Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/90505460/unive-jur
Timestamp: 2018-11-16 05:29:33
Document Index: 306101401

Matched Legal Cases: ['de lege ferenda', 'art. 1841', 'art. 1949', 'art. 21', 'art. 12', 'art. 75', 'art.183', 'art. 98', 'art. 49', '§ 6', '§ 403']

unive_jur | Crimes | Crime & Justice
Uploaded by Carlos Closa
David Scheffer - War Crimes and the Clinton Administration.pdf
HR Finals Pointers
Taxila Admission Form
People vs. Dela Cuesta
Raegan vs Commissioner
T H E P RINCETON PRINCI P LE S ON
Stephen Macedo, Project Chair Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and The University Center for Human Values; Founding Director, Program in Law and Public Affairs, 1999-2001, Princeton University Gary J. Bass Assistant Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University William J. Butler Former Chairman, Executive Committee of the International Commission of Jurists, 1975-1990; President, American Association for the International Commission of Jurists Richard A. Falk Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University Cees Flinterman Professor of Human Rights, Utrecht University; Director of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights and the Netherlands School of Human Rights Research Bert B. Lockwood Distinguished Service Professor of Law; Director of the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights; University of Cincinnati College of Law Stephen A. Oxman Board of Directors, American Association for the International Commission of Jurists; Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs
The Princeton Principles on
With a Foreword by Hon. Mary Robinson United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Program in Law and Public Affairs and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Princeton University International Commission of Jurists American Association for the International Commission of Jurists Netherlands Institute of Human Rights Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights
~ Stephen Macedo, Project Chair and Editor ~ Program in Law and Public Affairs Princeton University ~ Princeton, New Jersey 7
Copyright © 2001 by Program in Law and Public Affairs and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University International Commission of Jurists American Association for the International Commission of Jurists Netherlands Institute of Human Rights Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights All rights reserved. Published 2001 Printed in the United States of America Additional copies may be obtained upon request from: Program in Law and Public Affairs Wallace Hall Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey 08544 Published by the Program in Law and Public Affairs Produced by the Office of Communications Printed by the Office of University Printing and Mailing Princeton University ISBN 0-9711859-0-5
Preface by Stephen Macedo
Foreword by Hon. Mary Robinson
Cherif Bassiouni. Butler and Stephen A. absent traditional jurisdictional links to the victims or perpetrators of crimes. but also to produce principles in a timely manner. 2001. note 3. January 25-27. by a group of leading scholars who also contributed working papers on various aspects of universal jurisdiction. An initial draft of the Principles was produced by Professor M. They came. Oxman in January 2000. assembled on the basis of expertise. representing the International Commission of Jurists and the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists. to propose the idea of formulating principles to help clarify and bring order to an increasingly important area of international criminal law: prosecutions for serious crimes under international law in national courts based on universal jurisdiction. The Princeton Project has consisted mainly of various working groups. Dean Michael Rothschild of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs asked me to join the meeting in my capacity as Founding Director of Princeton’s new Program in Law and Public Affairs.Preface The Princeton Project began with a visit to Princeton by William J. The idea had great appeal as a chance to bring scholars and jurists together to reflect upon an important problem in the law. Our aim has been to study the problems raised by universal jurisdiction. The collection of papers written for this project is presently under review at Princeton University Press. and to think about how to address it. 2000. and with an eye to representing a variety of points of view. A drafting committee helped redraft the Principles. See below p.1 1 Lists of all official participants can be found below. Our hope all along has been to wed theory and practice: to study a set of difficult problems of international justice and law with the goal of formulating consensus principles. which were then forwarded along with the revised working papers to an international group of jurists who met at Princeton. 11 . This was discussed at Princeton University on November 10-11. 40.
and were re-circulated in February 2001 to Project participants and dozens of human rights organizations around the world. including three at Princeton: Professors Gary J. including the introductory matter. Stephen Macedo Project Chair May 2001 12 . Professor M. Bass. His vast expertise and tireless energy have been essential at every stage. end the many controversies that surround universal jurisdiction. 2000-2001. and also to the jurists who assembled from around the world in January: their acuity and moral seriousness were all that we could have hoped for and more. Richard A. and are not intended to.Preface The January meeting of the Princeton Project included jurists from around the world who met to hammer out consensus principles. some of whom offered us comments. and Diane Orentlicher (who was here as Fellow. We have tried to keep the process of formulating these Principles as open and transparent as possible. in the Program in Law and Public Affairs). and how its reasonable and responsible exercise by national courts can promote greater justice for victims of serious crimes under international law. My thanks to the scholars who contributed essential intellectual underpinnings to this Project. The Princeton Principles. Bill Butler’s well-known energy and depth of commitment to justice under law have powered this Project from the start. They furnished me with an unexpected but rewarding inaugural project for the Program in Law and Public Affairs. I do hope that they clarify what universal jurisdiction is. These Principles will not. Cherif Bassiouni deserves special thanks for his lead role in drafting and revising the principles over the course of many months. Thanks finally to Bill Butler and Steve Oxman for bringing this idea to Princeton University. while also taking seriously the need to assemble representative and workable groups of participants. Thanks to the many others who provided valuable assistance. Steve Oxman’s careful attention to matters large and small improved every aspect of this Project. Falk. emerged in their present form from this meeting.
Even before the Court’s establishment. and an essential instrument in the struggle to defend human rights. and of women and children specifically. Torture. is an issue of particular concern to my Office. I am encouraged by the increasing number of states that are signing and ratifying the Statute of the International Criminal Court. I welcome the initiative of the Princeton Project and trust that the wide dissemination of these Principles will play a positive role in developing and clarifying the principle of universal jurisdiction. In my daily work as High Commissioner for Human Rights I see many situations involving gross. These disturbing trends have given me cause to ref lect on the possibilities for alternative means of securing justice and accountability. and it enumerates certain acts as war crimes when committed in non-international armed conflicts. has added to the challenges we face in fighting against impunity for such abuses. Trafficking of persons. the ICC Statute has proved an invaluable tool in the struggle against impunity. Two important and complementary means currently exist for the implementation of international criminal jurisdiction: prosecution by international criminal tribunals and the domestic application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. and I hope that this permanent Court will soon be a reality. encouraged by globalization and open borders. war crimes — including abuses involving gender-based violence — and enforced disappearances are but a few of these crimes. As far as the former is concerned. human rights abuses for which the perpetrators often go unpunished. The Statute codifies crimes against humanity for the first time in a multilateral treaty. 15 .Foreword The subject of universal jurisdiction is of great relevance to all who work for human rights. and sometimes widespread. I regard the search for ways to end impunity in the case of gross violations of human rights as an essential part of the work of my Office. The recent increase in transnational criminal activity.
The UN Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances. Discussions in treaty negotiations have raised the question of allowing civil jurisdiction for conduct which consti- 16 . it is rapidly evolving as a result of significant recent developments. Italy. a vision already contained at the regional level in the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. held in conjunction with the signing conference for the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime in Palermo. The sad reality is that territorial states often fail to investigate and prosecute serious human rights abuses. One aspect which might be mentioned is the application of universal jurisdiction to other offenses in international law. for example. provides for the exercise of universal jurisdiction for alleged acts of forced disappearances. While the principle of universal jurisdiction has long existed for these crimes. Human rights abuses widely considered to be subject to universal jurisdiction include genocide. the ICC Statute highlights the fact that international prosecutions alone will never be sufficient to achieve justice and emphasizes the crucial role of national legal systems in bringing an end to impunity. The principle of universal jurisdiction is based on the notion that certain crimes are so harmful to international interests that states are entitled—and even obliged—to bring proceedings against the perpetrator. Universal jurisdiction was discussed recently at the symposium on the challenge of borderless cyber-crime to international efforts to combat transnational organized crime. war crimes and torture. crimes against humanity. however. I applaud the fact that the Princeton Principles acknowledge that this doctrine continues to develop in law and in practice. since this has been raised recently in various fora. The application of universal jurisdiction is therefore a crucial means of justice. The international community is currently also considering a draft international convention on the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance.Foreword Through its cornerstone principle of complementarity. regardless of the location of the crime or the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim.
has seriously challenged the notion of immunity from criminal liability for crimes under international law committed in an official capacity. Obstacles to the exercise of universal jurisdiction include the question of the application of sovereign immunity defenses. An additional area that I am particularly concerned about is the issue of amnesty laws. that the exercise of universal jurisdiction is an easy matter. the decision of the British House of Lords in the Pinochet case confirming that former heads of state do not enjoy immunity for the crime of torture under UK law was refreshing and. This is not to say. These developments suggest that new ground is being broken with regard to the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. as they may have important implications regarding the access to courts for victims seeking remedies for human rights violations. There are significant practical and legal challenges regarding the application of this principle. war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. crimes against humanity. who was seeking his provisional detention for alleged serious violations of international humanitarian law. in the context of the draft Hague Conference on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. along with other recent cases. These negotiations are of concern to my Office. however. The obstacles faced by universal jurisdiction were recently elaborated by the International Law Association in its very informative report on the subject. The International Court of Justice is also considering issues related to universal jurisdiction in the ongoing case concerning the arrest warrant against the former Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Congo by a Belgian investigating judge. When the United Nations faced the question of signing the Sierra Leone Peace Agreement to end atrocities in that country.Foreword tutes an international crime. the UN specified that the amnesty and pardon provisions in Article IX of the agreement would not apply to international crimes of genocide. In this regard. We must be cautious not to send the wrong message regarding amnesties for serious violations of human 17 . I stress that certain gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law should not be subject to amnesties.
I encourage the wide dissemination of the Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction. Mary Robinson United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 18 . and I believe that the Princeton Principles correctly express the position that certain crimes are too heinous to go unpunished.Foreword rights and international humanitarian law. My Office will continue to monitor developments in this rapidly evolving area. including the ongoing efforts of the Princeton Project to strengthen universal jurisdiction as a tool to end impunity. The exercise of universal jurisdiction holds the promise for greater justice for the victims of serious human rights violations around the world.
T H E P RINCETON PRINCI P LE S ON UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION 21 .
in accordance with internationally recognized standards of due pro- 23 . or against its national interests. A nation’s courts exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in its territory and proceed against those crimes committed abroad by its nationals. and thereby deter. or against its nationals. crimes against humanity. National courts can exercise universal jurisdiction to prosecute and punish. and what will be the respective roles of national courts and international tribunals? National courts administer systems of criminal law designed to provide justice for victims and due process for accused persons. impunity for the commission of serious crimes must yield to accountability. and other serious crimes under international law. But how can this be done. national courts may nevertheless exercise jurisdiction under international law over crimes of such exceptional gravity that they affect the fundamental interests of the international community as a whole. This is universal jurisdiction: it is jurisdiction based solely on the nature of the crime. When national courts exercise universal jurisdiction appropriately. To stop this cycle of violence and to promote justice. war crimes. When these and other connections are absent.THE PRINCETON PRINCIPLES ON UNIVERSAL JUSRISDICTION Introduction The Challenge During the last century millions of human beings perished as a result of genocide. Perpetrators deserving of prosecution have only rarely been held accountable. heinous acts recognized as serious crimes under international law.
disjointed. this weapon against impunity is potentially beset by incoherence. national judicial systems have often been unable or unwilling to prosecute serious crimes under international law. Fashioning clearer and sounder principles to guide the exercise of universal jurisdiction by national courts should help to punish. A signal achievement of this long historic process occurred at a United Nations Conference in July 1998 when the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted. the aim of sound principles cannot be simply to facilitate the speediest exercise of criminal jurisdiction. be available only if justice cannot be done at the national level. but the jurisprudence of universal jurisdiction is disparate. uneven justice. may be used merely to harass political 24 .Introduction to Principles cess. The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court will. the commission of these heinous crimes. including universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction holds out the promise of greater justice. confusion. Nevertheless. Enhancing the proper exercise of universal jurisdiction by national courts will help close the gap in law enforcement that has favored perpetrators of serious crimes under international law. Improper exercises of criminal jurisdiction. When this permanent court becomes effective. they act to vindicate not merely their own interests and values but the basic interests and values common to the international community. The primary burden of prosecuting the alleged perpetrators of these crimes will continue to reside with national legal systems. the international community will acquire an unprecedented opportunity to hold accountable some of those accused of serious crimes under international law. and have given greater clarity and force to international criminal law. so international criminal tribunals have been established. and. always and everywhere. and thereby to deter and prevent. So long as that is so. at times. International criminal tribunals also have a vital role to play in combating impunity as a complement to national courts. and poorly understood. In the wake of mass atrocities and of oppressive rule. however. and irrespective of circumstances. Treaties entered into in the aftermath of World War II have strengthened international institutions.
These principles should promote greater accountability for perpetrators of serious crimes under international law. as elsewhere in politics and law. The Project convened at Princeton University in January 2001 an assembly of scholars and jurists from around the world.Introduction to Principles opponents. the imprudent or untimely exercise of universal jurisdiction could disrupt the quest for peace and national reconciliation in nations struggling to recover from violent conflict or political oppression. and the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights. the International Commission of Jurists. What is needed are principles to guide. the exercise of universal jurisdiction. The Princeton Project The Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction has been formed to contribute to the ongoing development of universal jurisdiction. Moreover. 59–61. in ways consistent with a prudent concern for the abuse of power and a reasonable solicitude for the quest for peace. the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists. the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights. The Project is sponsored by Princeton University’s Program in Law and Public Affairs and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. united in their desire to promote greater legal accountability for those accused of committing serious crimes under international law. 25 . to develop consensus principles on universal jurisdiction. They are. * This assembly of scholars and jurists represented a diversity of viewpoints and a variety of legal systems. Prudence and good judgment are required here. serving in their personal capacities. as well as to give greater coherence and legitimacy to. or for aims extraneous to criminal justice. however. * A list of those who assembled in January 2001 can be found below at pp.
2001. One participant did not join in the adoption. international organizations. including universal jurisdiction. ** 26 . Each participant might have chosen different words to restate existing international law and to identify the aspirations implicit in international law. It has therefore reaffirmed throughout the Principles legal and judicial safeguards * A list of these scholars can be found below at p. to nongovernmental organizations and members of civil society active in the promotion of international criminal justice and human rights. The assembly is as mindful of the importance of universal jurisdiction as it is of the potential dangers of the abusive or vexatious exercise of criminal jurisdiction. * On January 27. those assembled at Princeton University to participate in the Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction. 63. These Principles on Universal Jurisdiction are intended to be useful to legislators seeking to ensure that national laws conform to international law. to judges called upon to interpret and apply international law and to consider whether national law conforms to their state’s international legal obligations. after considerable and thoughtful debate. government experts. to government officials of all kinds exercising their powers under both national and international law. but in the end the Principles were adopted. 49. arrived at a final text. Those involved in these efforts share the goals of advancing international criminal justice and human rights. as indicated below at p. and to citizens who wish to better understand what international law is and what the international legal order might become. researchers.Introduction to Principles The Project benefited from the indispensable efforts of leading scholars whom it had commissioned to write working papers on various aspects of universal jurisdiction and who gathered in Princeton in November 2000 to discuss these papers and an early draft of these Principles. and other members of international civil society. ** The development and adoption of these Principles is part of an ongoing process taking place in different countries and involving scholars.
For these reasons. impartiality. and advance the other values and goals described above. based solely on universal jurisdiction. and the wisdom and practicality of pursuing alleged perpetrators. the assembly acknowledges that a range of reasonable disagreement sometimes exists within societies and among societies about the culpability of alleged criminals. universal jurisdiction should be exercised with prudence and in a way that ensures the application of the highest standards of prosecutorial fairness and of judicial independence. reinforce the rule of law. Furthermore. the assembly recognizes that a scarcity of resources. These safeguards established in international due process norms to protect persons accused of crimes are especially important in the case of a person facing prosecution. 27 . the good faith of prosecutions. and that societies emerging from conflict must sometimes allocate priorities among initiatives that contribute to a just and lasting peace.Introduction to Principles to help deter potential abuses. in a state that is not that person’s state of nationality or residence. and attention may impose practical limitations on the quest for perfect justice. time. The assembly commends these Principles to states in the belief that their implementation will promote justice. and fairness. Moreover. including accountability for international crimes.
universal jurisdiction is criminal jurisdiction based solely on the nature of the crime. For purposes of these Principles. the nationality of the victim. Universal jurisdiction may be exercised by a competent and ordinary judicial body of any state in order to try a person duly accused of committing serious crimes under international law as specified in Principle 2(1).The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction The participants in the Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction propose the following principles for the purposes of advancing the continued evolution of international law and the application of international law in national legal systems: Principle 1 — Fundamentals of Universal Jurisdiction 1. without regard to where the crime was committed. the nationality of the alleged or convicted perpetrator. 2. or any other connection to the state exercising such jurisdiction. 3. A state may rely on universal jurisdiction as a basis for seeking the extradition of a person accused or convicted of committing a serious crime under in- 28 . provided the person is present before such judicial body.
Principle 2 — Serious Crimes Under International Law 1. The application of universal jurisdiction to the crimes listed in paragraph 1 is without prejudice to the application of universal jurisdiction to other crimes under international law. A state shall exercise universal jurisdiction in good faith and in accordance with its rights and obligations under international law. and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary (hereinafter referred to as “international due process norms”). the fairness of the proceedings. (2) slavery. In exercising universal jurisdiction or in relying upon universal jurisdiction as a basis for seeking extradition. 29 . provided that it has established a prima facie case of the person’s guilt and that the person sought to be extradited will be tried or the punishment carried out in accordance with international norms and standards on the protection of human rights in the context of criminal proceedings. For purposes of these Principles. 4. 5. (3) war crimes. serious crimes under international law include: (1) piracy. (6) genocide. a state and its judicial organs shall observe international due process norms including but not limited to those involving the rights of the accused and victims. 2. (4) crimes against peace. and (7) torture. (5) crimes against humanity.The Princeton Principles ternational law as specified in Principle 2(1).
A state.The Princeton Principles Principle 3 — Reliance on Universal Jurisdiction in the Absence of National Legislation With respect to serious crimes under international law as specified in Principle 2(1). A state shall comply with all international obligations that are applicable to: prosecuting or extraditing persons accused or convicted of crimes under international law in accordance with a legal process that complies with international due process norms. and undertaking such other necessary and appropriate measures as are consistent with international norms and standards. in the exercise of universal jurisdiction. for purposes of prosecution. may. seek judicial assistance to obtain evidence from another state. 30 . 2. providing other states investigating or prosecuting such crimes with all available means of administrative and judicial assistance. Principle 4 — Obligation to Support Accountability 1. national judicial organs may rely on universal jurisdiction even if their national legislation does not specifically provide for it. provided that the requesting state has a good faith basis and that the evidence sought will be used in accordance with international due process norms.
The Princeton Principles Principle 5 — Immunities With respect to serious crimes under international law as specified in Principle 2(1). Principle 6 — Statutes of Limitations Statutes of limitations or other forms of prescription shall not apply to serious crimes under international law as specified in Principle 2(1). 2. the official position of any accused person. 31 . Principle 7 — Amnesties 1. whether as head of state or government or as a responsible government official. Amnesties are generally inconsistent with the obligation of states to provide accountability for serious crimes under international law as specified in Principle in 2(1). The exercise of universal jurisdiction with respect to serious crimes under international law as specified in Principle 2(1) shall not be precluded by amnesties which are incompatible with the international legal obligations of the granting state. shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment.
the crime. (d) the nationality connection of the victim to the requesting state. (c) the nationality connection of the alleged perpetrator to the requesting state. (b) the place of commission of the crime. (g) the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings in the requesting state. (f) the likelihood. as well as the availability of evidence in the requesting state. (h) convenience to the parties and witnesses. 32 .The Princeton Principles Principle 8 — Resolution of Competing National Jurisdictions Where more than one state has or may assert jurisdiction over a person and where the state that has custody of the person has no basis for jurisdiction other than the principle of universality. good faith. or the victim. in deciding whether to prosecute or extradite. and (i) the interests of justice. and effectiveness of the prosecution in the requesting state. that state or its judicial organs shall. (e) any other connection between the requesting state and the alleged perpetrator. base their decision on an aggregate balance of the following criteria: (a) multilateral or bilateral treaty obligations.
A state shall recognize the validity of a proper exercise of universal jurisdiction by another state and shall recognize the final judgment of a competent and ordinary national judicial body or a competent international judicial body exercising such jurisdiction in accordance with international due process norms. In the exercise of universal jurisdiction. 2.The Princeton Principles Principle 9 — Non Bis In Idem/ Double Jeopardy 1. Sham prosecutions or derisory punishment resulting from a conviction or other accountability proceedings shall not be recognized as falling within the scope of this Principle. 3. Any person tried or convicted by a state exercising universal jurisdiction for serious crimes under international law as specified in Principle 2(1) shall have the right and legal standing to raise before any national or international judicial body the claim of non bis in idem in opposition to any further criminal proceedings. a state or its judicial organs shall ensure that a person who is subject to criminal proceedings shall not be exposed to multiple prosecutions or punishment for the same criminal conduct where the prior criminal proceedings or other accountability proceedings have been conducted in good faith and in accordance with international norms and standards. 33 .
when permitted by international law. A state which refuses to extradite on the basis of this Principle shall.The Princeton Principles Principle 10 — Grounds for Refusal of Extradition 1. or if it is likely that the person sought will be subjected to sham proceedings in which international due process norms will be violated and no satisfactory assurances to the contrary are provided. degrading. Principle 11 — Adoption of National Legislation A state shall. A state or its judicial organs shall refuse to entertain a request for extradition based on universal jurisdiction if the person sought is likely to face a death penalty sentence or to be subjected to torture or any other cruel. prosecute the individual accused of a serious crime under international law as specified in Principle 2(1) or extradite such person to another state where this can be done without exposing him or her to the risks referred to in paragraph 1. 34 . or inhuman punishment or treatment. where necessary. enact national legislation to enable the exercise of universal jurisdiction and the enforcement of these Principles. 2.
2. concerned with serious crimes under international law as specified in Principle 2(1). 3. These Principles shall not be construed as limiting the continued development of universal jurisdiction in international law. National judicial organs shall construe national law in a manner that is consistent with these Principles. Principle 13 — Strengthening Accountability and Universal Jurisdiction 1. the commission of crimes under international law. by lawful means recognized under international law. Nothing in these Principles shall be construed to limit the rights and obligations of a state to prevent or punish.The Princeton Principles Principle 12 — Inclusion of Universal Jurisdiction in Future Treaties In all future treaties. and in protocols to existing treaties. 35 . states shall include provisions for universal jurisdiction.
Consistent with international law and the Charter of the United Nations states should settle their disputes arising out of the exercise of universal jurisdiction by all available means of peaceful settlement of disputes and in particular by submitting the dispute to the International Court of Justice. a state seeking to exercise universal jurisdiction shall not detain the accused person nor seek to have that person detained by another state unless there is a reasonable risk of f light and no other reasonable means can be found to ensure that person’s eventual appearance before the judicial organs of the state seeking to exercise its jurisdiction. 36 .The Princeton Principles Principle 14 — Settlement of Disputes 1. 2. Pending the determination of the issue in dispute.
or otherwise to assist in promoting international criminal accountability. DePaul University College of Law. This Commentary was prepared under the direction of Professor M. judicial opinions.Commentary on the Princeton Principles 1 Why principles? Why now? The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction (Principles) are a progressive restatement of international law on the subject of universal jurisdiction. in November 2000. Stephen A. Lists of attendees follow this Commentary.. June 2001). and the 1 Prepared by Steven W. How firmly is universal jurisdiction established in international law? It is of course recognized in treaties.D. but they should not be understood to limit the future evolution of universal jurisdiction. The Principles are intended to help guide national legislative bodies seeking to enact implementing legislation. Becker (J. Leading scholars and jurists gathered twice at Princeton University to help clarify this important area of law. governments that must decide whether to prosecute or extradite. Participants in the Princeton Project discussed several difficult threshold questions concerning universal jurisdiction. 2 39 . and others. was attended by leading academics who wrote and discussed scholarly papers on various aspects of universal jurisdiction.2 The Principles contain elements of both lex lata (the law as it is) and de lege ferenda (the law as it ought to be). Cherif Bassiouni and with the assistance of Stephen Macedo. The first meeting. was composed of distinguished legal scholars including some of the academics who attended the first meeting. International Human Rights Law Institute. judges who may be required to construe universal jurisdiction in applying domestic law or in making extradition decisions. Sullivan Fellow. Oxman. national legislation. in January 2001. The assembly at the second meeting. and all those in civil society concerned with bringing to justice perpetrators of serious international crimes.
Universal Jurisdiction and International Criminal Tribunals: A Study of Interaction. In many legal systems. (These and other complexities will be explored in a collection of essays being published under the auspices of the Princeton Project. Universal Jurisdiction and Responsibility: A Survey of Current. being edited by Stephen Macedo. 40 . Orentlicher. The Hissène Habré Case: The Law and Politics of Uni. Gary J. Truth Commissions and Other Alternatives to Prosecution: Giving Justice a Chance. Impending. Principle 12 calls for states to provide for universal jurisdiction in future treaties and protocols to existing treaties. Participants in the Princeton Project also carefully considered whether the time is ripe to bring greater clarity to universal jurisdiction. so long as their legal systems permit them to do so.3) Accordingly. legal systems differ in how they incorporate international obligations into domestic law. Diane F. Chandra Lekha Sriram & Jordan J. Leila Nadya Sadat. The Limits of Universal Jurisdiction. Universal Jurisdiction and National Amnesties. and Potential Cases. The Adolph Eichmann Case. Bass. Principle 3 encourages courts to rely on universal jurisdiction in the absence of national legislation. but not everyone draws the same conclusions from these sources. is under review at Princeton University Press. Georges Abi-Saab. Stephen P Marks. Universal Jurisdiction and Judicial Reluctance: A New “Fourteen Points”. Falk. Hays Butler. Justice Michael Kirby. Universal Jurisdiction in Historical Perspective.Commentary writings of scholars. Cherif Bassiouni. Anne-Marie Slaughter. Frontiers of Universal Jurisdiction. Richard A. the national judiciary cannot apply universal jurisdiction in the absence of national legislation. versal Jurisdiction. for others. Assessing the Pinochet Litigation: Whither Universal Jurisdiction?. A Survey of Enabling Statutes. Paust. universal jurisdiction seems only now to be coming into its own as a systematic means for promoting legal accountability. A. It will include: M. the acceptance by states that a practice is obligatory (opinio juris) is enough. Commentators even disagree on how to ascertain whether universal jurisdiction is well established in customary international law: for some. the consistent practice of states is required. Principle 11 calls upon legislatures to enact laws enabling the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Hon. Universal jurisdiction was given 3 This collection. While it has been with us for centuries. When it is agreed that an obligation has been created in a treaty. In other systems it is possible for the judiciary to rely directly on treaties and customary international law without waiting for implementing legislation.
After considerable discussion. in a reasoned. lawful. given the wide gulf between what the law of universal jurisdiction is and what advocates of greater justice would like it to be. and seen to be exercised. and now courts around the world are seriously considering indictments involving universal jurisdiction. executive. developments? Is there a danger of stunting the development of universal jurisdiction by articulating guiding principles prematurely? Everyone connected with the Princeton Project took this problem seriously. As already noted. Nevertheless. or judicial branches of government. Might it not be better to wait to allow for unpredictable. Insofar as universal jurisdiction is exercised. and orderly manner. The Principles are written so as to both clarify the current law of universal jurisdiction and encourage its further development. these Principles have been drafted so as to invite rather than hinder the continued development of universal jurisdiction.4 In light of current dynamics in international criminal law. and sometimes to a 4 See Falk. and perhaps surprisingly progressive. those who gathered in Princeton in January 2001 favored our effort to bring greater clarity and order to the use of universal jurisdiction. Our aim is to help guide those who believe that national courts have a vital role to play in combating impunity even when traditional jurisdictional connections are absent. some supporters of universal jurisdiction question whether now is the time to clarify the principles that should guide its exercise. the Principles are addressed sometimes to the legislative. Mindful of the need to encourage continued progress in international law.Commentary great prominence by the proceedings in London involving former Chilean leader General Augusto Pinochet. These Principles should help clarify the legal bases for the responsible and reasoned exercise of universal jurisdiction. supra note 3. these concerns seem especially significant in the case of universal jurisdiction. 41 . It commonly arises when codification is undertaken. it will gain wider acceptance.
it is important to recall that simply because certain offenses are 5 See.R. 36 I.6 Nevertheless. 1961). When and how to prosecute based on universality? In defining universal jurisdiction. There has been some scholarly confusion on the role of universal jurisdiction in famous prosecutions. although many argue that the decision was more fundamentally predicated upon the passive personality doctrine and the protective principle under a unique Israeli statute passed by the Knesset in 1950. 6 7 42 .L. for example. 5 (Isr. See Attorney General of Israel v.7 In addition. e..R. where the nature of the crime is the sole basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Jerusalem. Ct. 36 I. Principle 11 which calls upon legislatures to enact laws enabling the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Principle 3 which encourages judicial organs to rely on universal jurisdiction. We also offer these Principles to help guide and inform citizens. judges on international and regional tribunals. participants focused on the case of “pure” universal jurisdiction. or other principled aims. that in some legal systems. often have greater interpretive latitude. such as the trial in Jerusalem of Adolph Eichmann. Our hope is that these Principles might inform and shape the practice of those judges and other officials who can act to promote greater justice and legal accountability consistent with the constraints of their offices.. See Kirby. supra note 3.g.5 The Principles are intended for a variety of actors in divergent legal systems who will properly draw on them in different ways. 12 Dec. 29 May 1962). which is often cited as representing the exercise of universal jurisdiction by Israel.. and public officials of all sorts: all of these different actors could benefit from a clearer common understanding of what universal jurisdiction is and when and how it may reasonably be exercised. and judges on national constitutional and supreme courts.L. S. namely. and Principle 12 which exhorts governments to include provisions for universal jurisdiction in new treaties and protocols to existing treaties. D.Commentary combination of these. leaders of organizations in civil society. We acknowledge. 277 (Isr.C. and according to some legal theories. supra note 3. aff’d. See Bass. judges are constrained in their ability to interpret existing law in light of aspirations to greater justice. Eichmann.
without traditional connecting links to the victims or perpetrators of serious crimes under international law. Mercenary governments and rogue prosecutors could seek to indict the heads of state or other senior public officials in countries with which they have political disagreements. and partly out of deference to pending litigation in the International Court of Justice. could not be tried on torture charges in Senegal. and this might deter peacekeeping operations. The very essence of universal jurisdiction would seem.Commentary universally condemned does not mean that a state may exercise universal jurisdiction over them. defying the basic proposition that equals should be treated equally. universal jurisdiction maximizes accountability and minimizes impunity. On the one hand. 2001. 8 See the International Court of Justice’s order in the case of Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Congo v. In this way. 43 . Powerful states may try to exempt their own leaders from accountability while seeking to prosecute others. Belg. In a recent development. the Senegalese Cour de Cassation held that Hissène Habré. This was done partly to allow for further discussion. There is. supra note 3. to be that national courts should prosecute alleged criminals absent any connecting factors (for example. partly to avoid stif ling the evolution of universal jurisdiction. even if the crimes were not committed against the enforcing states’ citizens. Members of peacekeeping forces might be harassed with unjustified prosecutions.8 Nevertheless. the former president of Chad.) (Dec. great concern that particular states will abuse universal jurisdiction to pursue politically motivated prosecutions. on March 20. nevertheless. therefore. 2000). 8. See Marks. Should the Principles insist at least that the accused is physically present in the territory of the enforcing state? Should other connecting links also be required? Participants decided not to include an explicit requirement of a territorial link in Principle 1(1)’s definition. or by its citizens). the whole point of universal jurisdiction would seem to be to permit or even encourage prosecution when states find within their territory a non-citizen accused of serious crimes under international law. in which these issues feature prominently. Participants in the Princeton Project debated whether states should in general be encouraged to exercise universal jurisdiction based solely on the seriousness of the alleged crime.
G. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. U. or the prohibition on double jeopardy. effective legal processes require the active cooperation of different government agencies. 217A (III).S.” relevant human rights standards.” The language of Principle 1(2) does not prevent a state from initiating the criminal process. guards against repeated prosecutions for the same crime in violation of the principle of non bis in idem. 10. 9 See Principle 9. 44 . arts. 11.N. Subsections (3) and (4) of Principle 1 insist that a state may seek to extradite persons accused or convicted on the basis of universal jurisdiction “provided that it has established a prima facie case of the person’s guilt” and provided that trials and punishments will take place in accordance with “international due process norms. Note also that the drafters intended the international due process norms in Principle 1(4) to be illustrative and not exhaustive. See also Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Doc. The establishment of international networks of cooperation will be especially important to the effective development of universal jurisdiction. 10 Dec. 15.9 Principle 10 allows states to refuse requests for extradition if the person sought “is likely to face a death penalty sentence or to be subjected to torture” or cruel or inhuman treatment or sham proceedings in violation of international due process norms. arts. The right to reasonable bail (Cf. Of course. and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.T. for example. The Principles reinforce proper legal standards for courts and should help guide executive officers considering extradition requests. Principle 14(2)) and the right to counsel were also referred to as being included among the essential due process guarantees. Res.Commentary subsection (2) of Principle 1 holds that a “competent and ordinary” judicial body may try accused persons on the basis of universal jurisdiction “provided the person is present before such judicial body. including courts and prosecutors. The Principles contain a number of provisions describing the standards that legal systems and particular prosecutions would have to meet in order to exercise universal jurisdiction responsibly and legitimately. when the accused is not present. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR]. 999 U.A. conducting an investigation. or requesting extradition. Later Principles contain additional safeguards against prosecutorial abuses: Principle 9. 19 Dec. A/810 (1948). 1966. issuing an indictment. 14. 1948.N.
19. U. e.T. so it comes first. 13 U. • 10 See Principle 2(1). 105. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. There are but a few conventional provisions. and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. however.M.”).N.11 “Slavery” was included in part because its historical ties to piracy reach back to the Declaration of the Congress of Vienna in 1815.62/122. 2312 (“On the high seas. 1982. art.Commentary Therefore.L.” Universal jurisdiction can only work if different states provide each other with active judicial and prosecutorial assistance. Convention on the High Seas. and all participating states will need to insure that due process norms are being complied with. 1261. The Princeton Principles do all that principles can do to guard against such abuses: they specify the considerations that conscientious international actors can and should act upon.T.N. supra note 3. or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any state. 1958. See.g. 11 45 . and it is crucial to the origins of universal jurisdiction. A/CONF. or a ship taken by piracy and under the control of pirates. Principle 4 calls upon states to comply with their international obligations to either prosecute or extradite those accused or convicted of crimes under international law. so long as these legal processes comply with “international due process norms. • “Piracy” is a crime that paradigmatically is subject to prosecution by any nation based on principles of universality. 10 Dec. 82. See also Bassiouni.S. every state may seize a pirate ship or aircraft. 450 U.S. 21 I. 29 Apr. art.. Which crimes are covered? The choice of which crimes to include as “serious crimes under international law” was discussed at length in Princeton. All legal powers can be abused by willfully malicious individuals.10 The ordering of the list of “serious crimes” was settled by historical progression rather than an attempt to rank crimes based upon their gravity.
12 Aug. Ammunition.S. T. 96 U. 75 U. 12 Aug. art. 1841. 6. 10. A/32/144. it was agreed that the term “slavery” was intended to include those practices prohibited in the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery.Commentary authorizing the exercise of universal jurisdiction for slavery and slave-related practices. However. Treaty for the Suppression of the African Slave Trade.T. 13 14 46 . in order to avoid the potential for numerous prosecutions based upon less serious violations. 5. 1949. No. arts. 1950. art. 1949. Doc. 12 Aug. No. 287. art. 21 Mar.N. 266 U.I.N.S.T.” namely. See Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. 6 U. and thus opted not to include the word “serious. No. 51. 31. 7 Sept. 3114.S. T.A. “grave breaches” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Protocol I. 17 Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser. though.S. pt. No. Convention Relative to the Slave Trade and Importation into Africa of Firearms. 6 U.T. art. 12 Dec. T. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. 7.N. 3365. and annex B.T.T. 6 U.S. 3201. 886. 6 U. 85.T.A. that it would be inappropriate to invoke universal jurisdiction for the prosecution of minor transgressions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Protocol I. the Slave Trade.S. 3.N.T.S.13 “War crimes” were initially restricted to “serious war crimes.N. 75 U. 135. 1977. 12 Aug.S.S.T. however. 18 U.N.N. art. 75 U. 3363. and Spiritous Liquors. 3364. 271 (“Nothing in the present Convention shall be interpreted as determining the attitude of a Party towards the general question of the limits of criminal jurisdiction under international law.I. • 12 Cf. 75 U. 50. Annex I. and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery.T. Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.S.S. 1956.S.”).S.T. 2) 345. art.” The assembly agreed. 3316. 1949.A. art.A. 27 Stat. T. No. 3516. Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. U. 2 Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser. 2 July 1890. Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others.12 The phrase “slavery and slave-related practices” was considered but rejected by the Princeton Assembly as being too technical in nature. 3362. did not want to give the impression that some war crimes are not serious.S. 1949. 85.T. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded. 20 Dec. 147. 5. 3217.I. 130. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. 11. 1) 392.I.14 The participants.S.
N. 78 U. 17 July 1998. A/CONF. “crimes against peace” were included.T. art. Article 6 does not preclude the use of universal jurisdiction by an international penal tribunal. others contend that defining the crime of “aggression” is in practice extremely difficult and divisive. Inhuman or • • • 15 See Charter of the International Military Tribunal.S.L. “Torture” was included without objection though some noted that there are some disagreements as to what constitutes torture. in part in order to recall the wording of Article 6(a) of the Nuremberg Charter. 277. annexed to Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis.S. 1948.T. 59 Stat. 59 Stat. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 1945. 8 Aug. “Torture” is intended to include the “other cruel.M. 279. In the end. 7. 82 U. 284.15 “Crimes against humanity” were included without objection. art.183/9. Article 6 of the Genocide Convention provides that a person accused of genocide shall be tried in a court of “the State in the territory of which the act was committed. 82 U. 6(a). 6. 8 Aug. “Genocide” was included without objection. While many argue that aggression constitutes the most serious international crime.N.”17 However. inhuman.N. despite some disagreement. 1544. 999 [hereinafter ICC Statute]. 9 Dec. or degrading treatment or punishment” as defined in the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel. 16 17 47 .N.T. in the event that such a tribunal is established. U.S.Commentary • “Crimes against peace” were also discussed at length. 37 I. Doc. 1546 [hereinafter Nuremberg Charter]. 1945.16 There is not presently any conventional law that provides for the exercise of universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity. and these crimes have now been authoritatively defined by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. art.
entered into force 26 June 1987 [hereinafter Torture Convention]. and other officials with exoneration from criminal responsibility for the commission of serious crimes under international law when these crimes are committed in an official capacity. 19 48 .N. When and against whom should universal jurisdiction be exercised? Among the most difficult questions discussed in the Princeton Project was the enforcement of universal jurisdiction. 1027.L. between “substantive” and “procedural” immunity. and immunity for diplomats is established by treaty. political. U. A substantive immunity from prosecution would provide heads of state. U.19 Apartheid.M. 7(1). and drug crimes were raised as candidates for inclusion. Id.A. Especially difficult moral. not exhaustive. other crimes may be deemed of such a heinous nature as to warrant the application of universal jurisdiction. and other officials (see Principle 5).N.18 Moreover. 39/46. Principle 5 rejects this substantive immunity (“the official position of any accused 18 G.L.Commentary Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 5. the Torture Convention implicitly provides for the exercise of universal jurisdiction over prohibited conduct. Immunity from international criminal prosecution for sitting heads of state is established by customary international law. Doc. GAOR.M. No. and legal issues surround immunities for former or current heads of state. 51. Res. diplomats. 39th Sess. and the question of when if ever to honor immunities and amnesties with respect to the commission of serious crimes under international law. diplomats. however. terrorism. A/39/51 (1984). It should be carefully noted that the list of serious crimes is explicitly illustrative. Annex. 535. in the future. There is an extremely important distinction. draft reprinted in 23 I.. modified 24 I. Principle 2(1) leaves open the possibility that. Supp. arts.
and other officials cannot be prosecuted while in office for acts committed in their official capacities. in cases such as the ICC and Torture Convention. genocide. But the Princeton Principles propose that individual national courts should exercise such jurisdiction against nationals of a state which has not agreed to such jurisdiction. which proclaims: “The official position of defendants. zealots in Western States might launch prosecutions against. whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments. I believe that the adoption of such universal jurisdiction without preserving the existing concepts of immunity would be more likely to damage than to advance chances of international peace. shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment”).Commentary person. in such cases. shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment. the national state of the accused would stand by and watch the trial proceed: resort to force would be more probable. 7. In any event the fear of such legal actions would inhibit the use of peacekeeping forces when it is otherwise desirable and also the free interchange of diplomatic personnel. or during the period in which a diplomat is accredited to a host state. accredited diplomats. procedural immunity remains in effect during a head of state’s or other official’s tenure in office. for example. art. by those words. one means the exercise by an international court or by the courts of one state of jurisdiction over the nationals of another state with the prior consent of that latter state. sitting heads of state. in proceedings before national tribunals.”21 More recently.e. Under international law as it exists. If the law were to be so established.20 The Princeton Principles’ rejection of substantive immunity keeps faith with the Nuremberg Charter. Islamic extremists for their terrorist activities. whether as head of state or government or as a responsible government official. Moreover the Principles do not recognize any form of sovereign immunity: Principle 5(1). states antipathetic to Western powers would be likely to seize both active and retired officials and military personnel of such Western powers and stage a show trial for alleged international crimes. 21 49 . i. the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and that of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) removed substantive immunity for war crimes. and 20 Lord Browne-Wilkinson provided the following reasons for his dissent from the Princeton Principles: I am strongly in favour of universal jurisdiction over serious international crimes if. Conversely. Nevertheless. It is naïve to think that. supra note 15. Nuremberg Charter.
while Article 98 is contained in Part IX of the Statute. SCOR. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. Id. 2. where applicable. 2. 3175th mtg. U. Doc.C.N. 7(2). U. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court.N. supra note 22. U. were fashioned from Article 7 of the Nuremberg Charter. 6(2). In particular. or other official to invoke procedural immunity. U. Res. Article 27 of the ICC Statute similarly provides: 1. Similarly.Commentary crimes against humanity. however. supra note 22. Doc. Res. yields to the primacy of other multilateral treaties in assessing immunity: 1. however. nor shall it. S. shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person. which contains no prohibitions on immunities. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State.N. unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender. S/RES/955 (1994) [hereinafter ICTR Statute]. 7(2). supra note 16. 23 50 .. S/25704 & Add. Article 98 of the ICC Statute. a member of a Government or parliament. 48th Sess.. constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.N. Customary international law. 808.N. unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity. SCOR.1 (1993) [hereinafter ICTY Statute]. diplomat. in and of itself. whether under national or international law.C. ICC Statute. art. S/RES/808 (1993). Doc.. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person. 6(2).. 3453d mtg. is quite clear on the subject: heads of state enjoy unqualified “act of state” immunity during their term of office. See ICTY Statute. annexed to Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of U. art. 98. art. which. art. U. ICTR Statute. in turn. diplomats accredited to a host state enjoy unqualified ex officio immunity during the performance 22 See Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Note that Article 27 is located in Part III of the ICC Statute. 955. official capacity as a Head of State or Government. art. Security Council Resolution 808 (1993).22 Principle 5 in fact tracks the language of these statutes. and thus seems to permit a head of state.N. 27. art. 49th Sess. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. S. an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute. Annex.23 None of these statutes addresses the issue of procedural immunity.
T. 1968. Such doctrines.25 Whether s this unprecedented action will become the source of a new regime in international law remains to be seen. 3 (May 24). No.org/icty/ indictment/ s english/mil-ii990524e. but once they step down any claim of immunity becomes ineffective. Another possible limit on the prosecution of “serious crimes under international law” are statutes of limitations. but neither do they affirm procedural immunities as a matter of principle. however.T. The Principles do not purport to revoke the protections afforded by procedural immunity. See infra note 25 and accompanying text. 500 U.S. These temporary immunities are not revoked by this subsection.N.24 A head of state. 82. 1974. and they are then subject to the possibility of prosecution. 25 Jan. un. Europ.27 Admittedly. at least as concerns war crimes and crimes against humanity. Conventional international law supports this position. Participants in the Princeton Project opted not to try and settle on principles governing procedural immunity in order to leave space for future developments. be immune from prosecution while in office. see also United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (U. 25 26 27 51 . v. and other officials may be called increasingly into question. 1980 I. at http://www. 73. a possibility prefigured by the ICTY’s indictment of Slobodan Milo˘evic while still a sitting head of state.T. Subsection (1) of Principle 13 provides that national judicial organs shall construe their own law in a manner “consis- 24 See Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Iran). diplomat. 1961. here as elsewhere.N. 754 U. the practice of states leaves something to be desired.26 Principle 6 reaffirms that statutes of limitations do not apply to crimes covered by universal jurisdiction. See Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. European Convention on Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (Inter-European).J. Prosecutor v.Commentary of their official duties.htm. may be in the process of erosion. 23 U.C. Milo˘evic (Indictment) (24 May 1999). T. 3227. 95.S.S.S. 26 Nov. or other official may. In the future.S. therefore. 18 Apr. procedural immunities for sitting heads of state. diplomats. See Principle 6.
murder. Some participants were very strongly against the inclusion of any principle that recognized an amnesty for “serious crimes under international law. a local judge could draw on this subsection and legitimately refuse to apply by analogy another statute of limitations for a crime that was codified. coupled with accountability mechanisms other than criminal prosecution. Because the laws of many nations include limitations periods. a number of participants suggested that the Principles should exhort states to eliminate statutes of limitations for serious crimes under international law. 28 See Principle 7(1).28 Subsection (2) recognizes that if a state grants amnesties that are inconsistent with obligations to hold perpetrators of serious international crimes accountable. We considered trying to specify the minimum prerequisites that should have to be satisfied in order for accountability mechanisms to be deemed legitimate (including such features as individualized accountability).” If a nation’s law is silent as to a limitations period with respect to a certain serious crime under international law.. 52 . Principle 11 does this. were acceptable in some cases: at least in difficult periods of political transition. e. Accordingly.g. Principle 7 expresses only a presumption that amnesties are inconsistent with a state’s obligations to prevent impunity. Much controversy surrounds accountability mechanisms such as South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Another significant discussion took place on the topics of amnesties and other pardons that might be granted by a state or by virtue of a treaty to individuals or categories of individuals. but in the end those assembled at Princeton decided not to try and provide general criteria.” Others felt that certain types of amnesties. as a second best alternative to criminal prosecution.Commentary tent with these Principles. other states may still seek to exercise universal jurisdiction. for example genocide.
the drafters expressed a preference for ranking the different bases of jurisdiction so as to indicate which should receive priority in the case of a conf lict. This was in part because of the longstanding conviction that a criminal defendant should be tried by his “natural judge.” Many participants expressed the view that societies that have been victimized by political crimes should have the opportunity to bring the perpetrators to justice. Almost without exception. and in resolving conf lict of laws problems. Although it was decided not to rank jurisdictional claims. as well as the availability of evidence. see RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS § 6 (1971). 29 This method of listing relevant factors has been employed in other similar contexts. For example. provided their judiciaries are able and willing to do so. the territorial principle was thought to deserve precedence.Commentary Who should prosecute? Principle 8 seeks to specify factors that should be considered when making judgments about whether to prosecute or extradite in the face of competing national claims. 53 .29 This Principle is designed to provide states with guidelines for the resolution of conf licts in situations in which the state with custody over a person accused of serious international crimes can base its jurisdiction solely on universality. the exercise of territorial jurisdiction will often also satisfy several of the other factors enumerated in Principle 8. the Principles do not deny that some traditional jurisdictional claims will often be especially weighty. such as in determining jurisdictional priority over extraterritorial crime. see RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES § 403 (1987). such as the convenience to the parties and witnesses. The list of factors is not intended to be exhaustive. Originally. and one or more other states have asserted or are in a position to exercise jurisdiction.
Commentary What protections for the accused? If universal jurisdiction is to be a tool for promoting greater justice.30 Subsection (3) specifically grants an accused the right “and legal standing” to invoke the claim of non bis in idem as a defense to further criminal proceedings. art. non bis in idem has been interpreted to apply within a state.S. to invoke the double jeopardy principle on an accused person’s behalf.T. 31 54 . 8(4).” This latter phraseology should be construed in accord with its usage as described in the Torture Convention. and serve a valuable function with respect to the preservation of evidence. 1969. 22 Nov. 1144 U. In the end it was decided not to refer to such trials in the Principles.A. Principle 9 protects accused persons against multiple prosecutions for the same crime. the rights of the accused must be protected. however. could be said to apply under international law.N. in its discretion. Although generally considered anathema in common law countries. 36. O.S. questioned whether the prohibition on double jeopardy—non bis in idem— was a recognized principle of international law. such trials are traditional in certain civil law nations. degrading. as such. art. supra note 18. but not between states. T. that the importance of the doctrine of non bis in idem is recognized in almost all legal systems: it qualifies as a general principle of law and. or “other cruel. 123.S. or inhuman punishment or treatment. See Torture Convention. 1. Under regional human rights agreements. such as France. This provision is designed to allow a defendant to independently raise this defense in jurisdictions that would otherwise only permit the requested state. supra note 9. however. 30 It is also included in the ICCPR. and the American Convention on Human Rights. Subsection (1) of Principle 10 requires that an extradition request predicated upon universality be refused if the accused is likely to face the death penalty.31 There was also some discussion about whether to include a provision on trials in absentia in the Principles. 14(7). torture. Several of the participants. There was no objection among the participants as to desirability of such safeguards. It was noted. No. art.
the duty to extradite or prosecute.Commentary Conclusion: Promoting accountability through international law Several of the remaining principles have already been mentioned. and thereby encourage its reasonable and responsible use. and their import should be clear. Belg. The Princeton Principles do not purport to define the proper use of universal jurisdiction in any final way. National courts exercising universal jurisdiction have a vital role to play in bringing perpetrators of international crimes to justice: they form part of the web of legal instruments which can and should be deployed to combat impunity. 2000). Our hope is that these Principles can bring greater clarity and order to the exercise of universal jurisdiction.32 The case involves a dispute regarding Belgium’s assetion of universal jurisdiction over the Congo’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. The first sentence of Principle 13 was included by the drafters to memorialize their intention that nothing in the Principles should be construed as altering the existing obligations of any state under terrorism conventions. It reflects the maxim embedded in so many treaties: aut dedere aut judicare. Universal jurisdiction is one means to achieve accountability and to deny impunity to those accused of serious international crimes. 8. and this conviction is made explicit in Principle 13. 55 . All of the participants in the Princeton Project felt it important that the Principles not be construed to limit the development of universal jurisdiction or to constrain the evolution of accountability for crimes under international law. Principles 11 and 12 call upon states both to adopt legislation to enable the exercise of universal jurisdiction and to include provisions for universal jurisdiction in all future treaties. An example of the appropriate resolution sought by this subsection is the case of Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Subsection (1) of Principle 14 calls for states to peacefully settle disputes arising out of the application of universal jurisdiction. Belgium.) (Dec. 32 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Congo v. which is pending before the International Court of Justice as these Principles go to press.
African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights Richard A. Cherif Bassiouni Professor of Law and President of the International Human Rights Law Institute.Project Participants. Adoption of Principles. Falk Albert G. Professor of Politics and International Affairs. Princeton University M. DePaul College of Law Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson * Law Lord. January 25-27. House of Lords of the United Kingdom * Did not join in the adoption. 2001 Adrian Arena Acting Secretary General International Commission of Jurists Lloyd Axworthy Director of the Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues. Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Government of Canada Gary J. See infra at p. 49.O. note 20. United Nations Param Cumaraswamy United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judiciary. President of the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists Hans Corell Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs. Butler Former Chairman of the Executive Committee of the International Commission of Jurists 1975-1990. Dankwa Professor of Law.V. University of British Columbia. University of Ghana Chair. Bass Assistant Professor of Politics and International Affairs. William J. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice. Princeton University 59 . United Nations E.
Marks François Xavier Bagnoud Professor. Director of the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights. University of Exeter Michael Posner Executive Director. Lockwood Distinguished Service Professor of Law. Princeton University Stephen P. Professor of Law and Director of the War Crimes Research Office. Oxman Member of the Board of Directors. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs Vesselin Popovski Professor of Law. Utrecht University. China Law Institute Menno T. Lawyers Committee for Human Rights Yves Sandoz Former Director of Principles and International Law.Participants Tom Farer Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies. Harvard School of Public Health Michael O’Boyle Section Registrar. American Association for the International Commission of Jurists. Director of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights and the Netherlands School of Human Rights Research Mingxuan Gao Professor of Law. Princeton University. University of Cincinnati College of Law Stephen Macedo Laurance S. Kamminga Professor of Public International Law. Orentlicher Law and Public Affairs Fellow.S. Maastricht University Michael Kirby Justice. Director of the Program in Law and Public Affairs. High Court of Australia Bert B. and Former U. University of Denver Cees Flinterman Professor of Human Rights. International Committee of the Red Cross 60 . American University Stephen A. European Court of Human Rights Diane F. 2000-2001. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values.
Director of Graduate and International Legal Studies. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International. Schwebel Former President. University of Tokyo Anne-Marie Slaughter J. Shestack Former President. International Commission of Jurists Stephen M. Harvard Law School Turgut Tarhanli Professor of International Law. International Court of Justice Kuniji Shibahara Professor Emeritus. Istanbul Bilgi University Wang Xiumei Senior Researcher. American Bar Association. Renmin University of China 61 . Foreign and Comparative Law. Member of the Executive Committee.Participants Jerome J.
Columbia Law School Pablo De Greiff Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Bermann Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law and Director of the European Legal Studies Center. 1975-1990. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice. 2000 Georges Abi-Saab Professor of International Law. Cherif Bassiouni Professor of Law and President of the International Human Rights Law Institute. Princeton University Cees Flinterman Professor of Human Rights. 20002001.Attendees. Director of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights and the Netherlands School of Human Rights Research Marc Henzelin Lecturer in International Criminal Law. Utrecht University. Damrosch Henry L. Princeton University M. Laurance S. Columbia Law School William J. DePaul University College of Law George A. November 10-11. Falk Albert G. Rockefeller Visiting Fellow. Princeton University Center for Human Values Richard A. and Professor of Politics and International Affairs. Butler Former Chairman of the Executive Committee of the International Commission of Jurists. Meeting of Scholars. Bass Assistant Professor of Politics and International Affairs. The Graduate Institute of International Studies Gary J. Moses Professor of International Law and Organization. and President of the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists Lori F. University of Geneva 63 .
Princeton University. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International. Orentlicher Law and Public Affairs Fellow. Michael Reisman Myres S.S. American University Stephen A. Harvard Law School Stephen P Marks . and Director of Graduate and International Legal Studies. Lockwood Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Director of the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights. The Washington University School of Law Anne-Marie Slaughter J. and Professor of Law and Director of the War Crimes Research Office. University of Cincinnati College of Law Stephen Macedo Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and The University Center for Human Values. Harvard School of Public Health Diane F. Minow Professor of Law. 2000-2001. Harvard Law School Chandra Sriram Research Associate. American Association for the International Commission of Jurists. Oxman Member of the Board of Directors. Princeton University Bert B. International Peace Academy 64 . Princeton University Martha L. University of Houston Law Center W.Attendees Jeffrey Herbst Professor of Politics and International Affairs. and Director of the Program in Law and Public Affairs. McDougal Professor of International Law. François-Xavier Bagnoud Professor. Yale Law School Leila Sadat Professor of Law. and Former U. Foreign and Comparative Law. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs Jordan Paust Law Foundation Professor.
Former Chair of the Drafting Committee of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference on the Establishment of the International Criminal Court Christopher L. Oxman Member of the Board of Directors. DePaul College of Law.Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction Drafting Committee M. and Former U. Chair Professor of Law and President of the International Human Rights Law Institute.S. Director of the Program in Law and Public Affairs. Blakesley (November only) J. Harvard Law School 65 . 1975-1990. and Professor of Law and Director of the War Crimes Research Office. American Association for the International Commission of Jurists. 2000-2001.Y. Sanders Professor of Law at the Paul M. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and The University Center for Human Values. Cherif Bassiouni. American University Stephen A. Orentlicher Law and Public Affairs Fellow. Hebert Law Center Louisiana State University William J. Weinreb (November only) Dane Professor of Law. Princeton University. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs Lloyd L. Butler Former Chairman of the Executive Committee of the International Commission of Jurists. and President of the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists Stephen Macedo Laurance S. Princeton University Diane F.
DePaul University College of Law.Acknowledgments Thanks to our institutional sponsors for providing the resources to make this Project possible. of the DePaul College of Law. Becker (J. International Human Rights Law Institute. David Figueroa-Ortiz. Thanks also to Betteanne Bertrand and Sally Buchanan for their f lexibility and careful attention. especially in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. who served as research assistant to Professor Bassiouni and as rapporteur to the Drafting Committee of the Princeton Project.. The Drafting Committee also acknowledges the tireless efforts of Steven W. Stacey provided crucial organizational support. Thanks also to all of our official participants and attendees and all others who furnished comment on the Principles at various stages. Many people at Princeton University. 67 . Scott Wayland made essential editorial contributions while this volume was in preparation. June 2001). helped plan and organize the two meetings of the Princeton Project on short notice. Chandra Sriram. Thanks most of all to Cynthia Kinelski for going above and beyond the call of duty to pull together all of the practical details without which our meetings would not have run smoothly. Laurel Masten Cantor provided crucial production expertise. Sullivan Fellow.D. and Simon P.
Documents Similar To unive_jur
sanjaysingh112211