Universal jurisdiction: How universal is it? A study of competing theories

Palestine Yearbook of International Law

Volumn 12, Issue , 2005, Pages 49-75

  Becker, Steven W ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954870124     PISSN: 13861972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/9789047407393_007     Document Type: Chapter

References (57)

1. 1 Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Congo v. Belg.), 2002 I.C.J. 121 (Feb. 14) at ¶ 44 (Van den Wyngaert, J., dissenting), reprinted in 41 I.L.M. 536, 634.
2. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, 2002 I.C.J. 121 at ¶ 44 (Van den Wyngaert, J., dissenting), reprinted in 41 I.L.M. 536, 634.
3. Kenneth C. Randall, Universal Jurisdiction Under International Law, 66 TEX. L. REV. 785, 788 (1988).
4. PRINCETON PROJECT ON UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION, PRINCETON PRINCIPLES ON UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION, Principle 1(1), at 28 (2001) [hereinafter PRINCETON PRINCIPLES].
5. HARVARD RESEARCH IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, DRAFT CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO CRIME, 29 AM. J. INT’L L. 435, 573, art. 10, comment (Supp. 1935) [hereinafter HARVARD DRAFT CONVENTION] (emphasis added).
6. Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Congo v. Belg.), 2002 I.C.J. 121 (Feb. 14) at ¶ 16 (separate opinion of President Guillaume), reprinted in 41 I.L.M. 536, 563.
7. PRINCETON PRINCIPLES, supra note 5, Principle 1(2), at 28 (“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 ... provided the person is present before such judicial body.”).
8. 14 STEVEN W. BECKER, COMMENTARY ON THE PRINCETON PRINCIPLES ON UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION 39, 43-44 (2001) [hereinafter PRINCETON COMMENTARY].
9. See Paul Ames, Belgian Government Agrees to Restrict Use of War Crime Law, CHIC. DAILY L. BULL., June 23, 2003, at 2.
10. Act of 16 June 1993, as modified by the Act of 10 Feb. 1999 (Belg.) [hereinafter Belgian Act], 38 I.L.M. 921.
11. Stefaan Smis & Kim Van der Borght, Introductory Note, Belgium: Act Concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, February 10, 1999, 38 I.L.M. 918, 920.
12. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3.
13. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 609.
14. 24 Belgium to Limit War Crimes Law Used to Go after President Bush, CHIC. SUN-TIMES, June 23, 2003, at 34. See Douglass W. Cassel, Jr., Genocidal Generals Safe for Now, CHIC. DAILY L. BULL., July 17, 2003, at 6 (“[T]he Bush administration has all but declared war on universal jurisdiction over human rights crimes. It has now pummeled the leading universal jurisdiction country—Belgium – into abandoning its law.”).
15. 26 See, e.g., AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: THE DUTY OF STATES TO ENACT AND IMPLEMENT LEGISLATION (Sept. 2001);
16. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, UNITED KINGDOM: UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION AND ABSENCE OF IMMUNITY FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY (n.d.), http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/pinochet/report.html;
17. REDRESS, UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IN EUROPE: CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN EUROPE SINCE 1990 FOR WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, TORTURE AND GENOCIDE (30 June 1999);
18. see also HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, THE PINOCHET PRECEDENT: HOW VICTIMS CAN PURSUE HUMAN RIGHTS CRIMINALS ABROAD (Sept. 2000) [hereinafter THE PINOCHET PRECEDENT].
19. See id. at 82. The Kamminga Report adds torture to this list. See KAMMINGA REPORT, supra note 2, at 5-8.
20. PRINCETON PRINCIPLES, supra note 5, Principle 2(1), at 29 (enumerating “serious crimes under international law”).
21. 31 Christopher Keith Hall, Universal Jurisdiction: Challenges to Implementation Since Pinochet I, 14 INTERIGHTS BULL. 3, 3 (2002).
22. Id. at 88. See Sammons, supra note 25, at 137 (“When an individual state undertakes the prosecution of a perpetrator pursuant to an assertion of universal jurisdiction, that state acts as the de facto agent for the international community.”).
23. See Alfred P. Rubin, Actio Popularis, Jus Cogens and Offenses Erga Omnes?, 35 NEW ENG. L. REV. 265, 268 (2001) (rejecting the notion that the invocation of universal jurisdiction may be justified as an actio popularis).
24. 36 Compare Bassiouni, supra note 16, at 148-49 (pointing out that, due to the jus cogens nature of specified international crimes, certain duties arise that create “an obligation erga omnes that is binding even upon states that refuse to recognize such an obligation”), with Rubin, supra note 34, at 278.
25. See ALFRED P. RUBIN, ETHICS AND AUTHORITY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 82-130 (1997); Rubin, supra note 34, at 267.
26. 40 Randall, supra note 4, at 794; United States v. Brig Malek Adhel, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 210, 232 (1844).
27. See William C. Smith, Legal Arsenal: International Law Can Be an Important Element in the United States’ Campaign Against Terrorism, 87 A.B.A. J. 43, 44 (Dec. 2001) (citing the opinion of Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni).
28. See generally Steven W. Becker, “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall ...”: Assessing the Aftermath of September 11th, 37 VAL. U. L. REV. 563, 571-611 (2003).
29. 48 Cf. Madeline H. Morris, Universal Jurisdiction in a Divided World: Conference Remarks, 35 NEW ENG. L. REV. 337, 352 (2001).
30. 49 Cf. Sammons, supra note 25, at 127 (“Many commentators and jurists incorrectly seek to divorce the assertion of universal jurisdiction from principles of state sovereignty.”).
31. 51 Rena Hozore Reiss, The Extradition of John Demjanjuk: War Crimes, Universality Jurisdiction, and the Political Offense Doctrine, 20 CORNELL INT’L L.J. 281, 303 (1987) (citing 1 M. CHERIF BASSIOUNI, INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION, UNITED STATES LAW AND PRACTICE ch. 6, § 6 (1983)).
32. See Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Congo v. Belg.), 2002 I.C.J. 121 (Feb. 14) at ¶ 5 (separate opinion of President Guillaume), reprinted in 41 I.L.M. 536, 559
33. 55 Cowles, supra note 2, at 217-18. This same reasoning was followed in the Kamminga Report. See KAMMINGA REPORT, supra note 2, at 3 (declaring that the justification presented by Cowles is “still valid”).
34. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: 14 PRINCIPLES ON THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION 1 (May 1999).
35. 58 Bassiouni, supra note 16, at 152 (cataloguing the confusion that has resulted from the diverse meanings attributed to universality).
36. See Christopher L. Blakesley, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, in 2 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW 33, 62 (M. Cherif Bassiouni ed., 2d ed. 1999).
37. 62 Attorney Gen. v. Eichmann, 36 I.L.R. 5 (Isr. D.C., Jerusalem, Dec. 12, 1961), aff’d, 36 I.L.R. 277 (Isr. S. Ct. May 29, 1962).
38. J.E.S. Fawcett, The Eichmann Case, 38 BRIT. Y.B. INT’L L. 181, 182 (1962). See Michael H. Cardozo, Note, When Extradition Fails, Is Abduction the Solution?, 55 AM. J. INT’L L. 127 (1961).
39. 4 L.S.I. 154, 5710-1950, reprinted in United Nations, 1950 Y.B. on H.R. 163 [hereinafter Nazis’ Law]. See War Crimes Cases (Israel), 18 I.L.R. 538. The Nazis’ Law was described as follows by the Israeli Supreme Court in its opinion in Honigman v. Attorney General:
40. 67 Attorney Gen. v. Eichmann, 36 I.L.R. 277, 277 (Isr. S. Ct. May 29, 1962). See Robert K. Woetzel, The Eichmann Case in International Law, in INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW 354, 354 (Gerhard O.W. Mueller & Edward M. Wise eds., 1965).
41. 71 Attorney Gen. v. Eichmann, 36 I.L.R. 5, 25 (Isr. D.C., Jerusalem, Dec. 12, 1961), aff’d, 36 I.L.R. 277 (Isr. S. Ct. May 29, 1962).
42. 776 F.2d 571 (6th Cir. 1985). Examples of this dual reliance are plentiful. See, e.g., Scharf, supra note 63, at 370; Henry T. King, Jr., Universal Jurisdiction: Myths, Realities, Prospects, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity: The Nuremberg Precedent, 35 NEW ENG. L. REV. 281, 284-85 (2001).
43. 88 For a discussion of the Demjanjuk proceedings, see Becker, Fiction of Jurisdiction, supra note 86, at 12-19.
44. 91 Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 612 F. Supp. 571 (N.D. Ohio 1985), aff’d, 776 F.2d 571 (6th Cir. 1985).
45. See Hall, supra note 31, at 3-6 (detailing the setbacks to universal jurisdiction in recent years); see also Ames, supra note 17, at 2.
46. 101 See, e.g., Belgium to Limit War Crimes Law, supra note 24, at 34 (“Government officials said changes [in Belgian’s 1993 law] would prevent more cases like those lodged against Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, or an earlier complaint against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that provoked outrage in Israel.”).
47. Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Congo v. Belg.), 2002 I.C.J. 121 (Feb. 14) at ¶ 64, reprinted in 41 I.L.M. 536, 552.
48. Id. at ¶ 46, reprinted in 41 I.L.M. 536, 548. In avoiding the jurisdictional issue, the Court was forced to invert its usual analysis:
49. Id. at ¶ 87 (Van den Wyngaert, J., dissenting), reprinted in 41 I.L.M. 536, 644.
50. 107 Bartram S. Brown, The Evolving Concept of Universal Jurisdiction, 35 NEW ENG. L. REV. 383, 389-90 (2001).
51. 108 Lee A. Casey, The Case Against the International Criminal Court, 25 FORDHAM INT’L L.J. 840, 855-57 (2002).
52. See Henry A. Kissinger, The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction, FOREIGN AFF., July-Aug. 2001, at 86. 110 Id.
53. 116 But see PRINCETON PRINCIPLES, supra note 5, Principle 1(1), at 28.
54. Steven W. Becker, The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction, 14 INTERIGHTS BULL. 15, 15 (2002).
55. 121 See id., Principles 5, 7, 9-10, at 31, 33-34; KAMMINGA REPORT, supra note 2, at 13-16, 19-20.
56. 124 Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, 2002 I.C.J. (Feb 14) 121 at ¶ 60, reprinted in 41 I.L.M. 536, 551. Cf. Joel Greenberg, Israelis Vent Anger at Belgium: Possible Sharon Trial Condemned, CHIC. TRIB., Feb. 14, 2003, at 3 (“A ruling by Belgium’s highest court that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel could be tried there for war crimes after he leaves office brought a chorus of outrage from top Israeli officials ... .”).
57. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, 2002 I.C.J. (Feb 14) 121 at ¶ 5 (Van den Wyngaert, J., dissenting), reprinted in 41 I.L.M. 536, 624 (“This case was to be a test case, probably the first opportunity for the International Court of Justice to address a number of questions that have not been considered since the famous “Lotus” case of the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1927.”).