The document discusses the principle of universal jurisdiction in international law. It begins by explaining that universal jurisdiction recognizes that some crimes, like piracy, are so harmful that any state can prosecute them wherever they occur. It then provides examples of crimes under international law that any state can prosecute using universal jurisdiction, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as defined in the Rome Statute and Geneva Conventions. Finally, it summarizes the 1980 case Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, where a US court found universal jurisdiction over a torture claim against a Paraguayan official, citing customary international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The document discusses the principle of universal jurisdiction in international law. It begins by explaining that universal jurisdiction recognizes that some crimes, like piracy, are so harmful that any state can prosecute them wherever they occur. It then provides examples of crimes under international law that any state can prosecute using universal jurisdiction, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as defined in the Rome Statute and Geneva Conventions. Finally, it summarizes the 1980 case Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, where a US court found universal jurisdiction over a torture claim against a Paraguayan official, citing customary international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The document discusses the principle of universal jurisdiction in international law. It begins by explaining that universal jurisdiction recognizes that some crimes, like piracy, are so harmful that any state can prosecute them wherever they occur. It then provides examples of crimes under international law that any state can prosecute using universal jurisdiction, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as defined in the Rome Statute and Geneva Conventions. Finally, it summarizes the 1980 case Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, where a US court found universal jurisdiction over a torture claim against a Paraguayan official, citing customary international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The document discusses the principle of universal jurisdiction in international law. It begins by explaining that universal jurisdiction recognizes that some crimes, like piracy, are so harmful that any state can prosecute them wherever they occur. It then provides examples of crimes under international law that any state can prosecute using universal jurisdiction, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as defined in the Rome Statute and Geneva Conventions. Finally, it summarizes the 1980 case Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, where a US court found universal jurisdiction over a torture claim against a Paraguayan official, citing customary international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 8
Universal Jurisdiction INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW a
wide-spread or systematic attack directed against any
The Universality Principle. civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: (a) The universality principle recognizes that certain Murder; (b) Extermination; (c) Enslavement; (d) activities, universally dangerous to states and their Deportation or forcible transfer of population; (e) subjects, require authority in all community members Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical to punish such acts wherever they may occur, even liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international absent a link between the state and the parties or the law; (f) Torture; (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced acts in question. prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable Started with piracy gravity; (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, Piracy - means any illegal act of violence or cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or depredation committed for private ends on the high other grounds that are universally recognized as seas or outside the territorial control of any state impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime Statute of the International Criminal Court within the jurisdiction of the Court; (i) Enforced Article 6. Genocide For the purpose of this Statute, disappearance of persons; (j) The crime of apartheid; genocide" means any of the following acts committed (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character in with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, tentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing body or to mental or physical health. 2. For the members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or purpose of paragraph 1: (a) Attack directed against mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately any civilian population" means a course of conduct inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of to commit such attack; (b) Extermination includes the group to another group. the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, Article 7. Crimes against humanity 1. For the purpose calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a of this Statute, crime against humanity means any of population; (c) Enslavement means the exercise of the following acts when committed as part of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons ownership over a person and includes the exercise of by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in of, a State or a political organization, followed by a particular women and children; CHAPTER 9 refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or JURISDICTION OF STATES (d) Deportation or forcible to give information on the fate or whereabouts of transfer of population" means forced displacement of those persons, with the intention of removing them the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, time. 3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is without grounds permitted under international law; (e) understood that the term gender refers to the two Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe sexes, male and female, within the context of society. pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a The term gender does not indicate any meaning person in the custody or under the control of the different from the above. Article 8. War crimes 1. The accused; except that torture shall not include pain or Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, particular when committed as part of a plan or policy lawful sanctions; (f) Forced pregnancy" means the or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made 160 INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 2. pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic For the purpose of this Statute, war crimes means: composition of any population or carrying out other (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 grave violations of international law. This definition August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting persons or property protected under the provisions of national laws relating to pregnancy; (g) Persecution the relevant Geneva Convention. ... means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by Article 8 enumerates in detail the war crimes under reason of the identity of the group or collectivity; (h) the Geneva Convention. The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a The following are a number of cases illustrative of the character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, universality principle: committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that F1LARTIGA V. PENA-IRALA 630 FJD 876. (1980) [This regime; (i) Enforced disappearance of persons was a wrongful death action which was brought by two nationals of Paraguay, the father and sister of a 17- year old Paraguayan, who, it was alleged, was tortured Nations Documents on Human Rights," in the The to death in Paraguay by the defendant Pena-Irala who United Nations and Human Rights, 18th Report of the at the time was Inspector-General of the police. Commission (Commission to Study the Organization of Jurisdiction was claimed principally on the basis of the Peace [Ed., 1968]).... Accordingly, it has been observed Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. & 1350). The Court held that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights no that deliberate torture under the color of official longer fits into the dichotomy of binding treaty authority violated the universal rules of international against non-binding pronouncement, but is rather an law regardless of the nationality of the parties. In authoritative statement of the international reaching the conclusion that the prohibition of torture community. E. Schwelb, Human Rights and the has become part of customary international law, the International Community 70 (1964). Thus, a Court referred as evidence to the Universal Declaration Declaration creates an expectation of adherence, and of Human Rights and as particularly relevant, the 1975 insofar as the expectation is gradually justified by Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from State practice, a declaration, may by custom become Torture. [The relevant portions of the Courts opinion recognized as laying down rules binding upon the read as follows:] The Declaration goes on to provide States. 34 UN. ESCOR, supra. Indeed, several that [w]here it is proved that an act of torture or other commentators have concluded that the Universal cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Declaration has become, in toto, a part of binding, has been committed by or at the instigation of a public customary international law. Nayar, supra, at 816-17; official, the victim shall be afforded redress and Waldock, Human Rights in Contemporary compensation, in accordance with national law. This International Law and the Significance of the European Declaration, like the Declaration of Human Rights Convention, I.C.L.Q., Supp.Publ. No. 11 at 15 (1965). before it, was adopted without dissent by the General Turning to the act of torture, we have little difficulty Assembly. Nayar, Human Rights: The United Nations discerning its universal renunciation in the modern and United States Foreign Policy, 19 Harv. Intl LJ. 813, usage and practice of nations. Smith, supra, 18 US. (5 816 n. 18 (1978). These U.N. declarations are Wheat.) at 160-61,5 L.Ed. 57. The international significant because they specify with great precision consensus surrounding torture has found expression in the obligations of member nations under the Charter. numerous international treaties and accords.... The CHAPTER 9 JURISDICTION OF STATES 161 Since their substance of these international agreements is adoption, [m]embers can no longer contend that they reflected in modem municipal i.e., national law as do not know what human rights they promised in the well. Although torture was once a routine concomitant Charter to promote. Sohn, A Short History of United with criminal interrogations in many nations, during the modem and hopefully more enlightened era it has peace and security. The Security Council requested been universally renounced. According to one survey, the Government of Israel to make appropriate torture is prohibited, expressly or implicitly, by the reparation in accordance with the Charter of the constitutions of over fifty-five nations, including both United Nations and the rules of international law. the United States and Paraguay. Our State Department Argentina did not demand the return of Eichmann, and reports a general recognition of this principle: There in August, 1960, the Argentine and Israeli now exists an international consensus that recognizes governments resolved in a joint communique to basic human rights and obligations owed by all regard as closed the incident which arose out of the governments to their citizens. ... There is no doubt that action taken by citizens of Israel, which infringed the these rights are often violated; but virtually all fundamental rights of the State of Argentina. governments acknowledge their validity. Eichmann was then tried in Israel under Israels Nazi Collaborators Law (a law enacted after Israel became a INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW state in 1948). He was found guilty and the conviction ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ISRAEL v. EICHMANN was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of Trial Court Decision 36 Intl. L. Rep. 5 (Israel, Israel. On May 31,1962, Eichmann went to the gallows, Dist. Ct. Jerusalem 1961) the only person ever formally executed by the State of Adolf Eichmann was a high ranking SS officer who Israel. Learned defence counsel... submits: (a) that the played a central role in the planning and Israel Law, by imposing punishment for acts done implementation of the persecution of Jews in Germany, outside the boundaries of the State and before its Poland, Hungary and several other countries before establishment, against persons who were not Israel and during World War II. At the end of the war, he citizens, and by a person who acted in the course of escaped to Argentina where he lived and worked under duty on behalf of a foreign country (Act of State), an alias until May, 1960 when he was kidnapped by conflicts with international law and exceeds the Israeli agents. Argentina complained to the Security powers of the Israel Legislature; (b) that the Council about this clear violation of Argentine prosecution of the accused in Israel following his sovereignty. The Security Council, while making it clear abduction from a foreign country conflicts with that it did not condone Eichmanns crimes, declared international law and exceeds the jurisdiction of the that, acts such as that under consideration [the Court.... CHAPTER 9 JURISDICTION OF STATES 163 From kidnapping of Eichmann] which affect the sovereignty the point of view of international law, the power of the of a Member State and therefore cause international State of Israel to enact the Law in question or Israels friction, may, if repeated, endanger international right to punish is based, with respect to the offences in question, on a dual foundation: the universal retroactive legislation of the Israel legislator. ... The character of the crimes in question and their specific accused in this case is charged with the character as intended to exterminate the Jewish implementation of the plan for the final solution of the people.... 12. The abhorrent crimes defined in this Law problem of the Jews. Can anyone in his right mind are not crimes under Israel law alone. These crimes, doubt the absolute criminality of such acts? ... which struck at the whole of mankind and shocked the INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 28. ... conscience of nations, are grave offenses against the The contention of learned counsel for the defense that law of nations itself (delicta juris gentium). Therefore, it is not the accused but the State on whose behalf he so far from international law negating or limiting the had acted, who is responsible for his criminal acts is jurisdiction of countries with respect to such crimes, only true as to its second part. It is true that under international law is, in the absence of an International international law Germany bears not only moral, but Court, in need of the judicial and legislative organs of also legal, responsibility for all the crimes that were every country to give effect to its criminal interdictions committed as its own acts of State, including the and to bring the criminals to trial. The jurisdiction to crimes attributed to the accused. But that try crimes under international law is universal.... 26. ... responsibility does not detract one iota from the It is superfluous to add that the crime against the personal responsibility of the accused for his acts.... Jewish people, which constitutes the crime of genocide, is nothing but the gravest type of crime EICHMANN V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ISRAEL against humanity (and all the more so because both Supreme Court of Israel (1962) 136 IIJl. 277 under Israel law and under the Convention a special Judgment Per Curiam: intention is requisite for its commission, an intention The crimes created by the Law and of which the that is not required for the commission of a crime appellant was convicted must be deemed today to against humanity). Therefore, all that has been said in have always borne the stamps of international crimes, the Nuremberg principles about crimes against banned by international law and entailing individual humanity applies a fortiori to crime against the Jewish criminal liability. It is the particular universal character people. ... 27. ... It is indeed difficult to find a more of these crimes that vests in each State the power to convincing instance of a just retroactive law than the try and punish any who assisted in their legislation providing for the punishment of war commission. . . . [Reference the Genocide Convention criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity and the Nuremberg judgment].. ... As is well known, and against the Jewish people, and all the reasons the rules of the law of nations are not derived solely justifying the Nuremberg judgments justify eo ipse the from international treaties and crystallized international usage. In the absence of a supreme intentional machinery for the imposition of legislative authority and international codes, the punishment. But, for the time being, intentional law process of its evolution resembles that of the common surmounts these difficulties ... by authorizing the law;... its rules are established from case to case, by countries of the world to mete out punishment for the analogy with the rules embodied in treaties and in violation of its provisions. This they do by enforcing intentional custom, on the basis of the general these provisions either directly or by virtue of the principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and municipal legislation which has adopted and in the light of the vital international needs that impel integrated them.... The classic example of a an immediate solution. A principle which constitutes a customary international crime ... is that of piracy common denominator for the judicial systems of jure gentium. ... [Another] example ... is that of a war numerous countries must clearly be regarded as a crime in the conventional sense. ... the group of acts general principle of law recognized by civilized committed by members of the armed forces of the nations. ... [C]ustomary international law is never enemy which are contrary to the laws and customs of stagnant, but is rather in a process of constant war. individual criminal responsibility because they growth.... ... [As to] the features which identify crimes undermine the foundations of intentional society and that have long been recognized by customary are repugnant to the conscience of civilized nations. international law[,] ... they constitute acts which When the belligerent State punishes for such acts, it damage vital international interests ... they impair does so not only because persons who were its CHAPTER 9 JURISDICTION OF STATES the foundations nationals ... suffered bodily harm or material damage, and security of the international community; they but also, and principally, because they involve the violate universal moral values and humanitarian perpetration of an intentional crime in the avoidance principles which are at the root of the systems of of which all the nations of the world are interested.... criminal law adopted by civilized nations. The In view of the characteristic traits of international underlying principle in intentional law that governs crimes and the organic development of the law of such crimes is that the individual who has committed nations a development that advances from case to any of them and who, at the time of his act, may be case under the impact of the humane sentiments presumed to have had a thorough understanding of its common to civilized nations, and under the pressure of heinous nature must account in law for his behavior. It the needs that are vital for the survival of mankind and is true that intentional law does not establish explicit for ensuring the stability of the world order it definitely and graduated criminal sanctions; that there is not as cannot be said that when the Charter of the yet in existence either an intentional Criminal Court, or Nuremburg International Military Tribunal was signed and the categories of war crimes and crimes distinct from the contractual obligations embodied against humanity were defined in it, this merely therein had already been part of customary amounted to an act of legislation by the victorious intentional law at the time of the shocking crimes countries.... ... [The interest in preventing and which led to the Resolution and the Convention.... ... imposing punishment for acts comprised in the [T]he crimes established in the Law of 1950 ... must be category in question especially when they are seen today as acts that have always been forbidden by perpetrated on a very large scale must necessarily customary international law acts which are of a extend beyond the borders of the State to which the universal criminal character and entail individual perpetrators belong INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC criminal responsibility. ... [T]he enactment of the Law INTERNATIONAL LAW and which evinced tolerance or was not, from the point of view of international law, a encouragement of their outrages; for such acts can legislative act that conflicted with the principle nulla undermine the foundations of the international poena or the operation of which was retroactive, but community as a whole and impair its very stability.... If rather one by which the Knesset gave effect to we are to regard customary international law as a intentional law and its objectives.... ... [I]t is the developing progressive system, the criticism becomes universal character of the crimes in question which devoid of value.... [E]ver since the Nuremberg Tribunal vests in every State the power to try those who decided this question, that very decision must be seen participated in the preparation of such crimes, and to as a judicial act which establishes a precedent punish them therefor.... One of the principles whereby defining the rule of international law. In any event, it States assume, in one degree or another, the power to would be unseemly for any other court to disregard try and punish a person for an offence he has such a rule and not to follow it. ... If there was any committed is the principle of universality. Its meaning doubt as to this appraisal of the Nuremberg is, in essence, that that power is vested in every State Principles as principles that have formed part of regardless of the fact that the offence was committed customary international law since time immemorial, outside its territory by a person who did not belong to such doubt has been removed by ... the United Nations it, provided he is in its custody at the time he is Resolution on the Affirmation of the Principles of brought to trial. This principle has wide support and is International Law Recognized by the Charter and universally acknowledged with respect to the offence Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal and that affirming of piracy jure CHAPTER 9 JURISDICTION OF STATES 167 that Genocide is a crime under intentional law ... and gentium.... [One view] holds that it cannot be applied as [is seen] in the advisory opinion of 1951 ... the to any other offence, lest this entail excessive principles inherent in the [Genocide] Convention as interference with the competence of the State in which the offence was committed.
The Law of the United Nations as Applied to Intervention Within the Frame Work of Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Un Charter: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Cases to Establish the Underpinning Reality of the Danger of the Principles of Sovereign Equality and Domestic Jurisdiction Against Un Mandate for Total Humanity's Peaceful Co - Existence and Prosperity.
The Law of the United Nations as Applied to Intervention Within the Frame Work of Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Un Charter: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Cases to Establish the Underpinning Reality of the Danger of the Principles of Sovereign Equality and Domestic Jurisdiction Against Un Mandate for Total Humanity's Peaceful Co - Existence and Prosperity.