Categories
Archive
Links
Court Jurist Nic
For some jurists and political analysts, the use of the principle of universal jurisdiction in modern international criminal law goes against concepts of state sovereignty and traditional international law. Jurists and political analysts on the other side of the discussion contend that the principle of universal jurisdiction evolved out of a need for all states to regulate certain behavior and address crimes that affected all states. For them, this evolution began with piracy and progressed until it entered the arena of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.
Universal Jurisdiction
Antonio Cassese, a leading jurist, asserted that the concept of universal jurisdiction is legally admissible. He further went on to explain that the crimes over which such jurisdiction may be exercised are of such gravity and magnitude that they warrant universal prosecution and repression. Although international law concerns itself with criminal jurisdiction, outside the sphere of international tribunals, it does not prescribe rules requiring the exercise of jurisdiction; rather it concerns itself mainly with the propriety of the exercises of state jurisdiction.
On this point, the 1934 analysis of “In Piracy Jure Gentium” states that: “With regard to crimes as defined by international law, that law has no means of trying or punishing them. The recognition of them as constituting crimes, and the trial and punishment of the criminals, are left to the municipal law of each country”. Piracy is then thought to be the basis of universal jurisdiction for what are termed “Jus Cogens” crimes. "Jus Cogens" is a Latin term that means a “compelling law”; and this fundamental law must be followed by all countries. The 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties affirmed “Jus Cogens” as an accepted doctrine in international law.