Search

Copyright of Revista de Direito Internacional is the property of Revista de Direito Internacional and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The present article is dedicated to the meaning, nature and scope of the universal jurisdiction over war crimes as well as the use of universal jurisdiction in the practice of various states. The universal jurisdiction on war crimes can be considered as one of the cornerstones of the current international law areas, particularly international criminal law and international humanitarian law. In this regard, not only international courts, but also national judiciary applies the concept of universal jurisdiction while overviewing the criminal cases of world-wide importance. The article deals with war crimes and the application of universal jurisdiction, which pose a serious threat to international peace and security. First of all, the essence of universal jurisdiction, the disagreement over its application and, consequently, its importance are touched upon. It has become the responsibility of states to prosecute or to extradite those convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression and genocide, regardless of their nationality or home country. Of course, the goal here is to ensure that those convicted of international crimes that are dangerous to humanity go unpunished with no exception. There are many case examples from the national jurisdiction of different states and the article refers to specific court judgements in this regard. Finally, the author considers recommendations regarding the establishment of national legislation what allows more efficient application of universal jurisdiction in connection with war crimes.

Universal jurisdiction in criminal matters has been a hot topic for many decades already. In discussions on its legality and scope, waters are usually muddied by the inclusion of unrelated issues or by the use of inappropriate methodologies. The purpose of this article is to discuss the legality and scope of universal jurisdiction, mainly by clarifying the concept and addressing the main misunderstandings characterising the discussions on its legality. The main claim is that objections to the legality and to the extended (unlimited) scope of universal jurisdiction in criminal matters are based on two confusions/conflations of notions. Firstly, this paper demonstrates that the so-called conflicts between the exercise of universal jurisdiction and general norms of international law are only imaginable in a framework that misrepresents/misunderstands the concept of jurisdiction itself by conflating the notions of jurisdiction to prescribe and jurisdiction to enforce. Secondly, it argues that the view which limits the scope of universal jurisdiction to a few crimes fails to clearly distinguish states' international duties and rights in criminal law matters. In terms of methods, the paper takes the (traditional) view that states are allowed to do everything international law does not prohibit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue of the necessity to bring those responsible for the commission of crimes under international law during the ongoing international armed conflict in Ukraine, i.e., the aggressive war of the Russian Federation against sovereign Ukraine, does not raise any principal questions or doubts on the side of the international community. It is the matter of an appropriate forum, or fora to do so that needs to be properly addressed. This piece looks at possible judicial venues for holding the main ringleader of the aggressive war, namely, the President of the Russian Federation, and his closest high-ranking officials personally accountable for core crimes as a matter of individual criminal responsibility. Prospects for three judicial mechanisms, either already existing or potential, are reviewed and brief reflections are offered as to the realistic scenarios for each of those mechanisms given the status quo and ongoing developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fraudulent schemes increasingly rely on wire transmissions and the internet as the economy and communications digitize. To combat these schemes, prosecutors have applied the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, to defendants located domestically and abroad. Applying the current standard for extraterritoriality under Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., circuit courts disagree as to whether the wire fraud statute applies extraterritorially. But courts consistently apply an easily met standard when determining if the wire fraud statute should apply domestically under Morrison. This reaches many defendants located abroad. This Comment argues that this broad domestic application of the wire fraud statute shields courts from asking whether the statute applies extraterritorially. Further, this Comment argues that courts' domestic application of the wire fraud statute is sufficiently broad as to begin to resemble extraterritoriality because courts can almost always find sufficient domestic activity to apply the wire fraud statute. This Comment argues that wire transmissions are sufficiently geographically ambiguous that using a singular statutory focus under Morrison to evaluate whether wire fraud applies domestically is inadequate. In response to that inadequacy, this Comment proposes a new solution that incorporates additional statutory information in evaluating the statute's domestic application. This solution would better protect defendants from arbitrary domestic application of the wire fraud statute and validate the tenets underlying the doctrine of extraterritoriality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines universal jurisdiction's (UJ) epistemic power: its contribution to shaping knowledge and collective memories about mass atrocity crimes. UJ illustrates the interaction between the process of transnational and global legal ordering on the one hand and political, legal, and institutional conditions at the nation-state level on the other. Political considerations fare prominently, even where--in Justice Jackson's famous dictum--power pays tribute to reason. Once the legal process has been initiated, the institutional logic of criminal law contributes to shaping the structure of knowledge. This article thus explores a field of tension and coordination between the global and the national and between the political and the judicial fields, and their consequences for knowledge and collective memories of mass atrocity crimes. Reviewing relevant literature and examining in detail one recent case, that of Syria's Anwar Raslan before a German criminal court in Koblenz, this article identifies the conditions of an amplification effect of court narratives driven by media, refugee communities, and human rights NGOs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Germany has become a poster child for universal jurisdiction cases. German domestic courts made international headlines for dealing with state-sponsored torture in Syria as well as slavery and genocide committed by the so-called Islamic State. In February 2021, in the first trial worldwide concerned with atrocities committed by the Assad regime, the Koblenz Higher Regional Court sentenced Eyad A. to four and a half years in prison for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. In January 2022, the court sentenced his co-defendant, Anwar R., as an accomplice to crimes against humanity to life in prison. With these landmark judgments, Germany is at the forefront of a broader turn towards the more robust domestic enforcement of International Criminal Law (ICL) through universal jurisdiction trials. In this paper, we examine the two judgments and the trial preceding them. We ask whether Germany lives up to its poster child image and where the proceedings failed the expectations. Beyond questions concerning the domestic legal order, we discuss the trial's implications for ICL more broadly and draw lessons from it for future universal jurisdiction trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The people of the earth have thus entered in varying degrees into a universal community, and it has developed to the point where a violation of rights in one part of the world is felt everywhere.» This paper seeks to comprehensively study the concept of universal jurisdiction (UJ) within the sphere of the Institute of International Law. The paper examines UJ in the twenty-first century and reverts to the nineteenth century. In doing so, the author conveys a consistent critical perspective of UJ; questioning its presumed universal nature.

In August of 2022, the United States Department of Treasury sanctioned the virtual currency mixer Tornado Cash, an open-source and fully decentralised piece of software running on the Ethereum blockchain, subsequently leading to the arrest of one of its developers in the Netherlands. Not only was this the first time the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) extended its authority to sanction a foreign ‘person’ to software, but the decentralised nature of the software and global usage highlight the challenge of establishing jurisdiction over decentralised software and its global user base. The government claims jurisdiction over citizens, residents, and any assets that pass through the country’s territory. As a global financial center with most large tech companies, this often facilitates the establishment of jurisdiction over global conduct that passes through US servers. However, decentralised programs on blockchains with nodes located around the world challenge this traditional approach as either nearly all countries can claim jurisdiction over users, subjecting users to criminal laws in countries with which they have no true interaction, or they limit jurisdiction, thereby risking abuse by bad actors. This article takes a comparative approach to examine the challenges to establishing criminal jurisdiction on cryptocurrency-related crimes.

The article explains the background on the use of universal jurisdiction in domestic courts. Topics include history of the brutality of the Hafez al-Assad regime, torture, detention without process, and surveillance of the population has marked the Syrian regime; how despite a strong consensus around the world that members of the Syrian regime have committed grave war crimes; and outrage and need of victims for something to be done for the immense torture and brutality of the Syrian regime.

Should Germany be prosecuting crimes committed in Syria pursuant to universal jurisdiction (UJ)? This article revisits the normative questions raised by UJ—the principle that a state can prosecute serious international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed by foreigners outside of its territories—against the backdrop of increasing European UJ proceedings regarding Syrian conflict–related crimes, focusing on Germany as an illustrative example. While existing literature justifies UJ on the basis of universal prohibition of certain atrocities, this creates residual normative issues. Alternatively, this article applies the "two-tiered test" derived from the "dual foundation" thesis of the Eichmann judgment, in which the normative appropriateness of UJ is evaluated against both accounts of universal prohibition and the specific politics surrounding the prosecution. It contends that the large number of Syrian refugees in Germany means that Germany, in particular, should initiate Syrian conflict–related UJ proceedings to prevent continued harm and recognize the political agency of refugees. Ultimately, the article suggests UJ should normatively be thought of as a domestic, rather than international, political event. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the current anti-accountability sentiment that has plagued most of Africa, triggered by the nasty politics of selectivity that is primarily motivated by considerations of realpolitik or the interests of specific states, Canefe's book lays bare the fundamental moral, legal and philosophical standpoint that advances the argument that perpetrators of mass atrocities must be held accountable. Unfortunately, the reality is different. She explores the vast (and almost impossible) impediments to attaining such an objective. Recognising the distinct and persuasive voices echoed by scholars from the Global South, the book examines the utilitarian effectiveness of using universal jurisdiction as a means towards this end. The critical views and responses of scholars who belong to TWAIL (an intellectual blog that is hotly and hardly contested by their counterparts from the Global North) expose, debunk and denounce the legitimacy of international law. The book argues that an international legal order that is largely monoculturalistic, developed from selected principles, values and opinions from the West, cannot and should not be taken as a prototype of the global legal order. Instead, legal pluralism as a distinct feature of a diverse and multicultural world requires that a consensus is obtained: this is crucial if the world seeks to achieve what she calls a "neutralized universalization" of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present article investigates whether the international crimes listed in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and its amendments are punished under Italian law and, if not, what changes to domestic law are necessary so that perpetrators can be prosecuted before the Italian courts. To this end, firstly, it recalls Italy's efforts to enact ad hoc legislation implementing the Statute. Secondly, it scrutinizes the existing Italian legislation on international crimes and identifies gaps and inconsistencies with the Statute. Finally, it considers the recent Government's initiative for adopting a code of international crimes. The author finds that the Italian legislation does not provide a proper legal basis for the prosecution of most of the aforementioned international crimes and advocates a major legislative effort to make all of them prosecutable before the domestic courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human rights constitute a set of norms and principles for the treatment of individuals and groups by the states on the basis of standards and principles which a society considers necessary for a quality life. Various contemporary scholars argue that prosecuting human rights violations is necessary and the only solution for the protection of human rights. They have also stated that criminal punishment for human rights violations is the only appropriate measure to enforce international obligations regarding protection of human rights. According to them, it is the duty of the states under the principles of International Human Rights Law (IHRL), International Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Criminal Law (ICL) and customary international law to prosecute human rights violations. Although certain technicalities and complications have been discussed by them, but it has been observed that there should be a balance between the sovereignty of the States, political power and their international obligations regarding protection of human rights under the territories controlled and administered by them. Therefore, this study focuses on the issue that the enforcement of human rights entirely depends on prosecution of human rights violations for which ratification of Rome Statute of International Criminal Court should be made mandatory and a pre-requisite for ratification of all international human rights instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author offers insights on the need for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prevent its undesirable incentives regarding the occupation of a state. Topics discussed include the partial universal jurisdiction of the ICC, the game theory proposed by Robert J. Aumann in his 2005 Nobel Prize Lecture, the behavior of the occupying state and the occupied people, and a history of the ICC.

Copyright of ASBU Law Journal is the property of Social Sciences University of Ankara and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

From the 17th century onwards, Britain played a leading role in asserting the application of the universality principle to international piracy, the first crime to which the principle applied. Thereafter, during the quest for abolition, it exercised universality over slave traders at sea. With the exercise of universal jurisdiction over atrocity crimes in the post-War period there was a notable shift in the UK position to the principle. This article traces the history of UK policy towards the application of the universality principle to atrocity crimes since WWII. Using archival research from the UK National Archives and the travaux préparatoires to international treaties, it analyses UK policy towards the inclusion of universal jurisdiction in international treaties concerning atrocity crimes. It argues that historically, the UK supported the application of the principle to atrocity crimes committed during an international armed conflict, as this position supported its interests. The nexus between universal jurisdiction and international armed conflict shielded colonial abuses from prosecution in foreign courts. Once the colonial period had come to an end, there was a shift in UK support for the inclusion of universal jurisdiction in international treaties, which is evident since the negotiation of UNCAT and the Rome Statute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the universal jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in accordance with the 1998 Rome Statute, as well as in line with the principles of territoriality, complementarity and cooperation. The main objective of the article is therefore to study the jurisdiction of the Court and the specific objective is to examine how the universal jurisdiction of the Court can be applied to crimes occurring in the territory of States that are not part of the Rome Statute, using as a source the case of the Rohingya People, which is intrinsically linked to the universal jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, what is the original aspect of the paper. The deductive method was the methodology adopted for the development of the work, with the study of the normative, doctrinal and jurisprudential aspect. The work will conclude that the universal jurisdiction of the ICC should be re-evaluated to be applied in accordance with the re-reading of the principle of state sovereignty and the proper interpretation of international crimes of interest to humanity, from the intersectional perspective for the consideration of anti-immigration acts as crimes against humanity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Italian domestic legal framework related to war crimes is characterised by several shortcomings. It is still largely centred on the provisions present in the 1941 wartime military criminal code, which have not been subjected to substantial legal restyling, regardless of the explicit and implicit obligations of domestic criminalization inferred from treaties ratified by Italy. Only in 2001–2002, at the time of Italian military operations in Afghanistan, were certain amendments to this code introduced, in order to partly adapt its content to current rules of international humanitarian law and international criminal law. However, such solutions have not brought about effective harmonization and were drafted within an incoherent legal framework, made even more complex by subsequent reforms addressing military missions abroad, thus resulting in the current unsatisfactory scenario which would require substantive reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Currently, international community faces bloody armed conflicts. During the operation in Syria, thousands of civilians become victims. Many other countries are suffering because they are forced to divide their homes with the waves of migrants. Every day we see violation of human rights, which are the most important values enshrined in the international law, and these violations constitute crimes against the international law. Ukraine is also experiencing a similar situation. During the aggravation of Ukrainian-Russian relations, the issue of responsibility of the parties to the conflict for their crimes is very relevant. In this context, accusations and convictions often occur at the level of national courts. They are the most effective instrument of condemning citizens of the other party for war crimes. Our task is to figure out whether there exists an effective mechanism to convict the perpetrators of the most serious crimes. There are mechanisms to punish the subject whose actions affect the interests of all mankind. It is widely known and used both in the international and national law, and called universal jurisdiction. The problem is that still, there are not any unified principles for its application. In particular, the question arises, who can apply it and against whom. The article reveals the peculiarities of application of the universal jurisdiction in the national law. In particular, attention is paid to the mechanisms for consolidating universal jurisdiction in the legislation of the Romano-Germanic and Anglo-Saxon legal systems, in particular as regards its subject-matter, personal and territorial application. An inalienable element of this study is the analysis of the powers and practice of the judicial authorities in this matter. The main purpose of the article is a study of universal jurisdiction, based on classical cases of its consolidation in the national law. Additionally, we consider issues of practical application thereof in cases of war crimes. The conclusion is that the national legislation has moved to a more narrow understanding of the universal jurisdiction. Most often, in order to start a case, the complainant must be present before the national court. It is important that the offenses have a connection with public interests of the state iudex loci deprehensionis. The problem is also that the consolidation and application of universal jurisdiction at the national level has not been yet unified.

Along with the intensive development of international criminal law, the role of the jurisdiction whose primary connecting factor does not focus on protection of individual state's vital interests is becoming more important. The concept refers to universal jurisdiction which is not based upon traditional grounds of jurisdiction i.e. upon principle of territoriality, principles of active and passive personality and protective principle. Instead, it builds upon the interests and needs of the entire international community in preventing certain international crimes. It primarily refers to international crimes stricto sensu (core crimes): the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In cases where, for whatever reason, the reaction of an international adjudicative body such as the International Criminal Court is lacking, or where a state which usually has a forum but in particular case refuses to prosecute (usually because of political opportunism) or cannot prosecute - the universal jurisdiction could step in and ensure criminal prosecution. In other words, the concept of universal jurisdiction refers to genuine international interest in putting an end to impunity for perpetrators of grave crimes, as specified in the Preamble of the Resolution on Universal criminal jurisdiction with regard to the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In comparative law, the universal jurisdiction also refers to some crimes other than core crimes. In the first place, it refers to the so-called treaty-based crimes, essentially transnational crimes. In this paper we have discussed whether this concept when envisaged for transnational crimes, or for that matter any other concept deriving from the aut dedere aut judicare rule, contributes to their universal character i.e. their positioning as crimes with universal significance. In that matter, we have analyzed two cases from international jurisprudence: the Ould Dah case and the ruling issued by the International Court of Justice in case Belgium v. Senegal, Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite.

Introduction. The adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court proved to be an important factor that stimulated a radical reform of national laws relating to the prosecution of international crimes. It allowed, on one hand, to considerably improve the mechanism for suppressing most serious violations of human rights the prosecution of which constituted a legitimate interest of both individual States and the international community as a whole, and on the other hand, to adequately implement the obligations of States under the Rome Statute. The Member States of the European Union have an effective experience in ensuring compliance of the national laws with the international treaty provisions concerning genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Among them, the implementation model chosen by the Netherlands deserves particular scrutiny. The authors analyze the all-encompassing nature of this model with the focus on the criminalization of the international crimes, the regulation of matters relating to the criminal jurisdiction, the definition of the general principles of criminal responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and the interrelationship between the Law on International Crimes and other similar legal acts.Materials and methods. Materials used for the analysis include international documents, decisions of international judicial bodies, national legislation and judicial practice of Netherlands and other states, as well as the doctrinal positions of various authors. The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific and special methods.Research results. The analysis of the substantive implementation of the Rome Statute by individual EU member states, in particular with the example of the national legislation of the Netherlands, has shown that the criminalization of international crimes at the national level makes a significant contribution to the fight against personal impunity for international crimes pertaining to jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.Discussion and conclusions. The national legislation of the Netherlands, mainly the International Crimes Act is an attempt to create a legal regime that prevents impunity for perpetrators of international crimes, and also reaffirms that the norms of the Rome Statute are voluminous and fully implemented that allows the Netherlands to carry on an independent prosecution of defendants, excluding the possibility to transfer the case to the ICC.

Since the adoption of the first United Nations Security Council (UNSC) counterterrorism resolution after the 9/11 attacks, the UNSC has increasingly required the domestic criminalization of "terrorism" acts and ancillary activities. Without the inclusion of an explicit international humanitarian law (IHL) or humanitarian exception, the UNSC has – so far – failed to harmonize the counterterrorism legal framework with IHL, leaving it up to States to define the interaction between the two. In their national legislation and courts, States' interpretations have varied but counterterrorism legislations have been used to adjudicate conducts in armed conflicts, regardless of their legality under IHL. As the domestication of UNSC offences is ongoing, good practices are highlighted in this paper and recommendations are offered to ensure the development of international customary law in accordance with IHL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The right to freedom from torture is enshrined in human rights and can be interpreted narrowly from being used to collecting evidence to a more broader uiew Of infringing rights and liberties including the right to life and dignity, and cause other crimes such as enforced disappearances and custodial killings. After the end of World War II, torture was the key international crime during the Nuremberg trials and was condemned afterwards in various international conuentions, but it continues to be used by states under the pretext Of combating terrorism, upholding sovereignty, and protecting the perpetrators. This article attempts to understand the place of torture in the international as well as domestic legal system and how it is used by states, and also to identify and overcome the challenges to universally condemning and discarding the use of torture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses that the climate justice in the Anthropocene-Capitalocene requires a reconceptualization of human rights commensurate with the scale and urgency of climate breakdown. Topics of discussion includes universality, exclusion and contradiction in terms of human rights, sovereignty, and cosmopolitanism, rights-based climate litigation and vulnerability theory and materialist legal theory.

On 26 September 2018, six American States Parties to the Rome Statute referred the Situation in Venezuela to the Office of the Prosecutor ('OTP') of the International Criminal Court, regarding crimes against humanity. Those States rested on Article 14 of the Rome Statute to proceed. That referral – namely, crimes committed outside the territory of the referring State(s) – was the second of its kind received by the ICC in its more than 15-year working history. The OTP is currently considering the referral under the so-called 'Preliminary Examination' stage, wherein the admissibility test is likely to be addressed within the complementarity principle, according to Article 17 of the Rome Statute. Despite the duty to exercise their criminal jurisdiction, as the Preamble to the Rome Statue stipulates, and the fact that those six American States recognize some sort of extraterritorial jurisdiction, those States remained inactive. What should the OTP do when six democracies, who are able to act, do not even try to launch an investigation for crimes they have expressed concerns about, without providing an explanation for their inactivity? This article will analyse how the OTP should deal with this referral in terms of the complementarity principle, having regard to the positive approach to complementarity. Accordingly, it will be argued that the Prosecutor should refrain from intervening until those States attempt to act and/or, in case of legal or factual inability, justify the referral. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional is the property of Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, S.A. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)