Abstract | A particular concern in recent years has been the limited options for prosecutions of persons responsible for atrocities in States not amenable to ICC jurisdiction. The need for accountability for atrocities builds on long histories of human rights and humanitarian law practice, both treaty-based and customary in nature, which has been driven also by the work of the ECtHR and the IACtHR mechanisms. At the domestic level, ever since the Pinochet decision, universal jurisdiction (UJ) has been considered a promising way to fill the lacuna. Indeed, some commentators have observed a resurgence in the use of UJ in recent years based on a number of trials of ex-ISIS and Syrian regime members in European courts. Yet UJ as it has been practised has serious limitations. While there are exceptions, many European states are steadily turning the exercise of UJ into the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction based on active or passive personality, especially in relation to their former colonies. In Latin America too, there have been some recent examples of investigations and prosecutions on the basis of ‘pure’ UJ, but the vast majority of exercises of jurisdiction are in furtherance of extraditions, particularly at the behest of former colonial powers. This article compares the recent uptick in European and Latin American usages of UJ, concluding that to date both regions still exhibit little appetite for pursuing ‘pure’ UJ. It warns that significant colonialist pressures in both regions threaten to limit this crucial mechanism for international justice. |
---|