish these two jurisdictional concepts. For other senses of this word, see outlaw (disambiguation). ... Citizenship is membership in a political community (originally a city or town but now usually a country) and carries with it rights to political participation; a person having such membership is a citizen. ... This article is about sea pirates. ... This article is about the concept in naval history. ... A privateer was a private ship (or its captain) authorized by a countrys government by letters of marque to attack foreign shipping. ... Geneva Convention definition A prisoner of war (POW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict. ...


Applicable jurisdictions

One can conclude that to avoid prosecution by any country one may have to obey each of the following:

  • laws of the country one is a national of
  • laws of the country one lives in
  • laws of the country one is in
  • for behavior in relation to someone else:
    • laws of the country the other is national of
    • laws of the country the other lives in
    • laws of the country the other is in
  • the laws of any states whose fundamental interests may by your acts be affected
  • for all countries with universal jurisdiction, laws for which the principle applies

In English usage, nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a country. ...

Notable prosecutions

The principle of universal jurisdiction has been recently applied to prosecute various state leaders accused of grave human rights abuses, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. For instance, numerous Argentinian officers have been prosecuted in Spain, Germany and other countries.[citation needed]


Most recently, in November 2006, the German prosecutor's office received a complaint, invoking the principle of universal jurisdiction, against outgoing US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and various other members of the Bush Administration since they are potentially culpable, under the doctrine of command responsibility, for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantanamo Bay. A civil rights group in Germany has asked for the prosecution.[2] Rumsfeld and other high-ranking members of the Bush administration are immune from prosecution within the US for these alleged human rights abuses in the United States due to a retroactive immunity granted by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which rewrote the War Crimes Act.[3] Donald Henry Rumsfeld (born July 9, 1932) is a U.S. politician and businessman, who was the 13th Secretary of Defense under President Gerald Ford from 1975–1977, and the 21st Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush from 2001–2006. ... Alberto R. Gonzales (born August 4, 1955) is the 80th and current Attorney General of the United States. ... George W. Bush administration is the administration of the 43rd president of the United States of America, 2001-present George H. W. Bush administration is the administration of the 41st president of the United States of America, 1989-1993 This is a disambiguation page, a list of pages that otherwise... Peace Palace in The Hague Command responsibility, sometimes referred to as the Yamashita standard, or the Medina standard is the doctrine of hierarchical accountability in cases of war crimes. ... This article or section seems to contain too many quotations for an encyclopedia entry. ... In 2005, a 2,000-page U.S. Army report was obtained by the New York Times concerning the homicides of two unarmed civilian Afghan prisoners by U.S. armed forces in 2002 at the Bagram Collection Point. ... For other titular locales, see Guantánamo (disambiguation). ... The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. ... The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed with overwhelming majorities by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. ...


Remedies/penalties

The controversy surrounding the principle of universal jurisdiction is further aggravated by the lack of a working international mechanism or institution for the enforcement of judgments against convicted abusers. In other words, even if convicted of a "universal crime" in one country, a judgment against a given defendant may not necessarily be enforceable in another.


Thus, for example, if convicted of war crimes by a German court, Germany will have no authority over Donald Rumsfeld unless he travels to German territory, or to a territory of a state with whom Germany has a working extradition treaty. In the case of Germany, if Rumsfeld is convicted, he could be subject to arrest in any of the EU states. Extradition is a formal process by which a criminal suspect held by one government is handed over to another government for trial or, if the suspect has already been tried and found guilty, to serve his or her sentence. ...


This lack of an enforcement mechanism is one of the biggest problems facing the exercise of universal jurisdiction over accused war criminals or other grave human rights violators. For instance, even if Germany and the US have an enforceable extradition treaty requiring the surrender of convicted human rights offenders (verify), the United States would not be inclined to surrender Donald Rumsfeld (or any other US Citizen convicted of a similar crime) to Germany. This fact is evident from the Bush Administration's noted opposition to such courts as the International Criminal Court (ICC). Official logo of the ICC. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, crime of aggression, and war crimes, as defined by several international agreements, most prominently the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. ...


Thus, prosecutions under the principle of universal jurisdiction may do more harm than good, as they expose the weak reality of international legal enforcement mechanisms. Likewise, many critics observe that these types of prosecutions are little more than 'sham' proceedings. On the other hand, proponents argue that even if unenforceable, convictions under the principle of universal jurisdiction serve important symbolic, educational, and deterrent functions.


References

  1. ^ Amnesty International's report on international jurisdiction
  2. ^ Amnesty International on torture & international jurisdiction
  3. ^ Various crimes subject to universal jurisdiction according to Amnesty International
  4. ^ "Spanish Supreme Court: Guatemala Genocide Case", Nizkor Project, February 25, 2003.

Further reading

Hans Köchler (born October 18, 1948 in Schwaz, Tyrol, in Austria) is Full Professor of Philosophy and Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. ... Global Justice or Global Revenge? International edition 2003 Global Justice or Global Revenge? Turkish edition 2005 Global Justice or Global Revenge? Indian edition 2005 Global Justice or Global Revenge? International Criminal Justice at the Crossroads (2003) is a book by Austrian philosopher Hans Köchler, who was appointed by the...

External links

  • Amnesty International's page on universal jurisdiction - with documents on each case, in various langages
  • [http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/28/eca13622.htm Human Rights Watch on universal jurisdiction exercise in practice
  • REDRESS and Fédération Internationale des Ligues des droits de l’Homme on the European Union and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
  • The Case for Universal Jurisdiction - Kenneth Roth, Foreign Affairs, Septemnber/October 2001.
  • The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction: Risking Judicial Tyranny - Henry Kissinger, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2001.
  • The Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction
  • Joy and fury at Belgium's genocide law by Khaled Diab, February 2003
  • Adieu war crimes law by Khaled Diab, July 2003
  • Universal Jurisdiction - Amnesty International USA
International criminal law
Sources of law:
Charter of the IMT - Command responsibility - Crime against international law - Crime against humanity
Crime against peace - Crime of apartheid - Crime of genocide - Customary law - Laws of war - Nuremberg Principles
Peremptory norm - Rome Statute - Universal jurisdiction - War crime - War of aggression
Courts:
War responsibility trials in Finland - International Military Tribunal for Europe
International Military Tribunal for the Far East - Khabarovsk War Crime Trials
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia - Tribunal for Rwanda - Court for Sierra Leone
International Criminal Court
History:
List of war crimes - List of war criminals
This box: view  talk  edit

  Results from FactBites:
 
The Limitations of Universal Jurisdiction - Opinion Forum - Global Policy Forum (2093 words)
Universal jurisdiction for international crimes, which would obligate governments to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes against humanity wherever they were found, could be used to punish mass killers who had fallen from power, and might even motivate some rulers to put a stop to massive crimes.
The claim in its statute that the Court's jurisdiction is "complementary" to that of nations emphasizes its underlying purpose to drive the nations to prosecute criminals in the places where the crimes were committed, and avoid the embarrassment of having the cases prosecuted in the Court or in a foreign jurisdiction.
Universal jurisdiction is not destined to be a mockery, for some of the same reasons that we do not think that domestic jurisdiction in criminal cases, for all its limitations, is a mockery.
The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction (947 words)
Universal jurisdiction may be exercised by a competent and ordinary judicial body of any state in order to try a person duly accused of committing serious crimes under international law as specified in Principle 2(1), provided the person is present before such judicial body.
A state, in the exercise of universal jurisdiction, may, for purposes of prosecution, seek judicial assistance to obtain evidence from another state, provided that the requesting state has a good faith basis and that the evidence sought will be used in accordance with international due process norms.
The exercise of universal jurisdiction with respect to serious crimes under international law as specified in Principle 2(1) shall not be precluded by amnesties which are incompatible with the international legal obligations of the granting state.
  More results at FactBites »

 
 

COMMENTARY     


Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Your name
Your comments

Want to know more?
Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 


Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms, 1022, m