With the sensational arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998, the rise to prominence of universal jurisdiction over crimes against international law seemed to be assured. The arrest of Pinochet and the ensuing proceedings before the UK courts brought universal jurisdiction into the foreground of the "fight against impunity" and the principle was read as an important complementary mechanism for international justice –one that could offer justice to victims denied an avenue by the limited jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals. Yet by the time of the International Court of Justice’s Arrest Warrant judgment four years later, the picture looked much bleaker and the principle was being read as a potential tool for politically motivated trials. This book explores the debate over universal jurisdiction in international criminal law, aiming to unpack a practice in which international lawyers continue to disagree over the concept of universal jurisdiction. Using Martti Koskenniemi’s work as a foil, this book exposes the argumentative techniques in operation in national and international adjudication since the 1990s. Drawing on overarching patterns within the debate, Aisling O’Sullivan argues that it is bounded by a tension between contrasting political preferences or positions, labelled as moralist ("ending impunity") and formalist ("avoiding abuse") and she reads the debate as a movement of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions that struggle for hegemonic control. However, she draws out how these positions (moralist/formalist) merge into one another and this produces a tendency towards a "middle" position that continues to prefer a particular preference (moralist or formalist). Aisling O’Sullivan then traces the transformation towards this tendency that reflects an internal split among international lawyers between building a utopia ("court of humanity") and recognizing its impossibility of being realized.

This pioneering book explores the intersections of law and culture at the International Criminal Court (ICC), offering insights into how notions of culture affect the Court’s legal foundations, functioning and legitimacy, both in theory and in practice.

This book concerns 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. But 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 - if any - is the impact of the principle of complementarity in this respect? These are among the questions discussed in this anthology.

This volume considers how, based on the examination of cases pertaining to transitional justice settings that resort to local interpretations of crimes against humanity jurisprudence, fragmentation of international law and circumscribed applications of universal jurisdiction are necessary aspects of the grand enterprise to overcome the impasse of the tainted legacy of international criminal law in the Global South. If we are to proceed with adjudication of the most egregious and heinous crimes involving state criminality without facing the charge of neo-colonialist plotting, then we must reckon with localised and domesticated interpretations of international criminal law, rather than pursuing strict forms of legislative dictation of international criminal law.

With the sensational arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998, the rise to prominence of universal jurisdiction over crimes against international law seemed to be assured. The arrest of Pinochet and the ensuing proceedings before the UK courts brought universal jurisdiction into the foreground of the "fight against impunity" and the principle was read as an important complementary mechanism for international justice –one that could offer justice to victims denied an avenue by the limited jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals. Yet by the time of the International Court of Justice’s Arrest Warrant judgment four years later, the picture looked much bleaker and the principle was being read as a potential tool for politically motivated trials. This book explores the debate over universal jurisdiction in international criminal law, aiming to unpack a practice in which international lawyers continue to disagree over the concept of universal jurisdiction. Using Martti Koskenniemi’s work as a foil, this book exposes the argumentative techniques in operation in national and international adjudication since the 1990s. Drawing on overarching patterns within the debate, Aisling O’Sullivan argues that it is bounded by a tension between contrasting political preferences or positions, labelled as moralist ("ending impunity") and formalist ("avoiding abuse") and she reads the debate as a movement of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions that struggle for hegemonic control. However, she draws out how these positions (moralist/formalist) merge into one another and this produces a tendency towards a "middle" position that continues to prefer a particular preference (moralist or formalist). Aisling O’Sullivan then traces the transformation towards this tendency that reflects an internal split among international lawyers between building a utopia ("court of humanity") and recognizing its impossibility of being realized.

This study is based on the following questions: Which jurisdiction can and should be exercised for the prosecution of individuals responsible for gross and serious violations of human rights? And especially, in this regard, what is the role of universal jurisdiction? In explaining the modern jurisdictional regime, this study illuminates the historical phenomenon of the expansion of jurisdiction in Chapter II, and conducts in-depth research particularly into universal jurisdiction in Chapter III and IV. This study explicates the notion of universal jurisdiction in history and in theory, categorizing its nature by two aspects (permissive or obligatory, and supplemental or primary), and underscores the differences between ordinary universal jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction in absentia. Having made an analysis on the legality of jurisdiction, this study has proceeded to examine the appropriateness of exercising jurisdiction. Noting the danger of conflicts of jurisdiction, Chapter V attempts to compile some guiding rules that can be utilised in determining the appropriateness of jurisdiction, thus answering the question of Which jurisdiction should be exercised'. Chapter VI then applies these guiding rules to non-territorial jurisdiction, namely universal jurisdiction. The observations deduced from the application of the guiding rules demonstrates, together with the analysis of the legality of universal jurisdiction in Chapter IV, the role of universal jurisdiction within the modern jurisdictional regime.