The Concept Of Universal Crimes In International Law

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.

With the sensational arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998, the rise to prominence of universal jurisdiction over crimes against international law seemed to be assured. The arrest of Pinochet and the ensuing proceedings before the UK courts brought universal jurisdiction into the foreground of the "fight against impunity" and the principle was read as an important complementary mechanism for international justice –one that could offer justice to victims denied an avenue by the limited jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals. Yet by the time of the International Court of Justice’s Arrest Warrant judgment four years later, the picture looked much bleaker and the principle was being read as a potential tool for politically motivated trials. This book explores the debate over universal jurisdiction in international criminal law, aiming to unpack a practice in which international lawyers continue to disagree over the concept of universal jurisdiction. Using Martti Koskenniemi’s work as a foil, this book exposes the argumentative techniques in operation in national and international adjudication since the 1990s. Drawing on overarching patterns within the debate, Aisling O’Sullivan argues that it is bounded by a tension between contrasting political preferences or positions, labelled as moralist ("ending impunity") and formalist ("avoiding abuse") and she reads the debate as a movement of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions that struggle for hegemonic control. However, she draws out how these positions (moralist/formalist) merge into one another and this produces a tendency towards a "middle" position that continues to prefer a particular preference (moralist or formalist). Aisling O’Sullivan then traces the transformation towards this tendency that reflects an internal split among international lawyers between building a utopia ("court of humanity") and recognizing its impossibility of being realized.

This study is the second in the four-part series entitled “Rethinking the Essentials of International Criminal Law and Transitional Justice”. While the first volume, The Concept of Universal Crimes in International Law, explored the parameters and theories related to crimes under international law, this book examines the notion of punishable participation in such crimes. It presents a general theory of personal criminal liability and provides a comprehensive overview of all forms of criminal participation in international law. The authors examine numerous primary materials in international and transnational criminal law, both historical and current, relating to both international and domestic jurisprudence. They also review academic literature that attempts to explain and bring consistency to the jurisprudence, as well as other sources such as reports of the International Law Commission. This rich empirical tapestry is then used to test and further develop an overarching conceptual theory and matrix that provides a better understanding of the boundaries of personal criminal liability lex lata and lex ferenda and of the relationship between the various forms of punishable participation in universal crimes. Like the first volume, this book makes a valuable contribution to a more coherent and practical understanding of international criminal law.

This volume considers how, based on the examination of cases pertaining to transitional justice settings that resort to local interpretations of crimes against humanity jurisprudence, fragmentation of international law and circumscribed applications of universal jurisdiction are necessary aspects of the grand enterprise to overcome the impasse of the tainted legacy of international criminal law in the Global South. If we are to proceed with adjudication of the most egregious and heinous crimes involving state criminality without facing the charge of neo-colonialist plotting, then we must reckon with localised and domesticated interpretations of international criminal law, rather than pursuing strict forms of legislative dictation of international criminal law.

This ground-breaking study by Professor Einarsen 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? The book is the first in a series entitled 'Rethinking the Essentials of International Criminal Law and Transitional Justice' (which also saw 'A Theory of Punishable Participation in Universal Crimes' published in 2018). The book is addressed to all with an interest in international criminal law and related disciplines like human rights, humanitarian law, and transitional justice. It makes an important contribution to a more coherent and practical understanding of international criminal law. The 2023 Persian edition is translated by Dr. Fereydoon Jafari.

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.

Universal jurisdiction is becoming a potent instrument of international law, but it is poorly understood by legal experts and remains a mystery to most public officials and citizens.

This pioneering book explores the intersections of law and culture at the International Criminal Court (ICC), offering insights into how notions of culture affect the Court’s legal foundations, functioning and legitimacy, both in theory and in practice.