Conditions For Exercising Universal Jurisdiction

Being complementary to traditional system of criminal jurisdiction, including jurisdiction based on territoriality, nationality, or protective principle, jurisdiction based on universality must be reserved for the most serious international crimes and under the case that, although a country lacks of any nexus with a criminal or the crime he committed, it incurs obligation to prosecute him under international law if it doesn't transfer him to another country, which is connected to the relevant crime or the criminal and thus has jurisdiction over him, in light of that the current international law, without being promoted as law of the international community, is still law between countries.The author doesn't define universal jurisdiction in Chapter One, instead categorizes it into three tiers in accordance with its theoretical foundation and situations for implementation, and points out that jurisdiction by any international criminal tribunal constitutes universal jurisdiction. A review of historical development for universal jurisdiction underlies the need for uncovering each crime in Chapter Two. In addition to fixing the blank left by traditional jurisdiction system and preventing occurrence of international crimes, it is believed by the author that universal jurisdiction is also helpful on establishment of check and balance between countries.Chapter Two explains to what extent universal jurisdiction is available. The author divides international crimes into jus cogens international crimes and ordinary international crimes with regard to the tiers of universal jurisdiction. Related international criminal cases and rules especially provisions of international conventions are introduced and commented so as to sort out those international crimes for which universal jurisdiction shall or may be exercised. These descriptions set out a simple proposition as the basic conclusion of this dissertation that universal jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously.In consideration of characteristics of universal jurisdiction, conflict of jurisdictions regarding relevant international crimes is likely to occur between an international criminal tribunal and a domestic court or between different countries. Analysis of such conflict is placed in Chapter Three, reaching a conclusion that the former kind of conflict may be resolved through division of international crimes concerned while the latter be settled pursuant to Doctrine of the Most Significant Relationship and Principle of Exclusive Jurisdiction when different countries claim for jurisdiction based of universality at the same time.In comparison to that an international criminal tribunal shall reject any claim of immunity, Chapter Four discusses whether a country is entitled to exercise universal jurisdiction over a person with right of immunity from criminal jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is reached that relevant rules of current international law don't recognize the importance of principle of ne bis in idem, but that such rules provide more opportunities for double jeopardy. Principle of ne bis in idem could only be complied with to the extent if possible until that conflict of jurisdictions gets resolved. Aut dedere aut judicare is one kind of rule that embodies universal jurisdiction as universal jurisdiction is a basis for prosecution when no extradition is made. Aut judicare aut dedere makes it more likely to exercise universal jurisdiction.The last chapter is for universal jurisdiction system in the People's Republic of China. Appreciation is communicated to its cautious modus operandi at present. An international criminal tribunal is entitled to implementation of its jurisdiction without any obstructions pursuant to its charter and relevant international conventions, but it isn't international customary law for a country to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes, even though it is regarded as a jus cogens international crime. The universal jurisdiction system established in China is a model reflecting precisely the case under current international law for other countries. It's suggested that each country exercise universal jurisdiction to the extent of obligations it undertakes under international conventions.