top of page

Curbing the Manipulation of Universal Jurisdiction

Summary

This document examines the principle of universal jurisdiction, its benefits, and its potential for abuse, particularly in the context of legal actions against Israeli officials. It explores how the concept of 'lawfare' is used to manipulate legal systems for political purposes and suggests remedies to prevent such abuses.

Top Questions and Answers

Q: What is universal jurisdiction?
A: Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows a state to prosecute individuals for certain crimes, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator or victim.


Q: How has Israel used universal jurisdiction?
A: Israel was one of the first states to invoke universal jurisdiction in its trial against Adolf Eichmann, the 'architect of the Holocaust'.


Q: What is 'lawfare'?
A: 'Lawfare' is a strategy of using or misusing law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve military objectives. It is often used to target political opponents through legal means.


Q: What are the benefits of universal jurisdiction?
A: Universal jurisdiction ensures that those who commit heinous crimes, such as war crimes and genocide, cannot find safe havens and are brought to justice, regardless of where the crimes were committed.


Q: What are the disadvantages of universal jurisdiction?
A: Universal jurisdiction can be abused for political purposes, burdening states with costly trials, straining international relations, and potentially undermining the principle of sovereign equality among states. It can also hinder peace and reconciliation efforts.


Q: How can the abuse of universal jurisdiction be prevented?
A: Several countries have limited the scope of universal jurisdiction by stipulating the offenses that would give rise to it, requiring prior approval of state officials before claims can be instituted, and insisting on a nexus between their state and the alleged offense. Legal arguments such as forum non conveniens, exhaustion of local remedies, and state immunity can also be used to prevent abuse.


Q: What is the principle of 'forum non conveniens'?
A: The principle of 'forum non conveniens' suggests that a case should be heard in the most convenient or appropriate forum, typically where the alleged crimes occurred, rather than where the claim was brought.


Q: What is the international legal requirement to exhaust local remedies?
A: The international legal requirement to exhaust local remedies means that a claimant must have exhausted all local remedies available in its domestic legal system before asserting a claim in a foreign forum.


Q: What is state immunity?
A: State immunity is a legal principle that protects certain state officials, such as heads of state and foreign ministers, from legal actions in foreign courts. However, this immunity is not absolute and does not apply to all state officials or all actions.


Q: How does the International Criminal Court (ICC) affect universal jurisdiction?
A: The creation of the ICC has weakened the argument for municipal court involvement in international affairs, as the ICC is a permanent court established to address the very crimes that would be the subject of universal jurisdiction claims. However, the ICC has not extinguished the significance of universal jurisdiction claims.


Back to Library
bottom of page