Universal Jurisdiction Scenario in Europe
The history of initial deterioration and setbacks
Universal jurisdiction in the contemporary period has emerged from a commitment to put responsibility on those who have committed grave acts against Mankind and to prevent impunity.
The emergence of Universal jurisdiction
- is intimately linked
- with the attempt to establish
- International standards in humanitarian law
- following World War II.
We know that Universal jurisdiction recognizes implicitly that certain states are too weak or, for political reasons, not motivated to bring to trial the persons who are suspected of committing heinous crimes against humanity.
I don’t think my contribution would be to give a list of the cases investigated in Europe under the authority of universal jurisdiction.
We know that during the Contemporary period Universal jurisdiction took root in the early 1990s and expanded for about 10 years.
Thereafter, it came under heavy political pressure. European legislatures in Belgium, the UK, and Spain passed new legislation to harness and limit its use. Universal jurisdictions also came under heavy negative pressure, and its future is unclear.
We can mention, of course, the Belgium law of 1993, in which we know that there was Universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity and genocide, and that law was used to prosecute, among other random defendants, in 2003.
The Belgium law was amended limiting the Court’s Jurisdiction to war crimes in which the accused is resident or victim or the victim has lived in Belgium three years or there is a treaty obligation.
This has led, in Belgium, to the undoing, for the most part, of Universal jurisdiction that in the past had brought highly publicized investigations to public attention, including the case, of course, against Ariel Sharon regarding Sabra and Shatila.
