A Research On The Development Of Jurisdiction Of International Crimes And The Immunity From Jurisdiction

After theâ…¡World War,accompanying the strong wish in global society to punish the international crimes,the system of individual responsibility for international crimes has got great development.The entanglement of traditional jurisdiction principles,universal jurisdiction principle and immunity from jurisdiction has engendered lots of new international disputes.This paper will try to make a comprehensive analysis by combining the most current development in theories of international law,national practices and cases judged by International Justice Court.In Chapter One,the advantages and probable disadvantages of traditional jurisdiction principles in punishing international will be analyzed.It is argued in this paper that,from all-round aspects especially the effectiveness of punishing offenders of international crimes and the relevance degree of international interest,traditional jurisdiction principles should play an important role in punishing international crimes and should be developed along the direction of performing as a prime role.In Chapter Two,a discussion will be displayed on universal jurisdiction principle which has caused intense debate recently.On the one hand,universal jurisdiction is named as the most effective arm in punishing offenders of international crimes and removing obstacles originated from offenders' identity.On the other hand,however, the introduction of universal jurisdiction has also brought challenges to traditional jurisdiction based on territoriality principle and nationality principle,which accordingly has proposed new topics in the field of international relations and international legal order.First,it is asserted that the scope of crimes which could excise universal jurisdiction should be limited.It is asserted in this paper that the offender's appearance in the forum state's territory should be the prerequisite of implementing universal jurisdiction.Moreover,the universal jurisdiction can only be implemented when countries exercising traditional jurisdiction will not exercise the traditional jurisdiction or other countries have reasonable reason to suspect the countries which having the traditional jurisdiction will exercise the jurisdiction unfairly.When there are many countries claiming to implement universal jurisdiction, it is believed in this paper that the conclusion should be made according to specific conditions,and at the prerequisite of ensuring a fair and impartial judgment,the state which takes the offender in custody should have the prior right to exercise the universal jurisdiction.Chapter three describes the impacts of jurisdiction expansion on immunity.It is suggested in this paper that serious international crime is a kind of crime featured in the jus cogens which is located on a level higher than the immunity ratione materiae in the customary international law.From another aspect,international crime should be treated as an exception of the immunity ratione materiae,the elimination of which will match the global values on protection of human rights and punishment of crime. Immunity ratione personae,considering the states representatives should freely exercise the function,is argued in this paper to be feasible in national court,but not in international courts or tribunals.At the same time,it is emphasized as well in this paper that the immunity does not equal the impunity.While the immunity relates to procedural law,the impunity is linked to substantial law.Therefore,allowing an officer invokes the immunity rationae personae does not mean that he/she can escape from being punished because there are still other regulations on this in international law.