Talk:Universal jurisdiction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We need to separated fact from advocacy[edit]

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)
I concur. Edits to express the other point of view, are usually reverted to preserve 'neutrality'. The definition of 'neutrality' is up in the air.112.110.127.220 (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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[edit]

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].

"The Genocide Convention 1948 makes the crime of genocide a jus cogens norm". Arguably, that's impossible. A treaty cannot create a peremptory norm -- only custom can. (Treaties only bind their parties; only customary law binds everybody, but for a norm to be peremptory it must bind everybody) --SJK 14:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eichmann?[edit]

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)

I would not agree, the issues are separate. Is it an "extraterretorial claim of jurisdiction under Israeli national law"? Yes, of course it was. But that's irrelevant to the question of what it was under international law. The question is -- was Israel's trial of Eichmann legal under international law? Now, there are quite a few ways in international law which can render a state's trial of a person legal, but the main ones othern than universal jurisdiction are based on territory (did the crime occur on Israel's territory? No), nationality of accused (was Eichmann an Israeli citizen? No), nationality of victims (were the Eichmann's victims Israeli citizens or residents at the time of his crimes? No -- the State of Israel did not exist then, and most of his victims had never stepped foot anywhere near it). So (unless there is some other applicable ground of jurisdiction I have not mentioned above), there are only two possibilities: either universal jurisdiction exists and Israel used it; or else universal jurisdiction does not exist, and in trying Eichmann Israel violated international law. Of course, this puts Israel a bit between a rock and a hard place: they need to acknowledge universal jurisdiction to justify their trial of Eichmann as legal, yet at the same time they are very worried that universal jurisdiction might be used against their own officials or military, especially in countries (e.g. much of Europe) where many of Israel's actions are very unpopular. --SJK 14:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jus cogens versus universal jurisdiction[edit]

How is jus cogens related to universal jurisdiction?

It is my understanding that when a peremptory norm (jus cogens)has been considered to be violated by the international community that this grants (under international law) the prosecuting state(s) universal jurisdiction for that crime. Mot all proscecutions claimed to fall under universal jurisdiction are violations of any currently adapted peremptory norm though. --Cab88 06:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More that universal jurisdiction, being such an invasion on the sovereignty of states, must rely upon a serious breach of international law, which a violation of a jus cogens norm is considered to be. That is to say, any but a fringe theory would only apply universal jurisdiction to violations of peremptory norms, but that doesn't automatically mean that all publicists/scholars would agree that universal jurisdiction would apply to every violation of a peremptory norm. IMHO (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universal DMCA?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Much as I think that the DMCA & Guantanamo both stink, I'd have to disagree. Neither of these are exercises of universal jurisdiction.

The case against Dmitri Kasparov was based on territorial jurisdiction. Kasparov had written a program that was available in the US. Because it was available in the US, the US claimed that meant the crime was committed in the US. To give an example: I am a drug dealer in country X. I ship drugs to the territory of country Y for sale. Even though I never stepped foot in Y, I have still committed a crime there, because I am the proximate cause from afar of an act which occurs on Y's territory (much as if I had murdered someone by firing a gun across the border). Whereas, if I sell my drugs to another dealer, and he ships them to country Y, but I have no idea where he is shipping the drugs to, then I arguably have not been the proximate cause of any act which occurs in Y, and thus have not committed any crime against its laws. Yeah, its all very complicated and murky. Which one was it in Dmitri Kasparov's case? I don't know. But its certainly not an example of universal jurisdiction.

As to Guantanamo -- the captors of POWs have legal jurisdiction over them, to prosecute war crimes committed before their capture, or ordinary crimes committed during their capture. This is not considered to be an example of universal jurisdiction -- its much less controversial & much more settled. Of course, the US claims they are not POWs. But, they are talking about whether or not they are POWs in the sense of the Geneva convention -- and whether the US is right or wrong (personally I think wrong), they definitely are POWs in the sense of the international law of basises of jurisdiction. --SJK 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of a specific term in a dictionary[edit]

I deleted the citation tag in reference to an absence of the subject term for this article in a law dictionary. The statement in the article is a negative statement. You generally don't need to prove or provide a citation for this kind of negative statement. There might be no authority or source outside Wikipedia that says that this term is NOT found in any legal dictionary -- just as there probably is no source outside Wikipedia that says that the term "blueberry pancakes" is not found in a legal dictionary anywhere.

In most cases, there is no need to cite to an authority that says that something does NOT exist, or is NOT found somewhere.

By contrast, if you were to say in the article that the term IS found in a legal dictionary, then you WOULD have the burden of citing to the source.

PS: Just for fun, I'll try to remember to check Black's Law Dictionary for this term later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Famspear (talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, thanks! Famspear 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just as a side comment, I am expressing no opinion as to whether or not "universal jurisdiction" is a "new concept" as discussed in the article. Yours, Famspear 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I do not see the term "universal jurisdiction" in the Fifth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary (1979). However, there are more recent editions. Yours, Famspear 04:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumsfeld prosecution?[edit]

I have changed the text in the article to add a citation tag on the assertion that the German prosecutor is going after Donald Rumsfeld. The ABC news article which is listed as the source for this says (in relevant part):

Civil rights groups have filed a suit with German prosecutors, seeking war crimes charges against outgoing US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for the alleged abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.
[ . . . ]
The New York-based CCR is one of several groups which had filed the roughly 380-page complaint and application for a criminal investigation to be launched with the Federal Prosecutor's Office in Karlsruhe.
The prosecutor's officer confirmed receipt of the suit.

I see nothing in here that says that the German prosecutor has actually agreed to prosecute -- just that the civil rights group has asked him to do so, and that he/she confirms receipt of the suit.

I don't know how it works in Germany, but in the USA the mere fact that someone asks a prosecutor to prosecute someone does not mean that he or she will do so. Prosecutors refuse to prosecute lots of people even though the police have arrested the subjects and have asked for a prosecution.

Does anyone have any back up or other information? Yours, Famspear 22:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-script: The headline for the article reads: "Rumsfeld faces war crimes suit in Germany." This is a far cry from saying he is actually being prosecuted. Yours, Famspear 22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section that mentioned Rumsfeld as it seemed to me only have an future as an {{examplefarm}} --Philip Baird Shearer 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, the Guantanamo guards: they should VERY carefully think about if they ever should visit Europe in their life. There are European Arrest Warrants for each of those criminals. A high German official: "George Bush will never been able to visit Europe again, when he is not President anymore and therefor not protected by immunity. George? We will NOT waterboard you. --77.186.156.49 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources indicating there are arrest warrants would be highly relevant. IMHO (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Donald Rumsfeld's article, the prosecutors did not agree to open a procedure in France and Germany. The status of the Swedish and Argentinian procedures is not specified. --Iv (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable cases[edit]

As I said above I removd this section because it seemed to me only have an future as an {{examplefarm}}. What is worse much of it is misleading. The unsourced first paragraph is wrong.

The second paragraph does not mention the ICJ Arrest Warrant Case, which almost certainly makes these suit a none starter. Also the information is out of date see German prosecutor rejects war crimes complaint against Rumsfeld April 27, 2007 "... was rejected on the basis that the connection with Germany was tenuous. Echoing the same reasons cited in 2005, Federal Prosecutor Monika Harms said US courts were a more appropriate forum for investigating the matter." --Philip Baird Shearer 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how this negates the fact that the case was filed under universal jurisdiction? Whether or not it is accepted or there is a guilty verdict it still was brought to Germany invoking universal jurisdiction making it an acceptable example. Please explain why it can't be used.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the section Universal jurisdiction#A new concept? which details why this case was a non starter. Please explain what about universal jurisdiction is illuminated in the section you wish to reinstate so as not to make it an {{examplefarm}} --Philip Baird Shearer 15:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Crimes[edit]

This article focuses a lot on torture, genocide, and war crimes but recently a whole host of countries have started implementing 'Universal Jurisdiction' to combat normal crimes that have an international aspect. Chief among these are the child sex tourism industry, international drug trafficking, and various environmental crimes. To date, most of these countries have limited themselves to prosecuting their own citizens who are engaged in near universally unaccepted practices (like child sex tourism) while abroad. But a growing number of people are starting to voice the 'slippery slope' argument about this practice.

I recently read that America has a law against harming a certain type of penguin in Antarctica, that only applies to Americans. This is a good example (even if one agrees with the principle of the law) of a country extending it's jurisdiction into territory it does not truly control. If left unchecked, it may come to the point where citizens of a country can not do things abroad, that are absolutely legal in the country they do them. Examples might be, violating fishing quotas, creating pollution, or using narcotics (like in Amsterdam).

Also, there are two quotes listed here by Henry Kissinger about this 'new' practice, without any mention that he is listed as a war criminal in several countries, and is subject to arrest if he ever goes to these countries, or ones with extradition treaties to these. It's somewhat disingenuous to list his quotes against this practice without pointing out his personal stake in the debate. It might be better to have more neutral sources of quotes (both in favor, and against) than Kissinger.

Tiki God 06:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I edited in the link to Henry Kissenger's article. If the Reader wants to know about him, the link should be there, but this article is not about him. If you have better quotes, please edit them in. Raggz 15:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There is disagreement over whether universal jurisdiction is an old or new concept." Who says this? Presently this is original research. The idea that every nation may enforce their domestic law within any nation - anywhere in the world is new? Did Nazi Germany advance this, I seem to recall this, but am not certain. Raggz 15:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PAX AMERICANA[edit]

The most interesting implication of universal jurisdiction is the reciprocal application of it, particularly if the United States decides that U.S. law is to be enforced with universal jurisdiction. No doubt this is presently being studied by the US, how the U.S. will enforce U.S. law in a world where every nation claims universal jurisdiction.

Does anyone have any good citations that suggest that the U.S. may not declare universal jurisdiction – or that it may not use force to enforce U.S. law universally? Isn't this how the concept of universal jurisdiction will eventually be applied, that relative enforcement capability will decide when laws conflict?

Is there any valid legal principle that restricts the enforcement of U.S. drug laws within Europe (if universal jurisdiction is accepted to be valid)?

This is the place to discuss if a Pax Americana is an appropriate section for the article, if supported by citations. Of course this here is now OR, of course it will not be put into the article without reliable citations.Raggz 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't that all nations enforce all laws, rather that any of them can enforce certain laws that apply universally, thus there is no conflict of laws, just a question of which nation enforces.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.132.194 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 24 October 2007
Raggz you might find this interesting: it is an article by David Leppard with the headline US says it has right to kidnap British citizens published on December 2, 2007 in the Sunday Times (Extraordinary rendition by the United States ). But it does not mean that Pax America is universal jurisdiction more Extraterritorial jurisdiction --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the US being a sovereign nation may do almost anything it wishes legally, unless US law or the UNSC says otherwise. It may declare universal jurisdiction at any point, and eventually enforce any laws that it may wish to enforce. Bali of course may do the same, only the capacity for enforcement seperates these two nations in regard to universal jurisdiction. Extraordinary rendition is really about universal jurisdiction, and apparently is quite legal for the US to undertake. I'm surprised that so many don't see where the yellow brick road leads to. Raggz (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not quite that simple sovereign states are bound by treaties that the agree to. For example it did not take a genius to work out that when the US Supreme Court looked at the question of detainees captured on a battle field that GCIII Art. 5 would apply because the Supreme Court had not visited this area since before the US ratified GCIII and the Supremacy clause would cover it. In international relations "My word is my bond" is very important. A state can always give due warning that it will no longer be bound by a treaty, but it can not walk away from certain responsibilities (e.g. sovereign debt. Other states will demand payment indefinitely and usually make the raising of new finance conditional on the old debt -- as happened to the Soviet Union with the old Tsarist debts). In the case of universal jurisdiction certain treaties like the Genocide convention lean towards universal jurisdiction (Articles 4,5,6,7 and 8)--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate[edit]

Removed text

War crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture may be subjected to universal jurisdiction. However, it remains a controversial matter.[citation needed]
The controversy has two aspects: a legal aspect (Is the exercise of universal jurisdiction for these crimes permitted, at the present stage of its development, by customary international law?), and a political aspect (Is the application of universal jurisdiction to these crimes a good idea? Will it actually be effective at preventing them? Is it an unwarranted interference in the sovereignty of other states? Is it open to abuse for political purposes? Will its widespread use lead to instability in international relations?).[citation needed]
A separate but related issue is whether heads of state, ministers of government and diplomatic representatives of a state possess immunity in relation to these crimes. It is generally recognized by governments that it would be very difficult to accommodate a law allowing judgment of actual heads of state.[citation needed]

It was correct that the text was removed because it carried no citations. But we need a section that explains these points so I hope putting it here will prompt someone to write something similar with with citations. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Addition to Article[edit]

I believe an explanation regarding pure (absolute) versus conditional universal jurisdiction is warranted in this article. The confusion between whether universal jurisdiction is recognized to a degree of providing for in abstentia hearings is an important aspect of the doctrine. Comments? 67.160.161.176 (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't understand what you have written please explain further --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

With regard to removing customary international law from the see also section (and this article's link from that article's see also section), I did that because universal jurisdiction is premised upon something more than custom, it is usually reserved for jus cogens/peremptory norms. That is already linked in the introduction of this page. Certainly custom alone is not a basis for universal jurisdiction and so really doesn't belong in the see also section. IMHO (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do the three colors mean on the map...[edit]

with the caption "Member states of the International Criminal Court"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.183.123 (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added from img desc page: brown means signed but not yet ratified.--Patrick (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

94.195.20.56 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)USA94.195.20.56 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Is the article primarally about the USA or who? The entire style of the article is ambigous. If it is, don't assume everyone is in the US, rather mention the fact that the US is the government that most keenly uses Universal jurisdiction and thus the article is mainly about its universal jurisdiction.[reply]

Malaysia-in absentia[edit]

There is a difference of opinion over whether the words "in absentia" need to be repeated. I say yes, for these reasons: there were two sets of convictions, not one; and on separate and completely different grounds, and only one defendant (Bush) was the same in the two different proceedings. The first 'in absentia" applies only to Bush and Blair. We need the second to cover different defendants: Cheney, Rumsfeld et alia. More --perhaps much more--importantly, we need to make it clear that this kind of tribunal exercising purported universal jurisdiction is reaching across oceans to convict people who never appear before it. Is that REALLY jurisdiction? Even conceding one country might have jurisidiction over citizens of another becuase its own citizens were victims, could every country in the world try citizens of other countries who never have set foot there, for whatever they consider a crime? Could Bush be sentenced to 30 days community service in Kenya and in Bangaldesh to death--for the same offense? Having never set foot in either place? Could 130 countries try him 130 times? Could Pakistan try Michele Obama for the crime of appearing in public in Washington DC without a scarf over her head, as Islamic law requires? Could Saudi Arabia sentence Mitt Romney to death for heresy, bacuase his Mormmon church in Utah has the effrontery to baptize Moslems (and Jews, and Catholics, and Quakers, and everybody else) retroactively? The "in absentia" is an important clue to the very questionable legitimacy of this tribunal that convicted people who never appeared before it, and more broadly of the very endeavor to exercise "universal jurisdiction." For more on the question of legitimacy, a fairly even tempered article appears here.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 20:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israel[edit]

In the following paragraphs, the citations produce errors. I am not seeing any reference in the main article Adolf Eichmann, and not sure how to repair this link, nor do I feel qualified to remove it.  O = M C 4  17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eichmann's defense lawyer argued that Israel didn't have jurisdiction on account of Israel not having come into existence until 1948. The Genocide Convention also didn't come into effect until 1951, and the Genocide Convention doesn't automatically provide for universal jurisdiction. It is also argued that Israel agents obtained Eichmann illegally, violating international law when they seized and kidnapped Eichmann, and brought him to Israel to stand trial. The Argentinian government settled the dispute diplomatically with Israel.[1]

Israel argued universal jurisdiction based on the "universal character of the crimes in question" and that the crimes committed by Eichmann weren't only in violation of Israel law, but were considered "grave offenses against the law of nations itself."[1] It's also asserted that the crime of genocide is covered under international customary law. As a supplemental form of jurisdiction, a further argument is made on the basis of protective jurisdiction. Protective jurisdiction is a principle which "provides that states may exercise jurisdiction over aliens who have committed an act abroad which is deemed prejudicial to the security of the particular state concerned."[1]

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Attorney General of Israel v. Eichmann was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Merger proposal[edit]

Having a completely separate article for Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, when the entirety of its content fits nicely in the Germany section on this page, does not make much sense. 149.175.204.100 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuremberg[edit]

One editor tried to argue (without source citations) that the German Instrument of Surrender in WW II conferred jurisdiction on the Allied Military Tribunals. It did not. Viewing the Nuremberg trials as garden-variety territorial jurisdiction borrowed from Germany via surrender is wrong, both incorrect history and unsound legal theory.

The historical fact was, that the Allies agreed among themselves to prosecute "major criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical location and who will be punished by the joint decision of the Governments of the Allies" in the London Agreement of 1945. This, in addition to and above and apart from sending some back to the countries where they committed their outrages for local justice under ordinary jurisdiction (as the Russians insisted) Ibid.

The legal theory was that Nuremberg constituted an unprecedented tribunal prosecuting freshly defined crimes that had "no particular geographic location," the seminal exercise of Universal Jurisdiction as Justice Jackson's opening statement acknowledges: "[n]ever before in legal history has an effort been made to bring within the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade, covering a whole continent, and involving a score of nations, countless individuals, and innumerable events." Jackson says: "[i]f these men are the first war leaders of a defeated nation to be prosecuted in the name of the law, they are also the first to be given a chance to plead for their lives in the name of the law. Realistically, the Charter of this Tribunal, which gives them a hearing, is also the source of their only hope." The alternative, of course, would have been simply to shoot them "in the unthinking cry for vengeance which arises from the anguish of war." But Jackson says "[t]hat four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason." This of course, hearkens back to the Enlightenment legal theory behind Universal Jurisdiction: that there are sovereign precepts of right and wrong superceding the sovereignty, the territorial boundaries of any given state; that Power must defer to Reason and law. Whether or not the Nuremburg trials were in reality what Chief Justice Stone privately called a "high grade lynching party", the intent was to establish a precedent for Universal Jurisdiction covering crimes against humanity. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 17:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USA[edit]

I'm astonished that the US do not appear in the list of countries. Shouldn't the Alien Tort Statute be mentioned here? Reilinger (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation on Israel v. Eichmann[edit]

The Citation for this reference added on March 19, 2012‎ by Peck344 in this edit was improperly entered. My presumption is that this source correctly supports the facts the 3 passages with which it is associated, but I have not verified it. All I did was fill in the proper citation template for the case "Attorney General of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann", by using the reference for the trial used in the Adolf Eichmann article. This case is voluminous and the title page for the trial & appeal documents was provided. These sites could be improved by pinpointing the specific parts of the transcript which support the particular statements for which this reference is used. Different cites may be needed since they may well be on different urls. J JMesserly (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Kissinger[edit]

I worry about the amount of weight this article gives to the opinion of Henry Kissinger. The first thing to realise is that Kissinger is not a legal scholar, so I'm not sure why he's put in the article's summary as the first go-to named opponent of universal jurisdiction (though, as others have pointed out, he's more opposed to its application for heads of state than UJ per se.

The second and rather more obvious point is that Kissinger as an opponent of UJ has a massive conflict of interest, because he's been subjected to it several times over. Many people believe this guy to have committed extremely serious war crimes, and there are many places that are essentially no-go places for Kissinger these days, because he'll get arrested if he goes there. I therefore fail to see why his opinion is given so much weight - of course he's against it, just like I'm sure Charles Taylor doesn't think too highly of the ICC. I think it's perhaps better if we look to find more neutral sources for the article's summary. Kissinger's article is an important one, mind you, and there's place for it in the article, but I think it's perhaps more encyclopaedic if more prominence is given to legal scholars than former government officials with arrest warrants against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.214.121.5 (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Universal justice vs jurisdiction[edit]

An editor added universal justice to the lede. I deleted because justice is different from--maybe very different from--the narrower concept of universal jurisidiction. Jurisdiction means simply authority over a person or a place or a type of crime. Authority to decide. Justice is the decision itself. Justice is what is supposed to happen in the court after it has exercised its jurisdiction to bring a person before it. Universal jurisdiction raises profound questions about whether it serves justice. Could a Moslem state like Saudi Arabia claim universal jurisdiction over all infringement of Moslem Sharia laws? Like the Sharia law requiring women to wear veils? Would Saudi Arabia then have jursidiction over women everywhere, prosecute in absentia women in Manhattan and Los Angeles and Tokyo and London for failure to wear veils in their home towns? Is that just? If maybe not, then that illustrates a difference between claiming jurisdiction over everybody everywhere, and justice. For a more concrete example the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission claimed to exercise universal jurisdiction to prosecute George Bush and Tony Blair for Iraq war crimes. Bush and Blair were tried in absentia and found guilty. Would you consider it just for a small nation on the other side of the world to declare two heads of state who never answered the charges, guilty of crimes? Italy does think so: they tried a couple dozen CIA officers in absentia for extraordinary rendition and found them guilty. If those people ever return to Italy they will go straight to jail. But again, is trying people who are not actually in court to answer the charges just? If not, then universal jursidiction, and justice, can be very different things. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 19:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion over definition[edit]

I think this article is in places confusing extraterritorial jurisdiction with universal jurisdiction. For example, the U.S. asserting jurisdiction over persons who commit crimes against Americans is not based on universal jurisdiction; it's based on the passive personality principle. At least as far as the text in the article establishes, it looks like the U.S. doesn't assert jurisdiction over non-Americans who commit crimes against non-Americans outside the United States with no connection to a U.S. interest. Belgium certainly does. -- Beland (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Universal jurisdiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Universal jurisdiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Universal jurisdiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Western Imposition" section issues[edit]

It seems that some claims in the section were not supported by the sources. The sources contain text that is similar to what the article contained, but had a really different meaning. Here are some examples:

  • The source mentions:
Aziz (1999) argues that western powers have used human rights rhetoric to justify intervening in non-western affairs to further their own economic agendas. While this argument is a valid one, the problems with failing to intervene must also be recognized. Too often, the West conveniently professes tolerance for cultural diversity as grounds to relinquish their feelings of guilt and obligation to do something about human rights abuses when it is not in their interests to act.
  • Here on the Western Imposition section, it said:
Throughout history, Western powers have often used human rights rhetoric to justify intervening in non-western affairs to pursue their own economic and political agendas.
  • The source mentions:
This Article is the first to argue that international human rights law as a whole—whatever its much disputed benefits for human rights themselves—appears to have expanded and changed international law in ways that have made it weaker, less likely to generate compliance, and more likely to produce interstate friction and conflict.
Key doctrinal innovations in international law, such as a lack of foreign state immunity in human rights cases, universal jurisdiction, a human right to democracy, remedial secession, and the responsibility to protect, all arose out of the human rights transformation of sovereignty. These enforcement doctrines were never widely adopted, were often applied politically, became associated with Western efforts to project power instead of universal values, and undermined interstate cooperation. There may also have been a parallel institutional development: human rights enforcement may have contributed to polarization within the United Nations and made it less effective overall. Some of the doctrinal developments also undermine the territorial security provided by international law, which may threaten what political scientists term the “territorial peace.”
Like universal jurisdiction and human rights exceptions to immunity, a right to democracy caused interstate friction.
  • Here on the Western Imposition section, it said:
key innovations in international law like Universal Jurisdiction, the responsibility to protect, remedial secession, and the lack of foreign state immunity in human rights cases are associated with western efforts to project power instead of facilitating universal values, and has led to increased interstate friction.

It seems like the sources mentioned in the article actually argue that the issue is that human rights are not universally applied and that human rights abuses are ignored when it's convenient for economic or political reasons.

It's probably reasonable to rename the section (the issues the sources mention are actually important for the article, like that universal jurisdiction may have contributed to the polarization within the United Nations and made the interstate cooperation less effective, or that countries ignore the principles of universal jurisdiction and human rights abuses when it's convenient), and to separately add a section about the view that the universal jurisdiction principles and the human rights rhetoric are used by the West solely for economic and political reasons, and that countries should be able to abuse the human rights without anyone interfering with the countries' internal affairs. This view exists, and there should be some sources mentioning state officials representing those views, so it shouldn't be much of a problem.

-- Saminmihail (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios[edit]

@Saminmihail, Consbuonomo, Buidhe, and ElijahBosley: This is a ping based on a rapid scan of the editing history, since you seem to have contributed significantly in the last year or so, just to warn you that this article contains quite a few copyvios. I'm not blaming anyone listed! I've tagged four of the copyvios and I'm leaving the detailed work in tidying up (and doing history revisions, which only admins can do) to copyright clerks at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 July 30#30 July 2021.

I haven't managed to trace the edits in which the copyvios first appeared. Feel free to do the tasks of Place this notice on the talk page of the contributor of the copyrighted material: {{subst:Nothanks-web|pg=Universal jurisdiction|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090114024521/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010701faessay4996/henry-a ... that are currently listed in the copyright boxes, since I haven't done that. Boud (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first one (history) looks about a decade old and is complicated. It maybe looks like someone quoted a source and someone else deleted the quotation marks, making it plagiarism. The second one (Finland) was done by Lolitocha in 2013. The third one (Senegal) was added by an IP address in 2015. The last one (western imposition) appears to be by Lamizhang08 in March 2021. This is going by the blanked sections currently in the article using WhoWroteThat tool on the revision before the redactions. (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree - I used 'WikiBlame' (External tools: Find addition/removal). I notified all three, but not the person who deleted the quotation marks, who I didn't try to find, since I don't expect web-based general-user tools to be effective to search for quotation-mark removal. A download of the history in a plain-text format and a bit of clever grepping with appropriate regular expressions and a few pipes would be needed for that. Boud (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse copyvio[edit]

Just so that nobody incorrectly labels this as Wikipedia copy/pasting an external source - these 2011 press clippings include a press clipping 'Asia Tribune, Monday, 22 August 2011, "Sri Lanka may invoke Universal Jurisdiction to contain LTTE rump", Jinadasa Bamunuarachchi, BA MA - Attorney-at-Law' - which strongly plagiarises from this version of our article of 17 August 2011 - without any CC BY-SA declaration or crediting the authors. And apparently it's by an attorney-at-law who sees no embarrassment in violating copyright law. Would a summary have been so difficult to make for someone listing his/her university degrees after his/her name? Boud (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_jurisdiction&oldid=1193935172"