Search

The crime of gender persecution holds great potential for the adequate prosecution of gender-based violence in international criminal law. Codified in Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute as a crime against humanity, it provides an opportunity to condemn gender-specific violence beyond sexual acts. However, the icc has so far only made limited use of this possibility and has yet to convict a defendant under Article 7(1)(h) on the basis of gender. In contrast, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court recently became the first court or tribunal to explicitly convict a person for gender persecution. The Sarah O. case has the potential to set an important precedent for the prosecution of this crime. Importantly, it may help to highlight the challenges of prosecuting gender persecution and to address them at the national and international level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present article investigates Italy’s posture on international criminal justice and identifies gaps and obstacles whose overcoming is essential to make the country effectively contribute to its efficient functioning. To this end, firstly, the Italian Government’s attitude towards international criminal justice institutions is surveyed. Secondly, domestic legislation and case law on international crimes are carefully analysed. Thirdly, the public perception of international crimes in Italy is critically assessed. The author finds that a major legislative reform is urgently needed and cannot be postponed any longer, so as to remove any ambiguity about the Italian Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability for all international crimes listed in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. She also advises that such reform should be complemented with the assumption of additional international obligations bringing Italy at the forefront of the supporters of the Rome Statute system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hungary has had an intense engagement with international criminal justice. During communism and democracy alike, the normative framework and language of international criminal law was used to delegitimise the political opponent. This article aims to describe the way international criminal law was repeatedly instrumentalized to not simply serve as a genuine tool for justice but also as a potent political pawn through presenting the use of international criminal law in four different time periods: (1) during the post-World War ii war crimes trials at the People’s Tribunals; (2) the adoption of universal jurisdiction during the communist era as a tool of Cold War status competition; (3) in the 1990s, as an instrument of transitional justice; and finally, (4) in the post-2010s, as a tool for memory politics and anti-migration propaganda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Araucaria is the property of Araucaria-Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofia, Politica y Humanidades 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.)

Domestic courts sometimes prosecute foreign nationals for severe crimes—like crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, and war crimes—committed on foreign territory against foreign nationals. We argue that migrants can serve as agents of transnational justice. When migrants move across borders, as both economic migrants and refugees, they often pressure local governments to conduct criminal investigations and trials for crimes that occurred in their sending state. We also examine the effect of explanatory variables that have been identified by prior scholars, including the magnitude of atrocities in the sending state, the responsiveness of the receiving state to political pressure, and the various economic and political costs of prosecutions. We test our argument using the first multivariate statistical analysis of universal jurisdiction cases, focusing on multiple stages of prosecutions. We conclude that transnational justice is a justice remittance in which migrants provide accountability and remedies for crimes in their sending states.

The current challenges of the legal response to international crimes committed during large-scale Russian aggression have exacerbated the issue of the application of universal jurisdiction mechanisms in the global legal dimension and in the context of the domestic legal system and aspects of comparative jurisprudence. The investigation of relevant crimes in the national criminal jurisdiction of third countries, which was announced by the authorities of Estonia, Lithuania, Germany, France, Sweden and others during the last two years, is of particular relevance in a situation, where there is still no information in open sources in Ukraine about systematic court decisions in proceedings related to aggression, ecocide and genocide, and there is an accumulation of decisions on war crimes in accordance with Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding violations of the laws and customs of war. In addition, the existing proceedings at the International Criminal Court will probably not cover all persons, who have committed relevant international crimes, and currently there is still a doctrinal and political discussion regarding the formation of a special supranational or "internationalized" tribunal for the crime of aggression. The January decision of the International Court of Justice in the case "Ukraine v. Russia" regarding the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (in the occupied Crimea) and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (regarding hostilities in the East of Ukraine) on the events that preceded the large-scale Russian invasion, shows that not all aspects of the aggressor's responsibility can be resolved at the appropriate interstate level. The article outlines the reflection of the category of universal jurisdiction in international law and in the modern practice of European countries, primarily in relation to cases in Ukraine, committed by persons, controlled by the Russian Federation. The author emphasizes that this practice becomes a powerful tool both for the development of the phenomenon of universal jurisdiction at the global level and for ensuring justice in the punishment of Russian criminals. The main challenges in this area are outlined, which consist in the need to increase the efficiency of interstate cooperation and promote the inevitability of punishment in accordance with the conventional obligations of civilized countries of the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay presents a fresh defense of the human right of religious freedom. It addresses two versions of skepticism of this human right, one a liberal variant, which questions religious freedom's distinctiveness, the other a post-modern variant, which questions religious freedom's universality. The case for a universal and distinct human right of religious freedom rests upon the claim that religion is a basic human good, manifesting human dignity and warranting a human right. The essay details four respects in which religion fulfills the meaning of a basic human good. Religion is a purposive set of acts, or practices; is a definable phenomenon whose core meaning is right relationship with a superhuman power; entails both an intrinsic good and derivate goods; and is universal in its scope. Finally, crucial to the human right of religious freedom is religion's interiority, that is, its critical involvement of will, mind, and heart. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on contemporary challenges concerning the domestic prosecution of the crime of aggression. These challenges have one common feature, that they deal with the scope of jurisdiction over crime of aggression at a domestic level. The author analyses applicability of jurisdictional immunity (based on the principle pars in parem non habet iurisdictionem), immunity of State officials, both personal (ratione personae) and material (ratione materiae), and finally also the availability of universal jurisdiction in relation to the crime of aggression. The contribution is built on the presumption that even though each category of crimes under international law has its unique characteristics, they all share some common definitional features, reflected among else in the famous Cassese's definition of crime under international law. The author argues that all crimes under international law are to be treated uniformly as much as possible, and therefore – relatedly – there should not be any unsubstantiated differences in standing of the crime of aggression comparing to standing of remaining categories of crimes under international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Universal jurisdiction is a principle of international law that maintains the right to try an accused for serious crimes that are globally recognised. The offences are defined in international customary law and include the breach of the jus cogens norms. The liability for breach of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation ('Montreal Convention') was invoked in the case of suspects from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in the Lockerbie air disaster. The United Kingdom and the United States made a separate request to the UN Security Council to take certain provisional measures against Libya, calculated to coerce or compel it to surrender the accused individuals to any jurisdiction outside Libya. The judgment led to a miscarriage of justice as the accused were tried under Scottish law and the issue is whether a 'third alternative' could be added to the traditional aut dedere aut judicare principle – aut transferere. The argument here is that in order for the principle to be sustained there should be recognition of the principle of universal jurisdiction and the ambit of the Suppression Conventions should be extended so that a trial can be conducted in the domestic courts of a foreign defendant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The principle of universal jurisdiction (UJ) has traditionally been grounded in the idea of a collective response to the most heinous crimes on a global scale. Italy, a country that currently lacks universal jurisdiction for international crimes, is amid deliberations on a proposed bill advocating for the use of universal jurisdiction in cases of surrogacy. This analysis contends that the underlying political motive behind this bill is to curb all forms of same-sex parenthood, inadvertently resulting in a criminal law framework that would specifically impact male-gay couples. Secondly, it draws a parallel with “memory law”, illustrating how legal mechanisms initially established in the enthusiasm of the ‘90s are now being repurposed as instruments for divisive political agendas.

The article is devoted to the question of the relationship between the aut dedere aut judicare principle and concepts of universal jurisdiction in international criminal law. Cooperation between states in the fight against international crimes involves, among other things, solving the issue of the exercise of national criminal jurisdiction, including universal jurisdiction, as well as the implementation of the aut dedere aut judicare principle. Providing universal jurisdiction is an important element of prosecuting alleged perpetrators of crimes of international concern, especially when the alleged perpetrator is not prosecuted in the territory where the crime was committed. It was determined that each state defines the scope of its criminal jurisdiction (including universal jurisdiction) and each state is responsible for determining the scope of its criminal law. States are required to conform to their international obligations, including refraining from interfering in the internal affairs of other states and implementing obligations on prosecution or extradition. A conclusion was made about the importance of distinguishing the concepts of universal jurisdiction and aut dedere aut judicare. Universal jurisdiction applies when there is no other connection to the state (territoriality, nationality, the protective principle or any other basis). Aut dedere aut judicare obligation entails the transfer of the case to the competent authorities for prosecution or extradition, not the establishment of jurisdiction. In order to fulfill the obligation aut dedere aut judicare, the state must already have passed laws criminalizing certain acts. An obligation aut dedere aut judicare does not only refer to serious crimes committed by a foreigner against a foreigner abroad. An aut dedere aut judicare obligation is not limited to situations in which a universal jurisdiction is required to be applied for the prosecution or extradition.

The pinciple of universal jurisdiction, applied in international criminal law for many years, can complement international justice as an important mechanism. In addition to complementing the jurisdiction of international criminal courts, universal jurisdiction guarantees the widest jurisdiction for national courts to deal with important international crimes including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, on the premiss that these crimes harm international public order. Three essential steps are needed to implement this principle: the existence of a specific context for universal jurisdiction, a clear definition of crime and its elements, and national law-enforcement procedures that allow national judicial authorities to exercise jurisdiction over these crimes. Therefore, national courts can exercise universal jurisdiction only when the government has enacted legislation which authorizes its application. The main question in the present study is how can Iranian courts exercise universal jurisdiction, and what kind of universal jurisdiction does Iran believe in? The answer can be found in both general (Articles 3 and 9 of the Penal Code) and special laws (such as the Bill on International Crimes). The current study applies a descriptive-analytical approach to investigate the principle of universal jurisdiction, the Islamic Penal Code, and other relevant laws to clarify the universal jurisdiction of the Iranian courts regarding international criminal law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the question of the relationship between the aut dedere aut judicare principle and concepts of universal jurisdiction in international criminal law. Сooperation between states in the fight against international crimes involves, among other things, solving the issue of the exercise of national criminal jurisdiction, including universal jurisdiction, as well as the implementation of the aut dedere aut judicare principle. Providing universal jurisdiction is an important element of prosecuting alleged perpetrators of crimes of international concern, especially when the alleged perpetrator is not prosecuted in the territory where the crime was committed. It was determined that each state defines the scope of its criminal jurisdiction (including universal jurisdiction) and each state is responsible for determining the scope of its criminal law. States are required to conform to their international obligations, including refraining from interfering in the internal affairs of other states and implementing obligations on prosecution or extradition. A conclusion was made about the importance of distinguishing the concepts of universal jurisdiction and aut dedere aut judicare. Universal jurisdiction applies when there is no other connection to the state (territoriality, nationality, the protective principle or any other basis). Aut dedere aut judicare obligation entails the transfer of the case to the competent authorities for prosecution or extradition, not the establishment of jurisdiction. In order to fulfill the obligation aut dedere aut judicare, the state must already have passed laws criminalizing certain acts. An obligation aut dedere aut judicare does not only refer to serious crimes committed by a foreigner against a foreigner abroad. An aut dedere aut judicare obligation is not limited to situations in which a universal jurisdiction is required to be applied for the prosecution or extradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) almost two decades ago, the crime of aggression has not been tested. The Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to provide a fitting opportunity. However, the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in the current Russian/Ukrainian war. Nevertheless, 24 February 2022 marked the beginning of a renewed attack, as Ukraine witnessed unimaginable proportions of human rights violations, deaths, sufferings, and displacements due to the Russian invasion. While it is incontrovertible that the crime of aggression has been committed by President Vladimir Putin of Russia against Ukraine, and the ICC has begun the investigation of crimes against humanity and war crimes, jurisdictional questions looms. The ICC is empowered to investigate, prosecute, and punish individuals for international crimes, close impunity gaps, and ensure accountability for the ongoing heinous crimes being committed in Ukraine. How can justice be served specifically to Ukrainian victims and generally to the international community for the atrocities being committed and for the crime of aggression? Since the ICC lacks jurisdiction, would the setting up of a special tribunal or hybrid court be better to deal with the situation? How would such special tribunal deal with the issues of immunity and the practicality of investigations and prosecution? This paper discusses these questions and argues that beyond the referrals to the ICC made by over forty states, it may be imperative for the referring states to utilise the universal jurisdiction principle to investigate and prosecute the crime of aggression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cyber- malicious activities in international aviation industry is a combination of two crimes: hijacking and cyber terrorism, which transnational and international nature can damage not only public order of the state, but it can also infringe upon international public order. Universal jurisdiction due to its loose connection to the state where the crime is committed and the state claiming jurisdiction, allows the states to seek protection of their credibility and security, and regardless of the state hosting the criminal(s)or the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim of the crime, allows them to prepare themselves for punishing perpetrator(s) and to identify and to hold malicious actors and their hosting countries accountable for cyber attacks against the aviation industry. Therefore, in this descriptive-analytical study, we seek to answer the question of what role and effects the exercise of universal jurisdiction has in the fight against cyber crimes related to aviation. And by studying the relevant documents and sources, we came to the conclusion that the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction as a deterrent mechanism will guarantee the fight against cyber security crimes in the field of aviation and the impunity of the perpetrators of this crime.

Afrika Birliği, 2014 yılında başlattığı girişimle, Afrika kıtasını bölgesel bir uluslararası ceza mahkemesine kavuşturmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu girişim, Nüremberg’ten bu yana evrensel olarak uygulanagelen uluslararası cezai muhakemede daha önce örneği olmayan yeni bir araçtır. Söz konusu girişimin önemi, uluslararası ceza hukukunda bölgeselleşme kavramını tartışmaya açma potansiyeli taşımasındandır. Kıta düzeyinde bütünleşmeyi hedef alan Afrika Birliği, 2000’li yılların başından itibaren artan şekilde uluslararası ceza adaletini gündemine almaktadır. Afrika Birliği, uluslararası cezai muhakeme araçlarının Afrikalıları haksız yere hedef aldığı iddiasına dayanmaktadır. Ancak bu durum, uluslararası ceza hukuku normlarının tümden reddi anlamına gelmemektedir. Talep edilen, bu normların Afrika devletlerinin önceliklerini, değer ve farklılıklarını içerecek şekilde reforme edilmesidir. Bu anlamda “Afrika Ceza Mahkemesi”, uluslararası cezai muhakemenin bilinen araçlarından pek çok açıdan farklılaşan bir yargı yetkisine sahip olacaktır. Bölgesel ve evrensel olan mutlak surette birbirine karşıt olmak zorunda değildir. Her ne kadar işler bir mekanizma kurabilmek için Afrika Birliği’nin aşması gereken pek çok sorun olsa da Afrika Ceza Mahkemesi sayesinde yaratılacak bölgesel uygulama ve teamüllerin uluslararası ceza hukukunun gelişimine katkı sunması beklenmektedir.

As a treaty obligation and customary international law, universal jurisdiction is crucial in the global fight against impunity. While Western countries have been at the forefront, actively expanding and developing universal jurisdiction, East Asian countries have adopted a more conservative approach, emphasizing state sovereignty. This article begins by exploring the theoretical construction, legal frameworks, and state practices of East Asian countries (China, Korea, and Japan) when exercising universal jurisdiction, highlighting the typical differences between these countries and Western countries. It is then observed that the passive universal jurisdiction system in East Asia is deficient in defending state interests or counteracting other countries' inappropriate extraterritorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, this article advocates a more proactive approach to the application of universal jurisdiction in East Asian countries. By doing so, while assuming responsibility to prevent impunity, the state can use universal jurisdiction as a legitimate countermeasure and reprisal in reciprocal international relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores how claims alleging serious human rights violations or breaches of international criminal law that occurred in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) might unfold in the courts of the Republic of Korea (ROK or South Korea) under various differing jurisdictional theories. South Korea has legislation allowing for the exercise of universal jurisdiction, an increasingly widespread judicial mechanism for a national court to hold alleged perpetrators of serious human rights and humanitarian law violations accountable for their actions regardless of where the crime was committed and regardless of the victim's or the perpetrator's nationality. In South Korea, domestic criminal and civil jurisdiction can conceivably be "stretched" to encompass crimes perpetrated on the northern half of the Korean peninsula due to a constitutional provision that denies the existence of a separate North Korean sovereign nation. This article introduces and compares the feasibility and challenges of various jurisdictional approaches in South Korea that could address human rights crimes in North Korea, specifically (a) universal jurisdiction prosecution based on domestic law, (b) domestic criminal prosecution, and (c) civil cases in tort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the conflicts regarding the exercise of universal jurisdiction by states over crimes against humanity. The universal jurisdiction of a State over crimes against humanity is divided into two types: absolute universal jurisdiction and limited one. The former will bring about severe international conflicts. The international community has been working to coordinate or resolve these conflicts. In 2019, the Commission completed the second reading of the Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity and submitted it to the United Nations General Assembly, but its role in addressing the above problems was limited. In the future convention, five points are worth: to specify the time conditions under which a State has universal jurisdiction on the crime; to determine that the defendant's country has limited universal jurisdiction instead of granting absolute universal jurisdiction to states; according to the principle of complementarity in international criminal law, only when the relevant country cannot exercise universal jurisdiction over this criminal, other countries or international organizations can replace the exercise of that jurisdiction; to add liability clause when a country fails to fulfil its jurisdictional rights, to clarify whether senior officials of a country have immunity when committing this crime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On account of the immunities which foreign State officials enjoy under international law, universal jurisdiction trials fail to offer justice to victims of crimes orchestrated by State authorities. The ICC Appeals Chamber has affirmed that immunities are inapplicable before international courts as no customary rule providing immunities before international courts has taken shape. While plausible, a critical assessment should still be made of which features an international court should have to be genuinely distinguishable from domestic courts, and thereby not be concerned with immunities. In this paper, it is argued that, unlike domestic courts, certain international criminal courts may be expressly endorsed by the international community as organs which may restore peaceful relations between and among states – the very rationale underlying personal immunity – and, as such, provide victims with access to justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article investigates the principle of universal jurisdiction, accountability mechanisms, and the potential effects of prosecuting Russia. It mentions International Criminal Court (ICC) has already opened an investigation after a record number of states referred the matter to the Court for prosecution and ICC does not have jurisdiction in this instance over the crime of aggression. It also mentions Ukraine has commenced domestic prosecution of the atrocity crimes.

Copyright of Alternative Politics / Alternatif Politika is the property of Alternatif Politika 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 6th legal basis of Constitutional Court Decision 140/2018 analyzes the effects and scope of art. 96 of the Spanish Constitution. The unconstitutionality of Organic Law 1/2014 is dismissed in this decision, but this law is not in accordance with the international treaties signed by Spain related to universal jurisdiction. This decision has opened a doctrinal debate in Spain, in which it is mentioned for the first time the term «conventionality control». Whether art. 96.1 of the Spanish Constitution allows a control of conventionality, of a diffuse nature, prompts the analysis of the notion of such control in countries such as France or Italy, to immediately focus on the Spanish case. It could be convenient, also in this case, to reaffirm the concentrated nature of the Spanish constitutionality control system or, if preferred, not to erode the supremacy of the Constitutional Court over the ordinary courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Hacettepe Law Review is the property of Hacettepe Law Review 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.)

This article examines the local effects of papal centralisation of ecclesiastical administration in the first half of the fourteenth century. It traces as a case study the impact on English monastic communities of papal privileges and exemptions, papal attempts to regulate religious observance, the expansion of the papal judicial system, and the growth of papal appointments of heads of houses. It concludes that the reality differed from the high theory of papalist claims to immediate and universal jurisdiction. Papal power ultimately depended on the consent of local actors and an increasingly assertive Crown, and burgeoning administrative activity at the papal curia did not translate into increased power and influence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Amman Arab University Journal is the property of Amman Arab University 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.)

This article addresses what the increased role of strategic litigation and universal jurisdiction for serious international crimes in domestic courts means for international criminal justice by exploring the opportunities and risks as well as implications for the field. A number of key overlapping and countervailing trends stand out: (i) a growing landscape where domestic legal systems are playing larger roles; (ii) a constantly proliferating and complex transnational network of actors – formal and informal – involved in the pursuit of accountability; and (iii) a risk of further entrenching Eurocentrism of international criminal justice resulting from the dominance of European domestic courts for the prosecution of international crimes under universal jurisdiction. The article concludes by stressing the importance of strategic litigation and universal jurisdiction and the role played by civil society in pursuing accountability for serious international crimes, and puts forward some modest recommendations for mitigating some of the identified risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION. The legal saga of the prosecution of Adolf Eichmann, one of the most wanted war criminals and chief “architect” of the Holocaust, raises many ethical, political and legal problems. The Eichmann trial is unprecedented in the long history of international criminal law for many reasons. Although many leaders of Nazi regime were put on trial at Nuremberg before International Military Tribunal, mass killings and other outrageous crimes against Jews was not the main object of the trial. Thereby prosecution and punishment one of the most important organizers of the genocide of Jewish people, creator of new type of evil and new type of crime, become the great task of the State of Israel.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The theoretical basis of the study consists of the works of leading international lawyers specializing in international criminal law, as well as the international extradition of criminals; the analytical base comprises of the decisions of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, as well as the national courts of the State of Israel, in particular the cult decision the Attorney General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, as well as the decisions of the national courts of the United States, cited in the article for the purpose of comparative analysis. The methodological basis of the research comprises historical method, methods of formal logic, including analysis, synthesis and analogy, as well as systemic, comparative legal methods and method of interpretation.RESEARCH RESULTS. Based on the study of international legal instruments and international judicial practice, as well as the national legislation of the State of Israel, the author made conclusions related to the abduction of accused from the territory of a foreign state, in particular its consequences in the form of violation of the sovereignty of the state. At the same time, the article contains a statement that the unlawfulness of the arrest does not prevent the court from exercising jurisdiction over the person. In the context of the administration of justice by the State of Israel, the author analyzes the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of December 14, 1951, paying special attention to the problem of the possible immunity of the accused based on the refugee status granted by the state.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In the course of the study, the author analyzed a significant amount of materials, summarized the doctrinal positions put forward by a number of prominent international scholars, and also formed the conclusion that the trial of Eichmann marked not only the administration of justice over the international criminal, but also provided another opportunity for a broad international publicity of the horrors of the Nazi regime and the need to unite collective efforts of states to save future generations from such international crimes.

The application of universal jurisdiction over war crimes requires responses to a number of questions: Which crimes under international law are considered war crimes? Is there consensus regarding the application of universal jurisdiction over war crimes? Is the prosecution of war crimes under universal jurisdiction the right or the duty of a state? Does the application of universal jurisdiction over war crimes require any connection to the forum state? Do the state officials enjoy immunities from being prosecuted by foreign states under universal jurisdiction for war crimes? Which value should outweigh in deciding of reasonableness of application of universal jurisdiction – to prevent the impunity of the perpetrators of war crimes or to ensure stable and secure international relations with the foreign states? What measures should be taken to ensure further efficiency of universality principle in combatting international crimes? These questions are the major ones, but not exhaustive and the answers to them have both theoretical and practical importance. In this article we will try to find answers to those questions analyzing the relevant norms of international law, the decisions of the international courts, the legislation and case-law of the states, as well as the legal doctrine. Significant place in the article is allocated to the questions related to the limitations on application of universal jurisdiction and how these limitations could affect the future perspective of this principle. Findings reached in the article are that further limitations on application of universality principle can lead to loss of its meaning as a legal concept and adoption of a single convention in this field is the possible way out to preserve the important role of this principle in fighting international crimes.

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 mono-culturalistic, 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.

The war in Ukraine is giving rise to conducts constituting first degree international crimes. The dual system of international criminal justice is responsible, at the substantive scope, for the criminal characterization of those conducts and facts, and for determining the authorship and participation of those responsible for them, in accordance with the legal theory of international crime. This multilevel system will also allocate iurisdiction for their investigation and prosecution among the Ukrainian courts, other third national courts with lurisdiction according to any extraterritorial principle and the International Criminal Court. The system does not enable efficient and effective prosecution. International cooperation is particularly important for the purpose of investigation and prosecution. The principle of universal jurisdiction acquires a new cooperative dimension in the fact-finding process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Draft Article 7 of the UN Draft Convention regarding Crimes Against Humanity provides the terra firma for States to establish and exercise a range of jurisdictional bases, including universal jurisdiction, to be reinforced by State-to-State agreements regarding evidence-extradition for the benefit of downstream truth and justice seeking projects. Legal analysis demonstrates there persists an insistence on treaty regulation and clearly particularised laws at local and international levels to successfully pursue international criminal accountability. Draft Article 7 will give credence to universal jurisdiction, complement the International Criminal Court's workings and counter its temporal limitations, and negate politically-motivated invocation of the doctrine. A case study involving Australian extradition proceedings highlights how evidence can be obtained efficiently on the basis of a pre-existing bilateral agreement between culturally distinct States. Formal arrangements regarding evidence-exchange will espouse a greater willingness by States to cooperate across borders and will strengthen universality by taking some of the guess-work out of its exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay offers a few meditations on what the language and the homeland represent for the philosophy. These thoughts are motivated by the publication, in the present issue of Estudios, of the Essays from Catalan by Eduardo Nicol, philosopher who was forced to produce his works not only from exile from his homeland, but in a, to a certain extent, foreign language. The aim, nonetheless, is not to propose the corresponding questions from a particular nationalist point of view, but from a universal metaphysical one, activity to which Nicol devoted himself throughout his entire work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]