The scope and application of universal jurisdiction:  UK statement

Mr Chairman

Fighting impunity is a common goal among member States of the United Nations and universal jurisdiction is one of the essential mechanisms established by the international community to help ensure that those who commit some of the most serious international crimes are brought to justice.
The principle of universal jurisdiction – that is to say, the ability of a State to prosecute crimes in its domestic courts in the absence of any link to the prosecuting State – has its origins in customary law and was first accepted  in a treaty in the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949.  The scope of the principle has since been extended, but even today, universal jurisdiction applies only to a limited range of crimes, in recognition of their exceptional gravity in the eyes of the world community.  The Geneva Conventions themselves have gained universal participation, illustrating the very wide-spread acceptance among States of the principle of universal jurisdiction.  

Mr Chairman

Universal jurisdiction is an important complement to, but is distinct from, the jurisdiction of international judicial mechanisms, including under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.  International justice mechanisms were never designed, and can never aspire, to prosecute all cases of crimes within their jurisdiction.  Such courts and tribunals will only ever address a small number of the most serious cases.  Prosecutions at the domestic level will therefore continue to be a vital component in the pursuit of justice for the victims of international crimes.  And the possibility of domestic prosecution in a third State helps ensure that perpetrators cannot evade justice.  

Mr Chairman

Universal jurisdiction should of course be exercised by States only in appropriate cases, in accordance with international law.  In the United Kingdom, universal jurisdiction is provided for in national legislation where it is necessary to comply with international obligations and safeguards exist to ensure that it is exercised responsibly.   For example, senior level consent must be obtained from the Attorney General in England and Wales, and from the Lord Advocate in relation to cases Scotland, before a prosecution for most international crimes can proceed.  Different States and legal systems will have other solutions to the issues which may arise when cases are brought based on universal jurisdiction, especially when there are competing jurisdictions involved.  But if disputes occur between States, established mechanisms exist under international law to enable them to be resolved.

Mr Chairman

The evidence shows that prosecutions based on universal jurisdiction occur rarely in practice.  And the reality is that such prosecutions are unlikely ever to become commonplace in national jurisdictions.  The practical difficulties of prosecuting complex cases in circumstances when the witnesses and evidence may be thousands of miles away will see to that.  But even if it is used rarely, it is vital that universal jurisdiction remains available to States as a weapon in the fight against impunity for the most serious international crimes.  

Back to newsroom

Back to top