Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Statements Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Default title
25 January 2001
Share
25 January 2001
Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction
Message from Mary Robinson
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I had really hoped to attend the colloquium and to share with you some reflections on the principle of universal jurisdiction in person. But I am happy to have the opportunity to participate in this way.
This subject is of great relevance to all who work for human rights. I regard the search for ways to end impunity in the case of gross violations of human rights as an essential part of the work of my Office and an essential instrument in the struggle to defend human rights. I welcome the fact that you are holding these discussions with such a prestigious group in attendance and trust that the initiative of the Princeton Project can play a positive role in developing and clarifying the principle of universal jurisdiction.
In my daily work as High Commissioner for Human Rights I see many situations involving gross, and sometimes widespread, human rights abuses for which the perpetrators often go unpunished. Torture, war crimes - including abuses involving gender-based violence - and enforced disappearances are but a few of these crimes. The recent increase in transnational criminal activity, encouraged by globalization and open borders, has added to the challenges we face in fighting against impunity for such abuses. Trafficking of persons, and of women and children specifically, is an issue of particular concern to my Office. These disturbing trends have given me cause to reflect on the possibilities for alternative means of securing justice and accountability.
Two important and complementary means currently exist for the implementation of international criminal jurisdiction: prosecution by international criminal tribunals and the domestic application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. As far as the former is concerned, I am encouraged by the increasing number of States that are signing and ratifying the Statute of the International Criminal Court and I hope that this permanent Court will soon be a reality. Even before the Court’s establishment, the ICC Statute has proved an invaluable tool in the struggle against impunity. The Statute codifies crimes against humanity for the first time in a multilateral treaty and it enumerates certain acts as war crimes when committed in non-international armed conflicts.
Through its cornerstone principle of complementarity, the ICC Statute highlights the fact that international prosecutions alone will never be sufficient to achieve justice and emphasises the crucial role of national legal systems in bringing an end to impunity. The sad reality is that territorial States often fail to investigate and prosecute serious human rights abuses. The application of universal jurisdiction is therefore a crucial means of justice.
The principle of u niversal jurisdiction is based on the notion that certain crimes are so harmful to international interests that States are entitled – and even obliged – to bring proceedings against the perpetrator, regardless of the location of the crime or the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. Human rights abuses widely considered to be subject to universal jurisdiction include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture. While the principle of universal jurisdiction has long existed for these crimes, however, it is rapidly evolving as a result of significant recent developments. I believe that the Princeton Principles should acknowledge that this doctrine continues to develop in law and in practice.
One aspect which might be mentioned is the application of universal jurisdiction to other offences in international law since this has been raised recently in various fora. The UN Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances, for example, provides for the exercise of universal jurisdiction for alleged acts of forced disappearances, a provision already contained at the regional level in the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The international community is currently also considering a draft international convention on the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance.
Universal jurisdiction was discussed recently at the symposium on the challenge of borderless cyber-crime to international efforts to combat transnational organized crime, held in conjunction with the signing conference for the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime in Palermo, Italy. Discussions in treaty negotiations have raised the question of allowing civil jurisdiction for conduct which constitutes an international crime, in the context of the draft Hague Conference on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. These negotiations are of concern to my Office, as they may have important implications regarding the access to courts for victims seeking remedies for human rights violations. The International Court of Justice is also considering issues related to universal jurisdiction in the ongoing case concerning the arrest warrant against the former Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Congo by a Belgian investigating judge, who was seeking his provisional detention for alleged serious violations of international humanitarian law.
These developments suggest that new ground is being broken with regard to the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. This is not to say, however, that the exercise of universal jurisdiction is an easy matter. There are significant practical and legal challenges regarding the application of this principle. The obstacles to universal jurisdiction were recently elaborated by the International Law Association in its very informative report on the subject.
Obstacles to the exercise of universal jurisdiction include the question of the application of sovereign immunity defences. In this regard, the decision of the British House of Lords in the Pinochet case confirming that former heads of State do not enjoy immunity for the crime of torture under UK law was refreshing and, along with other recent cases, has seriously challenged the notion of immunity from criminal liability for crimes under international law committed in an official capacity.
An additional area that I am particularly concerned about is the issue of amnesty laws. I stress that certain gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law should not be subject to amnesties. When the United Nations faced the question of signing the Sierra Leone Peace Agreement to end atrocities in that country, the UN specified that the amnesty and pardon provisions in Article IX of the agreement would not apply to international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. We must be cautious not to send the wrong message regarding amnesties for serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and I believe that the Princeton Principles should express the position that certain crimes are too heinous to go unpunished.
The exercise of universal jurisdiction holds the promise for greater justice for the victims of serious human rights violations around the world. My Office will continue to monitor developments in this rapidly evolving area, including through the ongoing efforts of the Princeton Project to strengthen universal jurisdiction as a tool to end impunity. I hope that the discussions on these issues will contribute to improving justice for the victims of human rights abuses and I look forward to receiving a report on the results of this meeting.
* *** *
Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction
Message from Mary Robinson
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I had really hoped to attend the colloquium and to share with you some reflections on the principle of universal jurisdiction in person. But I am happy to have the opportunity to participate in this way.
This subject is of great relevance to all who work for human rights. I regard the search for ways to end impunity in the case of gross violations of human rights as an essential part of the work of my Office and an essential instrument in the struggle to defend human rights. I welcome the fact that you are holding these discussions with such a prestigious group in attendance and trust that the initiative of the Princeton Project can play a positive role in developing and clarifying the principle of universal jurisdiction.
In my daily work as High Commissioner for Human Rights I see many situations involving gross, and sometimes widespread, human rights abuses for which the perpetrators often go unpunished. Torture, war crimes - including abuses involving gender-based violence - and enforced disappearances are but a few of these crimes. The recent increase in transnational criminal activity, encouraged by globalization and open borders, has added to the challenges we face in fighting against impunity for such abuses. Trafficking of persons, and of women and children specifically, is an issue of particular concern to my Office. These disturbing trends have given me cause to reflect on the possibilities for alternative means of securing justice and accountability.
Two important and complementary means currently exist for the implementation of international criminal jurisdiction: prosecution by international criminal tribunals and the domestic application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. As far as the former is concerned, I am encouraged by the increasing number of States that are signing and ratifying the Statute of the International Criminal Court and I hope that this permanent Court will soon be a reality. Even before the Court’s establishment, the ICC Statute has proved an invaluable tool in the struggle against impunity. The Statute codifies crimes against humanity for the first time in a multilateral treaty and it enumerates certain acts as war crimes when committed in non-international armed conflicts.
Through its cornerstone principle of complementarity, the ICC Statute highlights the fact that international prosecutions alone will never be sufficient to achieve justice and emphasises the crucial role of national legal systems in bringing an end to impunity. The sad reality is that territorial States often fail to investigate and prosecute serious human rights abuses. The application of universal jurisdiction is therefore a crucial means of justice.
The principle of u niversal jurisdiction is based on the notion that certain crimes are so harmful to international interests that States are entitled – and even obliged – to bring proceedings against the perpetrator, regardless of the location of the crime or the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. Human rights abuses widely considered to be subject to universal jurisdiction include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture. While the principle of universal jurisdiction has long existed for these crimes, however, it is rapidly evolving as a result of significant recent developments. I believe that the Princeton Principles should acknowledge that this doctrine continues to develop in law and in practice.
One aspect which might be mentioned is the application of universal jurisdiction to other offences in international law since this has been raised recently in various fora. The UN Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances, for example, provides for the exercise of universal jurisdiction for alleged acts of forced disappearances, a provision already contained at the regional level in the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The international community is currently also considering a draft international convention on the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance.
Universal jurisdiction was discussed recently at the symposium on the challenge of borderless cyber-crime to international efforts to combat transnational organized crime, held in conjunction with the signing conference for the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime in Palermo, Italy. Discussions in treaty negotiations have raised the question of allowing civil jurisdiction for conduct which constitutes an international crime, in the context of the draft Hague Conference on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. These negotiations are of concern to my Office, as they may have important implications regarding the access to courts for victims seeking remedies for human rights violations. The International Court of Justice is also considering issues related to universal jurisdiction in the ongoing case concerning the arrest warrant against the former Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Congo by a Belgian investigating judge, who was seeking his provisional detention for alleged serious violations of international humanitarian law.
These developments suggest that new ground is being broken with regard to the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. This is not to say, however, that the exercise of universal jurisdiction is an easy matter. There are significant practical and legal challenges regarding the application of this principle. The obstacles to universal jurisdiction were recently elaborated by the International Law Association in its very informative report on the subject.
Obstacles to the exercise of universal jurisdiction include the question of the application of sovereign immunity defences. In this regard, the decision of the British House of Lords in the Pinochet case confirming that former heads of State do not enjoy immunity for the crime of torture under UK law was refreshing and, along with other recent cases, has seriously challenged the notion of immunity from criminal liability for crimes under international law committed in an official capacity.
An additional area that I am particularly concerned about is the issue of amnesty laws. I stress that certain gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law should not be subject to amnesties. When the United Nations faced the question of signing the Sierra Leone Peace Agreement to end atrocities in that country, the UN specified that the amnesty and pardon provisions in Article IX of the agreement would not apply to international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. We must be cautious not to send the wrong message regarding amnesties for serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and I believe that the Princeton Principles should express the position that certain crimes are too heinous to go unpunished.
The exercise of universal jurisdiction holds the promise for greater justice for the victims of serious human rights violations around the world. My Office will continue to monitor developments in this rapidly evolving area, including through the ongoing efforts of the Princeton Project to strengthen universal jurisdiction as a tool to end impunity. I hope that the discussions on these issues will contribute to improving justice for the victims of human rights abuses and I look forward to receiving a report on the results of this meeting.
* *** *