Concluding Consideration of Universal Jurisdiction, Sixth Committee Speakers Debate Ways to Eliminate Impunity without Treading on States’ Sovereignty
Concluding their discussion on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction today, speakers in the Sixth Committee (Legal) — ever in search of consensus — debated the appropriate way to eliminate impunity for perpetrators of serious international crimes while not treading on the sovereignty of the States in which those crimes occur.
“The legitimacy and credibility of universal jurisdiction hinges strongly on its application,” observed the representative of Senegal. Emphasizing that such jurisdiction should only be exercised when a State is unable or unwilling to exercise its own, he joined others in stressing that national courts bear the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute serious crimes. While stating that the principle is a cornerstone in combating impunity, he underlined the need to establish modalities for the use of this principle to avoid political difficulties.
Other difficulties include practical considerations, pointed out Ireland’s representative, noting potential challenges with evidence collection and witness availability if a successful prosecution relying on universal jurisdiction is to be undertaken. Yet, there are exceptional circumstances in which investigations and prosecutions cannot or will not occur in the State with the closest link to an international crime. In such instances, “it is in our common interests as individuals and the international community to ensure that universal jurisdiction can be used to deliver accountability for that crime,” he said.
Such crimes, said the United Arab Emirates’ delegate, should be limited to specific, serious crimes that require measures going beyond national jurisdiction. Further, the principle should be exercised in a manner that respects sovereign equality, territorial integrity and the authority of national courts. In this context, she urged strengthened cooperation in criminal matters and noted her country’s participation in more than 100 agreements relating to mutual legal assistance and extradition. It has also invested in capacity-building initiatives across the Middle East and Africa. “Helping countries to develop their judicial capabilities contributes to reducing the need for universal jurisdiction,” she added.
“Universal jurisdiction must not apply unless it is the last resort,” stressed Syria’s representative. Condemning the growing politicization and arbitrary use of this principle, she said that consensus on a conceptual framework and legal definition for universal jurisdiction remains inaccessible due to the insistence of “certain people” to pursue political — rather than legal — ends. Nevertheless, if such jurisdiction is to be exercised in good faith, States must reach that consensus. “One should not impose non-consensus-based concepts,” she emphasized, as this could lead to conflicting jurisdictions and “legal chaos”.
The representative of Venezuela, also pointing to the lack of agreement surrounding this principle, observed that there was concern about the possibility of abusing this principle. Limited application of universal jurisdiction could jeopardize the rule of law and “skirt key principles” that are fundamental for international peace and stability, she stressed. Also expressing concern over a growing trend to invoke this principle to “replace national laws in an arbitrary fashion”, she said that “this utilization of justice fits into a regime-change strategy that has sown destruction all over the world”.
Eritrea’s representative, meanwhile, spotlighted certain States’ consistent invocation of criminal-justice mechanisms to pursue their interests while evading accountability for crimes perpetrated by their own nationals abroad. Rejecting this, she said that international law appears to be limited “to foreigners from States that are considered relatively weak or do not impose substantial political, diplomatic or economic costs to the political branches of the prosecuting State”. This approach epitomized the hypocrisy and the pervasive double standards in the application of international criminal justice, she declared, underlining the significance of territoriality as a jurisdictional basis.
Primacy should be given to the territory where the crime is committed, said Guinea’s representative, also stating that the principle of aut dedere aut judicare (either extradite or prosecute) must always be observed. Universal jurisdiction should be neither selectively applied nor politicized, and he urged States to reach consensus on the effective application of this principle. Nevertheless, he added: “The principle of universal jurisdiction is one of the most effective ways to prevent and punish the most serious crimes.”
Weighing in, the representative of Sri Lanka underscored that national courts — when they exercise such jurisdiction appropriately — “act to vindicate not only their own interests and values, but the basic interests and values common to the international community”. In the wake of mass atrocities and oppressive rule, national judicial systems have often been unwilling or unable to prosecute serious crimes under international law, resulting in the establishment of international criminal tribunals. Nevertheless, the imprudent or untimely exercise of universal jurisdiction could disrupt the quest for peace and national reconciliation in States struggling to recover from violent conflict or political oppression. “Prudence and good judgment are therefore required here, as elsewhere in politics and law,” he concluded.
At the close of the meeting, the Sixth Committee commenced consideration of the rule of law at the national and international levels. Opening that debate, the representative of Iran — speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement — stressed, among other points, that “the Charter of the United Nations and the principles enshrined therein provide normative guidance as the basis of the rule of law on the international level”. In that regard, he underscored that, in the context of an international scope, the rule of law required more meticulous attention by the Organization.