Piracy And The Origins Of Universal Jurisdiction

In Piracy and the Origins of Universal Jurisdiction, Mark Chadwick relates a colourful account of how and why piracy on the high seas came to be considered an international crime subject to the principle of universal jurisdiction, prosecutable by any State in any circumstances.

There is a broad consensus among scholars that the idea of human rights was a product of the Enlightenment but that a self-conscious and broad-based human rights movement focused on international law only began after World War II. In this book, the nineteenth century's absence is conspicuous - few have considered that era seriously, much less written books on it. But as this author shows, the foundation of the movement that we know today was a product of one of the nineteenth century's central moral causes: the movement to ban the international slave trade.

CONTENTS: Foreword Preface The Origins The Evolution of the Concept of Piracy in England The United States of America and the Law of Piracy British Practice in the Nineteenth Century "Piracy" in the Twentieth Century Appendices Abbreviations Bibliography Index Index of Cases Professor Alfred P. Rubin of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University, the author of this volume, has contributed a work of exceptional scholarship that will long be regarded as an authoritative reference material not only with respect to the law of piracy, but to the whole of international law. Professor Rubin's work is considered to be informative, comprehensive, and provocative. Ronald J. Kurth Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy President, Naval War College

Galand critically spells out a comprehensive conception of the nature and effects of Security Council referrals that responds to the various limits to the International Criminal Court's exercise of jurisdiction over situations that concern nationals and territories of non-party States.

This groundbreaking study seeks to clarify the concept of universal crimes in international law. It provides a new framework for understanding important features of this complex field of law concerned with the most serious crimes. Central issues include the following: What are the relevant crimes that may give rise to direct criminal liability under international law? Are they currently limited to certain core international crimes? Why should certain crimes be included whereas other serious offences should not? Should specific legal bases be considered more compelling than others for selection of crimes? Terje Einarsen (1960) is a judge at the Gulating High Court. He holds a Ph.D. (Doctor Juris) from the University of Bergen and a masters degree (LL.M.) from Harvard Law School.

Document from the year 2018 in the subject Law - Miscellaneous, , language: English, abstract: The concept of universal jurisdiction evolved out of protecting international commerce, but now it has become a necessity for protecting human values in modern times. Even though the concept is good, its misuse threatens peaceful international relations. The study propose to discuss the legal status of the concept of universal jurisdiction under international law and its conflict with other legal principles like State sovereignty, sovereign immunity and non-intervention. It will also highlight how jus cogens norms and obligatio erga omnes strengthen the concept of universal jurisdiction. Further, the study will discuss the related concepts, such as ‘responsibility to protect’ and ‘extradite or prosecute’. However, scope of the study will be limited to the problems of universal jurisdiction under international criminal law; and it will not address the issues of active, passive and territorial jurisdictions except to the extent necessary.

'State sovereignty' is often referred to as an obstacle to criminal justice for core international crimes by members of the international criminal justice movement. The exercise of State sovereignty is seen as a shield against effective implementation of such crimes. But it is sovereign States that create and become parties to international criminal law treaties and jurisdictions. They are the principal enforcers of criminal responsibility for international crimes, as reaffirmed by the complementarity principle on which the International Criminal Court (ICC) is based. Criminal justice for atrocities depends entirely on the ability of States to act. This volume revisits the relationship between State sovereignty and international criminal law along three main lines of inquiry. First, it considers the immunity of State officials from the exercise of foreign or international criminal jurisdiction. Secondly, with the closing down of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals, attention shifts to the exercise of national jurisdiction over core international crimes, making the scope of universal jurisdiction more relevant to perceptions of State sovereignty. Thirdly, could the amendments to the ICC Statute on the crime of aggression exacerbate tensions between the interests of State sovereignty and accountability? The book contains contributions by prominent international lawyers including Professor Christian Tomuschat, Judge Erkki Kourula, Judge LIU Daqun, Ambassador WANG Houli, Dr. ZHOU Lulu, Professor Claus Kre, Professor MA Chengyuan, Professor JIA Bingbing, Professor ZHU Lijiang and Mr. GUO Yang.