Theoretical and Legal Sociological Viewpoint of Universal Jurisdiction

A dynamic concern with universal jurisdiction

Image by freepik

I want to try to explore from both a theoretical Viewpoint and a kind of legal sociological Viewpoint.

What might we think about doing regarding Universal jurisdiction in the 21st century, at a bridging point from what was a relatively strong presence to the point now where the politically motivated amendments in the leading countries have cut back?

We can see that as a phase in a dynamic concern with universal jurisdiction, and there’s certainly no reason to think or conclude that this is the end of the Story. The question is where will the story go now, and we:

• as citizens,
• as professionals,
• as judges,
• as lawyers,
• as activists,

can have an impact on this. We know, of course, that Universal jurisdiction in its purest form sets out mainly one condition for taking jurisdiction, which is the seriousness of the crime of genocide, war crimes, and human rights crimes.

There’s always the question of what is included of course, but the point is in the pure universal jurisdiction.

There are only some procedural preconditions for taking jurisdiction other than the serious. There are essentially no preconditions except for the seriousness of the crime.

I would say that the reformations and the limitations on jurisdiction have emerged from two different factors and I think we should separate out these factors in order to try to think about what can be done. One is what I would call the real politic factor, meaning that the desire of potential defendants and states to escape sanctions and the other is a concern uh with legitimacy.

I would say an authentic and genuine concern of uh in respect to whether or not courts uh exercising universal jurisdiction have the kind of legitimacy. That is necessary in order to operate on the worldwide platform.

These two limiting considerations have taken into account the changes that have occurred in the legislation now.

I think the way that states have dealt with the problem of legitimacy in the Amendments which have been passed in recent years is by cutting back jurisdiction and by putting on these requirements of connectedness.

Connectedness that is the linkage between the territory, the court, and the actors so that when you have citizenship residency of victims or these kinds of considerations the legislators would say we’re giving legitimacy by restraining and cutting back jurisdiction.

Thanks for reading.🙂