Universal Jurisdiction: A Qualified Success

When Pinochet was detained in England on charges brought by Spain for torture in Chile, scholars lamented the end of the international system as we know it. The charges were based on universal jurisdiction, which gives national courts jurisdiction over foreign nationals for a limited category of crimes - war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Resting solely on the nature of the crime, universal jurisdiction is blind to the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim and to the locus of the crime. Thus it is perceived as a threat to state sovereignty and to the current makeup of the international system. This work examines the success of universality as a jurisdictional basis through analyses of proceedings in various national fora. Distinguishing between pure universality and that which requires additional legal nexuses to the forum state, it deems successful solely the cases based on pure universality. Such cases are extraordinarily rare and universal jurisdiction is a long way from successful implementation. Without it, however, efforts to bring perpetrators of the most heinous crimes to justice, regardless of where in the world they are found, are futile.