| Universal Jurisdiction |
Article Index for Universal |
Website Links For Universal |
Information AboutUniversal Jurisdiction |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION | |
| human rights instruments | |
| human rights | |
| international criminal law | |
|
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 '' Case Concerning The Arrest Warrant Of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic Of The Congo V. Belgium) '' ("ICJ Arrest Warrant Case"). 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. According to specifically selected the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, extrajudicial executions and ''disappearances''?" Opponents such as s 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. DEBATE OVER UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION AND 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. 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. 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 ), while others have been strongly opposed to it (e.g., the United States, except in cases in which an American citizen is a victim). 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. 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 them by the German Instrument Of Surrender . Established in The Hague 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). 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: , 1 December 2001. Section: How many states have used universal jurisdiction in their national courts?]. 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 1 September 2001. Section II. Universal Jurisdiction over torture According to Amnesty International, crimes such as "genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, section A brief note on the purpose of this legal memorandum Belgium's 1993-2003 law of universal jurisdiction In 1993 , Belgium's Parliament voted a "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 and given sentences from 12 to 20 years' imprisonment 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 was 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 '' ICJ Arrest Warrant Case ''. The ICJ's decision issued on 14 February 2002 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. ICJ's decision See paragraph 43 However, the matter was addressed in separate and dissenting opinions, separate and dissenting opinions such as the separate opinion of President Guillaume who concluded that universal jurisdiction exists only in relation to piracy; separate opinion of President Guillaume at paragraph 12 and the dissenting opinion of Judge Oda who recognised piracy, hijacking, terrorism and genocide as crimes subject to universal jurisdiction. dissenting opinion of Judge Oda , paragraph 12 On August 1 , 2003 Spanish universal jurisdiction In 1999, Nobel peace prize winner Rigoberta Menchu brought a case against the Guatemalan military leadership in a Spanish Court. Six officials, among them Efrain Rios Montt and Oscar Humberto Mejia , were formally charged on 7 July 2006 to appear in the Spanish National Court after Spain's Constitutional Court ruled in September 2005, the Spanish Constitutional Court declaration that the "principle of universal jurisdiction prevails over the existence of national interests", following the Menchu suit brought against the officials for atrocities committed in the Guatemalan Civil War Spain judge charges ex-generals in Guatemala genocide case , Jurist, July 08, 2006. 1 Under Spanish law, judges have the right to try foreigners suspected of genocidal acts that have taken place outside Spain. In June 2003 Spanish Judge 26 September 2005 On 11 January 2006 it was reported that the Spanish High Court will investigate whether seven former Chinese officials, including the former President of China Jiang Zemin and former Prime Minister Li Peng participated in a genocide in Tibet . This investigation follows a Spanish Constitutional Court ( 26 September 2005 ) ruling that Spanish courts could try genocide cases even if they did not involve Spanish nationals.Spanish courts to investigate if a genocide took place in Tibet.
German Universal Jurisdiction Völkerstrafgesetzbuch 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 the sixth edition of Black's Law Dictionary , published in 1990. He has argued "The closest analogous concept listed is '' Hostes Humani Generis '' ('enemies of the human race'). Until recently, the latter term has been applied to pirates, hijackers, and similar outlaws whose crimes were typically committed outside the territory of any state. The notion that heads of state and senior public officials should have the same standing as outlaws before the bar of justice is quite new." On , June 2003. Cites in footnote 6: Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, Merits, para. 61. In 2003 , June 2003. This is different from the International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda (that were specificaly mentioned in the ''ICJ Arrest Warrant Case''), that were set up under the UN Security Council , acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter that grant powers to the Security Council that are binding on all UN member states. In this respect the SCSL is more like the International Criminal Court that althought it denies immunity to Heads of State, States that are parties to the Rome Statute would be in violation of the ICJ ruling if they handed over a visiting head of state of a none party State to the ICC. In examining the status of the SCSL Cesare Romano and André Nollkaemper argue that:
|
|
|