PDF

DOI 10.37749/2308-9636-2020-10(214)-5

Bazov O. V. Universal jurisdiction in the activities of international criminal courts.

The article presents an analysis of the principle of universal jurisdiction as an important legal institution of international criminal justice. Analyzed the main international legal norms and judicial practice in this area. The directions of further development of universal jurisdiction have been determined. Analyzed the Princeton Principlesof the universal jurisdiction. Investigated the work of the UN International Law Commission and the UN General Assembly on this issue. Proposals for the improvement of international and national legal acts are presented.

Universal jurisdiction or the principle of universality in the fight against international crime is an important legal institution in the activities of both national and international criminal courts. As with any international offense, the obligation to stop international crimes such as aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of international terrorism take the form of an alternative to aut dedere aut judicare or aut prosegue by Hugo Grotius, and under which any State has an obligation to search for and prosecute international criminals for these heinous acts, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators and their victims, as well as the place where the crime was committed, or to extradite international criminals to any State that requires their extradition for prosecution and punishment, or to an international criminal tribunal. Thus, a state is obliged to exercise universal criminal jurisdiction over international crimes and international criminals, or to extradite them to another state or to an international criminal court under conditions determined by international law and national law.

Key words: universal jurisdiction, International criminal court, international crime, state sovereignty.

 

References

  1. Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction (adopted January 27, 2001), Princeton University, Program in Law and Public Affairs) and Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes Under International Law (Stephen Macedo, ed.), 2004.
  2. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium). // International Court of Justice. URL: http://www.icjcij.org/docket/index.php?sum=591&p1=3&p2=3&case=121&p3=5. Дата звернення: 11.12.2016.
  3. 3. O’Keefe R. Universal Jurisdiction: Clarifying the Basic Concept // Journal of International Criminal Justice. 2004. № 2. Pр. 735—760. URL: http://documents.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/O’Keefe%20-%20Universal%20 Jurisdiction % 20- %202004.pdf. Дата звернення:03.2016.
  4. UN Secretary-General Report. «Rule of Law and Transitional Justice», para. 48 // Сайт ООН. Журнал європейського і порівняльного права. Вип. 2, 2017. URL: https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/blog/document/the-rule-of-law-and-transitionaljustice-in-conflict-and-post-conflict-societies-report-of-the-secretary-general/.
  5. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić. IT-94-I-AR72. Merits (Appeals Chamber). 2 October 1995. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić. IT-94-I-AR72. Merits (Appeals Chamber). 2 October 1995.