NCJ Number
167306
Date Published
1997
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This paper considers the issue of court jurisdiction when enforcing international law, i.e., which courts should try which criminals and from what countries.
Abstract
The concept of universal jurisdiction is traced to pirating, which has always been considered a crime against all humankind, such that every country could and can try and convict pirates, no matter where their acts were committed. Over time, other and far more serious "offenses against the peace and security of mankind" have been recognized and defined. Most of these took shape during and in the aftermath of World War II in the context of Hitler's atrocities. One of the major difficulties in trying criminals who have violated international laws is apprehending them so they can be brought to court. They may be protected by military forces or secure the protection of the laws of a particular country. Still, even though violators of international law may not be tried, their indictment and order for arrest greatly restricts their lives. Currently, international courts are established by the United Nations for particular offenders whose crimes were committed in particular contexts, such as the war in the former Yugoslavia and the civil war in Rwanda. Efforts to establish a permanent international criminal court have been impeded largely by the objections of the United States. U.S. policymakers fear that any such court would be an obstacle to achieving results through diplomatic channels; hence, it believes that the U.N Security Council should have sole authority to determine whether any case could come before the court. Subjecting an international criminal court to the political supervision of a political body, however, would violate the Genocide Convention and the United Nations' own Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. This is the only remaining major obstacle to the establishment of the permanent international criminal court. 10 notes