This thesis deals with the topic of universal jurisdiction and the aut dedere aut judicare principle. It also marginally deals with issues of immunity of the perpetrators of international crimes, in relation of them enjoying leading functions of the state. In the introductory chapter of this thesis is discussed concept of jurisdiction as a basis for understanding following content of the next chapter about universal jurisdiction itself. In the chapter about the historical development the emergence of universal jurisdiction is described, through circumstances accompanying the establishment of the Nuremberg Tribunal to internationally significant legal proceedings with Albert Eichmann. In my work I try to bring yet ambiguously defined concept of universal jurisdiction, to elucidate its content and scope of its application areas. In the second part of this thesis I focus on the principle aut dedere aut judicare i.e. obligations of states to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes, present at their territory, or else extradite them to the State, which calls for providing their prosecution. On the case before the International Court of Justice in The Hague in the matter of extradition of former Chadian president by Senegal to Belgium I demonstrate the practical implications of the aut dedere aut...

<p>The purpose of this study has been to investigate the prospects for identifying and prosecuting individuals suspected of war crimes, within the process of exclusion from refugee status under article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and using subsequent mechanisms for extradition or prosecution in international criminal law. A number of principles within human rights law and public international law have been advocated by the UNCHR and several human rights NGOs as necessary for a thorough application of the exclusion clauses; one that takes individual responsibility into account and upholds the aims and purposes of the exclusion clauses. There is a discussion as to whether specialised or accelerated exclusion procedures are justified for reasons of security and efficiency, or if they put the rights of the individual at risk and limit the opportunities for gathering information to support investigation and prosecution of the crime in question. Apart from the instruments of asylum law and procedure that have emerged within the EU harmonisation process, there are no general, binding rules on the procedural aspects of the exclusion clauses. One principle that regulates the consequences for the individual of exclusion from refugee status and decisions on extradition is, however, the principle of <em>non-refoulement</em>. Although partly contested in state practice, there is widespread consensus in international jurisprudence and doctrine that the principle, following its status as a <em>jus cogens</em> rule, prohibits every state from returning any individual to a territory where he or she may face torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, irrespective of any security risks that the individual may pose to the custodial state.</p><p>Extradition or prosecution of individuals suspected of crimes under article 1F(a), based on universal jurisdiction and the principle of <em>aut dedere aut judicare</em>, has gained increased support from international conventions, such as the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The principles are widely upheld by human rights NGOs, and tendencies in practice and policy among the member states of the EU and the parties to the Rome Statute point towards the development of a customary rule of universal jurisdiction among these states. Continuing resistance to the Rome Statute and to universal jurisdiction among influential states such as the USA, Russia, China and India nevertheless serves to exclude these states from being bound by such an emerging customary rule of universal jurisdiction. There are compelling arguments as to why breaches of <em>jus cogens</em>-rules should include or give rise to <em>erga omnes</em> rights or obligations for all states to exercise universal jurisdiction over such breaches. Without the support of major states it is, however, difficult to establish the existence of the general state acceptance of universal jurisdiction as is required for the principle to attain <em>jus cogens</em>-status and become universally applicable, regardless of state consent. Future prospects for adequate and efficient identification and prosecution of suspected war criminals depend on the correct and thorough application of the exclusion clauses, in combination with the development of existing rules of universal jurisdiction, and not least on the willingness and ability of states to overcome the political, economic and institutional obstacles that presently may prevent many states from extraditing or prosecuting individuals who fall within the scope of article 1F(a) of the exclusion clauses.</p>

The purpose of this study has been to investigate the prospects for identifying and prosecuting individuals suspected of war crimes, within the process of exclusion from refugee status under article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and using subsequent mechanisms for extradition or prosecution in international criminal law. A number of principles within human rights law and public international law have been advocated by the UNCHR and several human rights NGOs as necessary for a thorough application of the exclusion clauses; one that takes individual responsibility into account and upholds the aims and purposes of the exclusion clauses. There is a discussion as to whether specialised or accelerated exclusion procedures are justified for reasons of security and efficiency, or if they put the rights of the individual at risk and limit the opportunities for gathering information to support investigation and prosecution of the crime in question. Apart from the instruments of asylum law and procedure that have emerged within the EU harmonisation process, there are no general, binding rules on the procedural aspects of the exclusion clauses. One principle that regulates the consequences for the individual of exclusion from refugee status and decisions on extradition is, however, the principle of non-refoulement. Although partly contested in state practice, there is widespread consensus in international jurisprudence and doctrine that the principle, following its status as a jus cogens rule, prohibits every state from returning any individual to a territory where he or she may face torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, irrespective of any security risks that the individual may pose to the custodial state. Extradition or prosecution of individuals suspected of crimes under article 1F(a), based on universal jurisdiction and the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, has gained increased support from international conventions, such as the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The principles are widely upheld by human rights NGOs, and tendencies in practice and policy among the member states of the EU and the parties to the Rome Statute point towards the development of a customary rule of universal jurisdiction among these states. Continuing resistance to the Rome Statute and to universal jurisdiction among influential states such as the USA, Russia, China and India nevertheless serves to exclude these states from being bound by such an emerging customary rule of universal jurisdiction. There are compelling arguments as to why breaches of jus cogens-rules should include or give rise to erga omnes rights or obligations for all states to exercise universal jurisdiction over such breaches. Without the support of major states it is, however, difficult to establish the existence of the general state acceptance of universal jurisdiction as is required for the principle to attain jus cogens-status and become universally applicable, regardless of state consent. Future prospects for adequate and efficient identification and prosecution of suspected war criminals depend on the correct and thorough application of the exclusion clauses, in combination with the development of existing rules of universal jurisdiction, and not least on the willingness and ability of states to overcome the political, economic and institutional obstacles that presently may prevent many states from extraditing or prosecuting individuals who fall within the scope of article 1F(a) of the exclusion clauses.

The present study describes the nature, scope and application of universal jurisdiction as an important tool against impunity in international criminal law, in a straight forward manner, where inquiry into the recent developments of universal jurisdiction is undertaken. Forthwith, the formation of the principle of universal jurisdiction - especially its practical application - must be guided by international consensus, not through advocacy action of states with short term and narrow objectives. The thesis seeks to identify and observe how far the law of universal jurisdiction has actually evolved and how far we should expect it to evolve in the near future, considering its restrains and challenges. It is argued that the concept of state sovereignty, which constitutes the greatest impediment on the exercise of universal jurisdiction, has seen various changes to its fundamentals elements in the 21st Century. The aim is to look at the universality principle, not as an isolated part, but as part of a broader framework in modern international law and thus special attention is given to the relationship between universal jurisdiction and the principle of aut dedere aut judicare. These principles are interrelated, yet distinct, parallels in deterring commission of the most heinous offences of international...

Le droit international classique volontaire basé sur la notion absolue de la souveraineté étatique est remis en cause par l’émergence des règles impératives (jus cogens). A cet égard, la cristallisation des droits humains impératifs est le résultat du processus d’humanisation du droit international moderne où les règles impératives des droits humains de rangs supérieurs se situent au sommet. On peut estimer que l’acceptation des droits humains impératifs créée des obligations erga omnes de protection pour les États membres de la communauté internationale. Dans ce cadre, dans le cas de violations des droits humains impératifs, tous les États sont directement affectés, touchés et lésés par les violations en question et ont le droit d’agir. A cet effet, il nous semble que tous les États peuvent adopter des contre-mesures individuelles à l’encontre de l’État fautif, violateur des droits humains impératifs. Dans le cas de violations des droits humains impératifs, il nous paraît aussi que, sous certaines conditions, les États peuvent recourir à une intervention militaire à but humanitaire, même sans l’avis favorable du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies. Aussi, selon certaines conditions, les États peuvent fournir une aide humanitaire aux victimes des violations des droits humains impératifs survenues à l’extérieur de leur territoire, même sans le consentement de l’État territorial. Les États sont aussi tenus de réprimer les crimes de jus cogens commis à l’extérieur de leur territoire. Dans ce contexte, il nous semble que les États en appliquant la règle aut dedere aut judicare, peuvent poursuivre les étrangers suspectés d’avoir commis des crimes de jus cogens. Dans ce cadre, les États doivent appliquer la règle aut dedere aut judicare en respectant l’obligation de non refoulement afin de prévenir les violations des droits humains impératifs à l’étranger. Il nous paraît aussi que les États en appliquant la règle aut dedere aut judicare, doivent prévoir la compétence universelle des juridictions internes. A cet égard, les États peuvent exercer la compétence universelle à l’encontre des crimes de jus cogens commis à l’étranger par l’étranger et sur l’étranger. Dans ce cadre, il nous semble que les États peuvent exercer la compétence universelle absolue. A cet effet, un État peut déclencher une poursuite pénale à l’encontre de l’étranger suspecté d’avoir commis des crimes de jus cogens, même si ce dernier n’est pas présent et/ou en détention sur le territoire de l’État du for. Il nous semble aussi que, l’immunité des hauts représentants d’État, ainsi que les lois d’amnistie étrangères, ne peuvent pas empêcher l’État du for d’exercer la compétence universelle afin de protéger les intérêts généraux de la communauté internationale dans son ensemble. / Traditional international law based on absolute notion of state sovereignty, is challenged by theemergence of peremptory norms Çus cogens). In this respect, the crystallization of peremptory humanrights norms is the result of the process of humanization of modern international law where theperemptory human rights norms of superior ranks place at the summit. We could believe that theacceptance of peremptory human rights norms creates erga omnes obligations of protection for States,members of the international community. In this context, in the case of violations of peremptoryhuman rights norms, all States are directly affected and injured by the violations in question and have the right to react. To this end, we believe that all States can adopt individual countermeasures against the wrongdoer state, violator of peremptory human rights norms. In the case of violations ofperemptory human rights norms, under certain conditions, States may resort to military interventionfor humanitarian purposes, even without the autholization of the United Nations Security Council.Also, under certain conditions, States can provide humanitarian aid to victims of violations ofperemptory human rights norms occurred outside their territory, even without the consent of theterritorial state. States are also required to suppress jus cogens crimes committed outside their territory. In this context, we believe that States can apply the principle of aut dedere aut judicare and prosecute aliens suspected of jus cogens crimes. In this context, States that apply the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, must respect the obligation of non-refoulement to prevent violations of peremptory human rights norms abroad. It seems to us that States that apply the principle of aut dedere aut judicare must also apply the principle of universal jurisdiction before their internal courts. In this regard, States can exercise universal jurisdiction againsl jus cogens crimes committed abroad, by foreigners and against foreigners. In this context, we believe that States may exercise the absolute universal jurisdiction. To this end, a State may initiate criminal proceedings against alien suspected of jus cogens crimes, even if helshe is not present and/or in custody in the territory ofthe forum State. It also seems to us that the immunity of senior state representatives and foreign amnesty laws, cannot prevent the forum State to exercise universal jurisdiction in order to protect the general interests of the international community as a whole.

Ph.D. Thesis ABSTRACT Mgr. Veronika Kristková, LL.M., 2013 Position of victims of human rights violations in international law with focus on victims of serious violations of human rights and international humantiarian law This work focuses within the broad theme of " Position of the victims of the human rights violations in international law" on victims of serious human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law (hereinafter only serious violations). The author decided to focus on the victims of serious violations because the research revealed that while the rights of victims of human rights violations are in general relatively settled in theory as well in practice of international law, the rights of the victims of serious violations is an area, which raises several doctrinal questions, encountered rapid development in recent years and continues to develop. Analysis of the rights of the victims of serious violations necessary must be based on the rights of the victims of human rights violations in general, which serves as a baseline for the analysis of the rights of the victims of serious violations. Only in comparison with the general rights of the victims of human rights violations the specificities of the rights of the victims of serious violations stand up. First the work...

The thesis examines the international law pertaining to the use of force by states, in general, and to the use of force in self-defence, in particular. The main question addressed is whether the use of force, which was purported to be in self-defence, by the United States, the United Kingdom and their allies against al Qaeda, the Taliban and Afghanistan, beginning on 7 October 2001, was lawful. The thesis focuses not only on this specific use of force, but also on the changing nature of conflict, the definition of terrorism and on the historical evolution of limitations on the use of force, from antiquity until 2006. In the six chapters which trace the epochs of international law, the progression of five inter-related concepts is followed: limitations on the resort to force generally, the use of force in self-defence, pre-emptive self-defence, the use of forcible measures short of war, and the use of force in response to non-state actors. This historical analysis includes a particular emphasis on understanding the meaning of the 'inherent right of self-defence', which was preserved by Article 51 of the United Nations' Charter. This analysis is then applied to the use of force against Afghanistan which occurred in 2001. Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September, the US and the UK notified the United Nations Security Council of their resort to force in self-defence under Article 51. Each element of Article 51 is analysed and the thesis concludes that there are significant doubts as to the lawfulness of that decision to employ force. In addition to the self-defence justification, other possible grounds for intervention are also examined, such as humanitarian intervention, Security Council authorisation and intervention by invitation. This thesis challenges the common assumption that the use of force against Afghanistan was an example of states exercising their inherent right to self-defence. It argues that if this particular use of force is not challenged, it will lead to an expansion of the right of self-defence which will hinder rather than enhance international peace and security. Finally, this thesis draws on recent examples to illustrate the point that the use of force against Afghanistan could become a dangerous precedent for the use of force in self-defence.