This article examines whether or not states have a legal obligation to prosecute international crimes committed abroad. In contrast to the mainstream literature, this article argues that there is an insufficient legal basis for affirming that a state has a legal obligation to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and other similar crimes committed abroad. This conclusion is reached through an inquiry into relevance of judicial decisions that have played an important role in the development of the theory of universal jurisdiction. This work demonstrates that rare decisions that held that states have universal jurisdiction over crimes committed in foreign countries were taken arbitrarily and with an insufficient legal basis.
Contents
Abstract
Introduction
1. State practice
2. Universal jurisdiction: a part of customary international law?
3. International conventions
4. Judicial decisions
4.1. Domestic courts
4.2. International courts
Conclusion
References
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.