On The Right Of Universal Jurisdiction For International Crimes

Universal jurisdiction has become the preferred technique by those seeking to prevent impunity for international crimes, however there is still no consensus on the definition, legal basis or the rule of application about it. This essay will be divided into four parts, ie, the basis theories, legislation on the international plane, judicial practice and the conflicts with traditional heads of jurisdiction.Many scholars are arguing that universal jurisdiction has become a customary, and intending to further the theories about it. Yet it shall be noticed that such definitions as universal jurisdiction in absentia, mandatory universal jurisdiction and quasi-universal jurisdiction are the misunderstandings of universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction refers to the jurisdiction that may be exercised by a state without any traditional jurisdictional connection or link between crimes.However the application of universal jurisdiction is somewhat not so encouraging, as there is no express provision, ICJ avoided clarifying it directly and there are only a small number of cases in domestic courts based upon universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction is not so popular in practice currently.There are also problems with the application of universal jurisdiction, especially if without a standard rule. Such issues as the conflicts of universal jurisdiction with the jurisdictions of international tribunals (especially ICC) and traditional heads of jurisdiction are illustrated hereunder. And it's also argued that Ne bis idem is now not proper to be deemed as a rule of application of universal jurisdiction.