Universality Principle | Basis of Jurisdiction | Jurisdiction of States | PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Universality Principle of Jurisdiction in Public International Law

The universality principle is one of the recognized bases for the exercise of jurisdiction by states in Public International Law. It allows a state to claim criminal jurisdiction over an individual regardless of where the crime was committed, the nationality of the perpetrator, or the nationality of the victims. Under this principle, certain offenses are so serious that they affect the international community as a whole, and as such, any state is permitted to prosecute the offenders.

Key Features of the Universality Principle:

1. Jurisdiction Without Territorial or National Connection: Unlike other bases for jurisdiction (such as territoriality, nationality, or protective principles), the universality principle does not require a nexus between the state asserting jurisdiction and the offense, offender, or victim. A state can exercise jurisdiction over an offense even if it occurred entirely outside its territory, did not involve its nationals, and did not directly affect its interests.

2. Crimes Covered: The universality principle generally applies to offenses that are considered heinous by the international community and that pose a threat to global peace and order. The most commonly recognized crimes subject to universal jurisdiction include:

   • Genocide: The intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
   • War Crimes: Serious violations of the laws and customs of war, including the mistreatment of civilians and prisoners of war.
   • Crimes Against Humanity: Widespread or systematic attacks directed against civilian populations, including murder, enslavement, torture, and other inhumane acts.
   • Piracy: Historically the first crime to be universally condemned, piracy on the high seas is a classic example of a crime subject to universal jurisdiction.
   • Terrorism: Although there is still debate over its precise definition and scope, many states assert universal jurisdiction over acts of terrorism.
   • Torture: Under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, states are obligated to prosecute or extradite individuals accused of torture, regardless of where the crime was committed.

3. Legal Foundations in International Law:

   • The Geneva Conventions (1949) establish universal jurisdiction over grave breaches of the laws of war.
   • The United Nations Convention Against Torture (1984) obligates signatory states to take measures against torture, including prosecuting individuals under universal jurisdiction.
   • Customary International Law also plays a significant role in the application of the universality principle. Certain crimes, such as piracy and genocide, are universally recognized under customary international law as subject to universal jurisdiction.
   • International Criminal Court (ICC): While the ICC is a treaty-based institution, it has jurisdiction over some of the most serious crimes of international concern, often based on the principle that these crimes affect the international community as a whole.

4. Obligations of States: Universal jurisdiction often comes with the duty of the state to either prosecute or extradite offenders (known as the principle of aut dedere aut judicare). This means that if a state finds an individual suspected of committing one of the listed international crimes, it must either prosecute the individual under its own laws or extradite them to another state that is willing to do so.

5. Challenges and Controversies:

   • Political Manipulation: Some critics argue that the universality principle could be misused for political purposes, allowing states to pursue political enemies under the guise of prosecuting serious crimes.
   • Sovereignty Issues: Universal jurisdiction can sometimes clash with state sovereignty, particularly when a state seeks to prosecute officials or military personnel from another state without that state's consent.
   • Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Despite the principle of universal jurisdiction, there are often practical difficulties in apprehending and prosecuting individuals who have committed these crimes, especially if they are located in a state that is unwilling or unable to cooperate.
   • Immunities of State Officials: High-ranking state officials, such as heads of state, are often protected by immunity from prosecution in foreign courts. This can create a barrier to the effective exercise of universal jurisdiction in certain cases.

Philippine Context:

In the Philippines, the principle of universal jurisdiction is acknowledged in the country's legal framework, particularly in relation to serious international crimes. As a signatory to various international treaties, the Philippines has undertaken obligations to either prosecute or extradite individuals who have committed certain crimes under universal jurisdiction.

1. Republic Act No. 9851: The Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity (RA 9851) is a key legislative act that affirms the Philippines’ commitment to international law. It provides for universal jurisdiction over individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This law mandates Philippine courts to assert jurisdiction over these crimes regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims.

2. Implementation of International Treaties: The Philippines has ratified important international conventions that contain universal jurisdiction provisions, such as the Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (until its withdrawal in 2019). These treaties have been incorporated into domestic law, obligating the Philippines to apply universal jurisdiction principles when necessary.

3. Extradition: The Philippines has bilateral and multilateral extradition agreements with various countries, allowing it to surrender individuals accused of crimes subject to universal jurisdiction. Extradition laws in the country, particularly Presidential Decree No. 1069 (the Philippine Extradition Law), allow for the transfer of offenders to foreign jurisdictions that may be more capable of prosecuting them under the universality principle.

Conclusion:

The universality principle in Public International Law plays a crucial role in ensuring that the most serious crimes affecting the international community do not go unpunished, even if committed in areas beyond the reach of any single state's normal jurisdiction. It empowers all states to act as guardians of global justice, holding perpetrators accountable when other states are unwilling or unable to prosecute. In the Philippine legal context, this principle is enshrined in domestic laws that reflect the country’s commitment to international legal standards and its responsibility to combat impunity for heinous crimes. Despite its challenges, the universality principle remains a fundamental tool in the fight against impunity for crimes that threaten the fabric of the international legal order.