University of Leicester

Universal Jurisdiction Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Consensus or a Controversy?

Ovo Imoedemhe

Graduate Conference 22nd March 2012

Outline

IntroductionThe Traditional Links of JurisdictionUniversal Jurisdiction (UJ)Limits/Restrictions on the use of UJUniversal Jurisdiction under the Rome StatuteJustification for the use of UJThe Case against the use of UJ Conclusions; UJ: A Consensus or A Controversy?

Introduction

General overview

Territoriality Principle Nationality Principle (Active or Passive) Protective Principle

Universal Jurisdiction (1)

Universal jurisdiction requires a state to exercise jurisdiction over specific crimes without a connection or a nexus between the offence, the offender, or the victim and the state exercising jurisdiction.

Limits on the Use of UJ

The ‘Presence’ requirement

The Subsidiarity Principle.

Jurisdiction of the ICC

Jurisdiction over the territory of a state party

Jurisdiction over nationals of a state party

Jurisdiction over the territory of a state non-party who makes a declaration to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC

Jurisdiction where the Security Council makes a referral (- Articles, 12, 13 & 14 Rome Statute of the ICC)

Justification for UJ (1)

To Deny Safe Havens to perpetrators of International Crimes

To Close impunity gaps

Justification for UJ 2The rationale underlying universal

jurisdiction is that crimes of international concern are crimes against the international community as a whole because they infringe on universal values.

Hostis humanis juris-enemy of humanity

Justification for UJ (3)

‘In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realization. We will do our part to see it through till the end. We ask you . . . to do yours in our struggle to ensure that no ruler, no state, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity…’ (Kofi Anan)

The Case Against UJ

UJ does not possess enough legal persuasiveness in comparison to other jurisdictional principles

Poses a threat to SovereigntyBreaches the principle of immunity.Instigates sovereign inequality.

Conclusion

Is UJ a consensus or a controversy?

On the part of states, there seems to be a consensus on the use of UJ and yet it is a controversy in practical terms.

On the part of the ICC, no universal jurisdiction in view of the Complementarity and Cooperation regimes of the Rome Statute. (Arts 1 & 17)

Thank you.