Our authors

Our Books
More than 500 authors
from all continents.

Historical Origins of International Criminal Law
Historical Origins of
International Criminal Law

Our Books
Philosophical Foundations of
International Criminal Law

Policy Brief Series

Our Books
Concise policy briefs on policy challenges in international law.

Our Books
Research on quality
control in fact-work.

Our Chinese and Indian authors

Our Books
TOAEP has published dozens of Chinese and Indian authors.

Our Books
Art and the ‘politics
of reconciliation’.

Twitter

The Principle of Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes

Oslo, 4 September 2009

Seminar concept

The complementarity principle on which the International Criminal Court (ICC) is based entails that the ICC can only investigate and prosecute core international crimes when national jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to do so genuinely. The principle reflects a realization that it is preferable that such crimes are investigated and prosecuted in the country where they occurred. It was created as an admissibility principle of the ICC. Universal jurisdiction, on the other hand, is a jurisdictional basis of last resort which many national criminal justice systems provide for, when core international crimes can not be prosecuted on the basis of the principle of territoriality (in the state where the crimes occurred), active nationality (in the state of the alleged perpetrator) or passive nationality (in the state of the victim). In its pure form, universal jurisdiction enables prosecution of core international crimes committed in a foreign state, by a foreign citizen, against foreign victims, when neither has a personal link to the forum state.

This seminar concerned the relationship between the principles of complementarity and universal jurisdiction. Territorial states are normally affected most strongly by core international crimes committed during a conflict or an attack directed against its civilian population. Most victims reside in such states. Most damaged or plundered property is there. Public order and security are violated most severely in the territorial states. It is also on their territory that most of the evidence of the alleged crimes can be found. There are, in other words, obvious policy and practical reasons why states should accord priority to territoriality as a basis of jurisdiction. Is there also an obligation for states to defer exercise of universal jurisdiction of core international crimes to investigation and prosecution of the same crimes by the territorial state? What is the impact of the principle of complementarity in this respect?

Lexsitus

Lexsitus logo

CILRAP Film

CMN Knowledge Hub

CMN Knowledge Hub
Online services to help
your work and research.

CILRAP Conversations

Our Books
CILRAP Conversations
on World Order

M.C. Bassiouni Justice Award

M.C. Bassiouni Justice Award

CILRAP Podcast

CILRAP Podcast