Talk:Universal jurisdiction
The entire article, before I started editing it, reads like a justification for the ICC.
We need to separated fact from advocacy.
- This exercise of universal jurisdiction is well settled international law, universally accepted and free from controversy.
The above sentence is part of an argument and should be labelled as such -- and attributed to its advocate. --Ed Poor 19:49 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)
Ed: Firstly, the International Criminal Court does not have universal jursidction, and has nothing to do with universal jurisdiction. Secondly, universal jurisdiction is not "a novel legal concept" -- it has been around since the 18th or 19th centuries, when it was developed to enable states to try piracy on the high seas, even if they themselves had not been victims of piracy. In and of itself it is uncontroversial -- I am not aware of a single country in the world that disputes the legal existence of universal jurisdiction. The dispute is rather over what crimes does it apply to (everyone agrees it applies to piracy on the high seas -- but for other more politicial crimes, it is more controverisal), in what circumstances can it be applied (e.g. can a state try foreign government officials using universal jurisdiction, even ignoring their immunity? -- there was a recent case on this in the ICJ involving Belgium's use of universal jurisdiction), and whether its politically a wise tool to use. However, no serious legal opinion disputes anywhere the fact that universal jurisdiction exists -- its a settled feature of international law.
You will find all this in any decent book on international law. Try the Third Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States for a good explanation. Unless you can find a serious legal opinion disputing the existence of universal jurisdiction, then no matter how many people (for political reasons) dispute its existence, it exists. -- SJK 08 Sep 2002
From what I've gleaned online recently, it is the TERM universal jurisidiction which is new, as opposed of the PRACTICE of applying law beyond a state's boundaries. I would like the article to explain how crimes such as piracy on the high seas were treated by the major powers. I'd like to see a compare and contrast between historical enforcement of internationally accepted norms and "universal jurisdiction" as defined in the late 20th century.
If you know anything about this, please add it to the article. --Ed Poor
What is the purpose of the quotes in this article? Kissinger says this, Roth says that -- but neither really provides the reader with much information. I moved them to the end, but I would propose dropping them altogether. If we want to quote someone, maybe we should quote something more authorative (e.g. international law textbooks, journals, etc.) than simply what two political lobbyists have to say. --- SJK
- A belated answer: this article seems almost entirely an argument in favor of universal jurisdiction: that it's always been around, or that it's needed, etc. Arguments in favor of some political ideal ought to be balanced with arguments against that ideal, especially when the issue is highly controversial or if one party to the issue appears to hold all the cards: as is the case with the US in terms of universal jurisdiction, the ICC; or on environmental issues such as global warming and the kyoto protocol. --Uncle Ed 22:14 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
This is incorrect....
- Spain claimed jurisdiction over Pinochet for his role in overthrowing Allende in Chile, and for alleged violations of human rights of Chileans thereafter.
Spain claimed jurisdiction over Pinochet for his role in allegedly killing and torturing Spanish citizens living in Chile after the 1975 coup. It then invoked a treaty which it claimed obligated Britain to extradit Pinochet to Spain.
Spain didn't invoke universal jurisdiction at all.
Since these have already been covered in the article, I'm not sure that the quotes add anything.
In The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction, Henry Kissinger writes,
- "The very concept of universal jurisdiction is of recent vintage. The sixth edition of Black's Law Dictionary, published in 1990, does not contain even an entry for the term. The closest analogous concept listed is hostes humani generis ("enemies of the human race"). Until recently, the latter term has been applied to pirates, hijackers, and similar outlaws whose crimes were typically committed outside the territory of any state. The notion that heads of state and senior public officials should have the same standing as outlaws before the bar of justice is quite new." [1]
In The Case For Universal Jurisdiction , Kenneth Roth writes,
- "Strictly speaking, the ICC will use not universal jurisdiction but, rather, a delegation of states' traditional power to try crimes committed on their own territory." [2]
Suggestions for new headings
This article really needs to be cleaned up. I suggest that we add a new heading titles "bases of universal jurisdiction" or "crimes attracting universal jurisdiction" and modifying the other titles.
I mean, it makes no mention of the Geneva Conventions, which clearly provides signitories jurisdiction over war crimes. For example, Article 49 of the First Geneva Convention states:
“Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.”
Just a few more examples of other crimes attracting universal jurisdiction:
The Genocide Convention 1948 makes the crime of genocide a jus cogens norm, meaning that this crime as part of international law is binding on states even if they are not party to it.
The crime of torture as under the Torture Convention is now arguably a jus cogens norm [see the rulings of Furundzija as well as Pinochet [No 3] in the House of Lords].
Eichmann?
No mention is made here of Israel's trial of Adolph Eichmann on a claim of universal jurisdiction. Eichmann's crimes were not committed on Israeli soil, and none of his victims were Israeli citizens at the time. I don't know enough about it to add anything good, but could someone who does, please add?
This may be better thought of as an extraterretorial claim of jurisdiction under Israeli national law, rather than universal jurisdiction under international law? Ben@liddicott.com 09:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
jus cogens versus universal jurisdiction
How is jus cogens related to universal jurisdiction?
Universal DMCA?
Should some mention be made of the US's having held Dmitri Kasparov in the US while he was attending a conference for alleged violations of the DMCA that he performed while physically in Russia and not under jurisdiction of US DMCA laws?
While this is not a formal UJ law, it does seem to represent the US's apparent belief that such laws are not necessary, as they can prosecute anyone they choose at any time anyway.
Dodger 15:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This is also shown by the incarceration of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (SP?). The American Govt. claims that these ppl are guilty of being Illegal Combatants, and of breaking US Law, while not being covered by the Fifth Ammendment.Phil alias Harry 07:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC) (will expand on this latyer)