Universal Jurisdiction under International Law
![handle is hein.journals/tlr66 and id is 817 raw text is: Universal Jurisdiction Under International Law
Kenneth C. Randall*
Universal jurisdiction allows any nation to prosecute offenders for certain crimes
even when the prosecuting nation lacks a traditional nexus with either the crime, the
alleged offender, or the victim. Courts developed this doctrine centuries ago to address
the piracy that menaced international trade and justified its application by deeming
the pirate hostis humani generis-the enemy of all people. Professor Randall traces
the doctrine of universal jurisdiction from its inception through expansions that ena-
bled all nations to prosecute slave traders and war criminals. Today, drawing on mul-
tinational conventions that outlaw these crimes and on fundamental norms that have
developed in international criminal law, Professor Randall argues that universal juris-
diction has expanded further to allow any nation to prosecute those charged with hi-
jacking, terrorism, torture, apartheid, genocide, and other offenses that the community
of nations widely condemns. Because those offenses endanger values to which the
global community is committed, the legal force of any nation's challenge to the prose-
cution of universal crimes also is weakened.
I. Introduction
International law has established principles for determining when a
state may exercise authority over offenses that also affect the interests of
another state.1 These principles are, of course, unimportant when a
wholly domestic offense occurs. For instance, an American citizen trans-
ports narcotics from New York to California in violation of federal law
and murders a United States drug official along the way. The legality of
every aspect of apprehending, prosecuting, and punishing that criminal
would depend solely on domestic law, including United States constitu-
tional law, federal statutory law, and conflict of laws rules. In contrast,
if an offense involves one or more foreign components, the permissibility
of punishing the offender hinges on both domestic and international law.
Hence, in cases involving foreign offenders, foreign victims, or extraterri-
torial acts, states must evaluate their authority to redress the offense
under international law principles.2 The crucial issue in such cases is
* Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Alabama. This Article was written in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of the Science of Law in the Faculty of Law,
Columbia University. I owe much gratitude for the valuable guidance provided by my dissertation
committee at Columbia, consisting of Professor Oscar Schachter, Chairman, and Professors Alfred
Hill and Lori F. Damrosch. I also thank Wythe Holt and Susan Lyons Randall for their comments
on prior drafts of this Article; Virginia T. Hare for library assistance; Andrea H. Somerville and
Curtis L. Whitmore for research assistance; and, finally, Dean Charles W. Gamble, Dean Nathaniel
Hansford, and The University of Alabama Law School Foundation for generous research funding.
1. This Article uses the term state to refer to a country or nation-state.
2. International law deals with the propriety of exercises of jurisdiction by a state, and the
resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction between states. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELA-
TIONs LAW § 401 comment b (Tent. Draft No. 6, 1985) [hereinafter DRAFT RESTATEMENT]. See
785](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/tlr66&div=39&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Universal Jurisdiction under International Law
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most