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...

The process of internationalization of human rights was one of those responsible for making individuals subject to international law and for motivating the development of the principle of humanity. In this context, cosmopolitan ideals, inspired by the philosophical reflections of Immanuel Kant, from the middle of the last century, began to emerge with the intention of providing bases for the interpretation of certain phenomena. In the legal field, observation based on precepts of cosmopolitanism provides important elements for understanding human rights and the need to combat impunity for those who commit global violations of such rights through genocide, war crimes and crimes Against humanity. In relation to these criminal types, internationalization fostered the so-called principle of universal jurisdiction. According to this principle, any State is capable of prosecuting crimes against human rights, even if there is no territorial connection of the facts to its territory or nationality link between victims and / or defendants and the state of judgment. We are faced with the so-called judicial relocation, in which elements such as territoriality and nationality are put in check because of the need to protect human rights. The use of this principle, by generating ruptures with elements of modern understanding of law, jurisdiction and process, raises practical questions in the field of the so-called cosmopolitanization of justice. In view of this scenario, the research problems that guide this work are: To what extent does the process of internationalization of human rights establish a duty of States to exercise universal jurisdiction? When looking at the limits of the real, what are the obstacles to an effective exercise of universal jurisdiction in its absolute form? The general objective of the research was to observe the principle of universal jurisdiction over the dichotomous view of being cosmopolitan, of inspiration in Kantian philosophical reflections and of authors who use Kant as their theoretical basis and of the being of cosmopolitanization, a concept developed in the plane of Sociology by Ulrich Beck and which demonstrates that reality departs from the perceptions of a philosophical cosmopolitanism and approaches the idea that society has become cosmopolitan because of the transnationalization of global risks. The method of dialectical approach and the methods of comparative and typological procedure were used. It has been concluded that philosophically anchored on the premises of cosmopolitanism and, legally in the norms of jus cogens, universal jurisdiction, in its absolute form, is seen as a duty to be able to break with impunity and repair human rights violations. However, the reality of being shies away from universalist pretensions and approaches the particularism of practices, so that the presence of legal and political obstacles to the exercise of universal jurisdiction drastically reduces its spectrum of application. From the duty of punishment, through the application of absolute universal jurisdiction, States have only been able to punish if there are certain conditions, generally stipulated by their respective domestic laws. / O processo de internacionalização dos direitos humanos foi um dos responsáveis por tornar os indivíduos em sujeitos de direito internacional e por motivar o desenvolvimento do princípio da humanidade. Nesse contexto, ideais cosmopolitas, inspirados nas reflexões filosóficas de Immanuel Kant, a partir de meados do século passado, passaram a despontar com o intuito de fornecer bases para a interpretação de determinados fenômenos. No campo jurídico, a observação a partir de preceitos do cosmopolitismo acaba por fornecer importantes elementos para a compreensão dos direitos humanos e da necessidade de combate à impunidade em relação àqueles que cometem violações globais a tais direitos por meio de genocídios, crimes de guerra e crimes contra a humanidade. Em relação a esses tipos penais, a internacionalização fomentou o chamado princípio da jurisdição universal. Segundo tal princípio, qualquer Estado é capaz de julgar crimes ocorridos contra os direitos humanos, mesmo que não haja vinculação territorial dos fatos ao seu território ou vínculo de nacionalidade entre vítimas e/ou réus e o Estado julgador. Está-se diante da denominada deslocalização judiciária, em que elementos como territorialidade e nacionalidade são colocados em xeque por força da necessidade de proteção aos direitos humanos. A utilização desse princípio, por gerar rupturas com elementos da compreensão moderna de direito, de jurisdição e de processo, gera questionamentos de ordem prática, no campo da chamada cosmopolitização da justiça. Diante desse cenário, os problemas de pesquisa que norteiam este trabalho são: Em que medida o processo de internacionalização dos direitos humanos estabelece um dever de exercício de jurisdição universal por parte dos Estados? Ao observar os limites do real, quais são os entraves para um efetivo exercício da jurisdição universal em sua forma absoluta? O objetivo geral da pesquisa foi o de observar o princípio da jurisdição universal sobre a ótica dicotômica do dever ser cosmopolita, de inspiração nas reflexões filosóficas kantianas e de autores que utilizam Kant como sua base teórica e do ser da cosmopolitização, conceito desenvolvido no plano da sociologia por Ulrich Beck e que demonstra que a realidade se afasta das percepções de um cosmopolitismo filosófico e se aproxima da ideia de que a sociedade se tornou cosmopolita em razão da transnacionalização de riscos globais. Utilizou-se o método de abordagem dialético e os métodos de procedimento comparativo e tipológico. Concluiu-se que ancorada filosoficamente em premissas do cosmopolitismo e, juridicamente nas normas do jus cogens, a jurisdição universal, em sua forma absoluta, é vista como um dever ser capaz de romper com a impunidade e reparar violações de direitos humanos. No entanto, a realidade do ser afasta-se das pretensões universalistas e se aproxima do particularismo das práticas, de modo que a presença de entraves jurídicos e políticos ao exercício da jurisdição universal reduzem de modo drástico o seu espectro de aplicação. De dever de punir, por meio da aplicação da jurisdição universal absoluta, os Estados passaram a somente poder punir se houver a assunção de algumas condições, em geral estipuladas pelas respectivas legislações internas.

This thesis focuses on the issue of maritime pirate attacks prosecution. The proposal of the establishment of an International Piracy Court is connected to the growth of pirate attacks in the area of the Gulf of Aden off the borders of Somalia between 2007 and 2011. The Somali government was not able to suppress this threat to the international security and pirates often avoided trial. Other countries were not willing to prosecute pirates at their national courts. By that time the thought of the establishment of the new specialized international tribunal arised. The aim of this thesis is to evaluate if there actually is the necessity to create an International Piracy Court in the current local and global situation.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2015 / ENGLISH ABSTRACT : Universal jurisdiction is a relatively new concept in South Africa and a rather controversial concept in international criminal law. It is often discussed but rarely applied. Universal jurisdiction refers to the power of a State to punish certain crimes irrespective of where they were committed. Such crimes need not be connected to the State in question via the more traditional links of territory, nationality or direct State interest. These crimes are typically the worst crimes in international law such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The argument goes that those who commit these types of offences become hostis humani generis, or the enemies of all mankind. Therefore just like the pirate of old any nation that captures them is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction over them, on behalf of all mankind. But at the same time a feature and founding principle of international law is the sovereign equality of States. And under international law criminal jurisdiction is a prerogative of sovereign States. States have territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed within their territory, for having control over a territory is essentially what it means to be sovereign. This means that one nation’s attempt to exercise jurisdiction over persons that also fall under the jurisdiction of another nation could be perceived as the undermining of the second nation’s sovereignty. It is submitted that a proper understanding of universal jurisdiction internationally, and in South Africa, is vital because the Constitutional Court recently ordered South African authorities to investigate torture committed by Zimbabwean officials against Zimbabwean citizens that was allegedly committed in Zimbabwe. In other words the court ordered South African authorities to exercise universal jurisdiction over Zimbabwean officials. This thesis has as goal to critically examine the claims made, and authorities, cited in support of universal jurisdiction, as it is believed that these are usually theoretical and unpractical in nature. It is submitted that balance and a measure of realism is imperative to this debate. Contrary to popular opinion, it is submitted, that the history of international relations has not favored universal jurisdiction and there is no indication that this situation has fundamentally changed or will change in the near future. The thesis continues to examine, after a consideration of the likening of pirates to modern international criminals, the claim that old authorities such as Grotius and De Vattel provide support for universal jurisdiction. An analysis follows of the so-called ‘Lotus principle’, which is said to mean that any State may exercise jurisdiction over serious offences because there is no rule prohibiting it. The trials of German war criminals by the Allies, in the aftermath of WWII, is also said to have evidenced universal jurisdiction and this claim is critically examined. The same applies to the trial of Adolf Eichmann by Israel. The examination of provision for universal jurisdiction in international law continues when the jurisdictional provisions of the Genocide, War Crimes and Torture Conventions are examined and specifically applied to South Africa. The drafting process of these Conventions is carefully studied to understand the intention and circumstances prevalent at the time. In the process specific countries and international case law dealing with these Conventions is also considered. The jurisdictional triggers of the International Criminal Court are surveyed and it is questioned whether it provides for universal jurisdiction and whether it can then be said to support member States in exercising universal jurisdiction on its behalf. The research findings on universal jurisdiction and the ICC are finally applied to South Africa especially with reference to the Constitutional Court decision on the torture committed in Zimbabwe before conclusions are drawn as to what South Africa’s international and domestic duties entail. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING : Universele jurisdiksie is ‘n relatief nuwe konsep in Suid-Afrika en ‘n redelik kontroversiële konsep in internasionale strafreg. Dit word gereeld bespreek maar weinig toegepas. Universele jurisdiksie verwys na die bevoegdheid van ‘n Staat om sekere misdrywe te straf ongeag waar dit gepleeg is. Die betrokke Staat hoef nie enige van die traditionele verbindings soos territorialiteit, nationaliteit of direkte Staats-belang met sodanige misdrywe te hê nie. Hierdie misdade is tipies van die ergste misdade in internasionale reg, soos volksmoord, oorlogsmisdade en misdade teen die mensdom. Die argument is dat diegene wat hierdie tipe misdrywe pleeg hostis humanis generis, of vyande van die mensdom word. Daarom, net soos die seerower van ouds, is enige nasie, wat hulle in hegtenis neem geregtig om sy jurisdiksie, namens die ganse mensdom, oor hulle uit te oefen. Maar terselfde tyd is 'n kenmerk en grondbeginsel van internasionale reg die soewereine gelykheid van State. En onder internasionale reg is strafregtelike jurisdiksie 'n prerogatief van soewereine State. State het territoriale jurisdiksie oor misdade wat binne hul regsgebied gepleeg is, want om beheer oor 'n gebied uit te oefen is in wese wat soewerein wees behels. Dus kan een Staat se poging om jurisdiksie uit te oefen oor persone wat ook onder die jurisdiksie van 'n ander Staat val beskou word as die ondergrawing van die tweede Staat se soewereiniteit. Dit word aan die hand gedoen dat 'n behoorlike begrip van universele jurisdiksie, beide internasionaal, en in Suid-Afrika van uiterse belang is, veral omdat die Konstitionele Hof onlangs Suid-Afrikaanse owerhede beveel het dat marteling gepleeg in Zimbabwe, deur Zimbabwiese amptenare, teen Zimbabwiese burgers ondersoek moet word. Die hof het dus beveel dat die Suid-Afrikaanse owerhede universele jurisdiksie moet uitoefen oor Zimbabwiese amptenare. Hierdie tesis het ten doel om die gesag gewoonlik genoem, ter ondersteuning van universele jurisdiksie, krities te beskou, veral omdat dit gewoonlik teoreties en onprakties van aard blyk te wees. Hierdie tesis poog om ‘n noodsaaklike balans en mate van realisme tot die debat te voeg. Anders as wat algemeen aanvaar word ondersteun die geskiedenis van internasionale betrekkinge nie universele jurisdiksie nie en is daar ook geen aanduiding dat hierdie situasie onlangs fundamenteel verander het, of in die nabye toekoms sal verander nie. Die tesis beskou voorts, na 'n oorweging van die vergelyking van seerowers met moderne internasionale misdadigers, die bewering dat die ou skrywers soos De Groot en De Vattel hul steun verleen aan universele jurisdiksie. Hierna volg ‘n ontleding van die sogenaamde "Lotus beginsel", wat glo beteken dat enige Staat jurisdiksie mag uitoefen oor ernstige oortredings, bloot omdat daar geen reël is wat dit verbied nie. Die verhore van Duitse oorlogs misdadigers deur die Geallieerdes, na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog, word ook dikwels as bewys gebruik van universele jurisdiksie en word ook krities bekyk. Dieselfde geld vir die verhoor van Adolf Eichmann deur Israel. Die voorsiening gemaak vir universele jurisdiksie word verder ondersoek deur te let op die jurisdiksionele bepalings in die Konvensies oor volksmoord, oorlogsmisdade en marteling en dit word telkens op Suid-Afrika van toepassing gemaak. Daar word veral noukeurig gelet op die opstel proses van hierdie Konvensies ten einde te bepaal presies wat die bedoeling en heersende omstandighede toe was. In die proses word spesifieke lande en internasionale gesag wat met die Konvensies te make het oorweeg. Die Internasionale Strafhof, en of dit voorsiening vir universele jurisdiksie maak, word ondersoek ten einde te bepaal of dit enigsins gesê kan word dat die Hof lidstate aanmoedig om universele jurisdiksie te beoefen. Laastens word die bevindings oor universele jurisdiksie en die Internasionale Strafhof toegepas op Suid-Afrika, veral met verwysing na die Konstitusionele Hof beslissing oor die marteling in Zimbabwe, voordat gevolgtrekkings gemaak word oor wat presies Suid-Afrika se internasionale en plaaslike pligte behels.

The principal questions addressed in this portfolio of eleven publications concern the reforms to French justice at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries. The portfolio is accompanied by a supporting statement explaining the genesis and chronology of the portfolio, its originality and the nature of the submission's distinct contribution to knowledge. The thesis questions whether the reforms protect the rights of the defence adequately. It considers how the French state views its responsibility to key figures in criminal justice, be they suspected and convicted criminals, the victims of offences or the professionals who are prosecuting the offences. It reflects upon the role of the examining magistrate, the delicate relationship between justice, politics and the media, breaches of confidentiality and the catastrophic conditions in which suspects and prisoners are detained in French prisons. It then extends its scope to a case study of the prosecution of violent crimes before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and discovers significant flaws in procedures even at international levels. In concluding, it asks whether, given the challenges facing the French criminal justice system, French courts are adequately equipped to assure justice when suspects charged with the most serious international crimes appear before them under the principle of universal jurisdiction. The research, carried out over a number of years, relies predominantly on an analysis of French-language sources and represents a unique contribution to the understanding and knowledge of French justice for an English-speaking public at the turn of the twenty-first century.

The principal questions addressed in this portfolio of eleven publications concern the reforms to French justice at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries. The portfolio is accompanied by a supporting statement explaining the genesis and chronology of the portfolio, its originality and the nature of the submission's distinct contribution to knowledge. The thesis questions whether the reforms protect the rights of the defence adequately. It considers how the French state views its responsibility to key figures in criminal justice, be they suspected and convicted criminals, the victims of offences or the professionals who are prosecuting the offences. It reflects upon the role of the examining magistrate, the delicate relationship between justice, politics and the media, breaches of confidentiality and the catastrophic conditions in which suspects and prisoners are detained in French prisons. It then extends its scope to a case study of the prosecution of violent crimes before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and discovers significant flaws in procedures even at international levels. In concluding, it asks whether, given the challenges facing the French criminal justice system, French courts are adequately equipped to assure justice when suspects charged with the most serious international crimes appear before them under the principle of universal jurisdiction. The research, carried out over a number of years, relies predominantly on an analysis of French-language sources and represents a unique contribution to the understanding and knowledge of French justice for an English-speaking public at the turn of the twenty-first century.

No description available.

Because of its mandate and its enforcement powers, the ICC has been hailed as a major advance on the road towards individual accountability for the perpetration of the most heinous violations of human rights (international crimes) and thus as a major contribution to the prevention of such horrible crimes. However, with its limited resources in terms of human and financial means, the ICC will not be able to deal with all perpetrators of the crimes that come under its jurisdiction wherever such crimes are committed throughout the world. For this reason, in order to end impunity in the commission of international crimes, there will always be a need for combined efforts by the ICC and national courts. This reality is recognised by the Rome Statute which, in the preamble and article 1 of the Statute, provides that the jurisdiction of the ICC is “complementary” to national courts and that, therefore, States Parties retain the primary responsibility for the repression of international crimes. In legal literature, this is generally referred to as the “principle of complementarity” or the “complementarity regime of the Rome Statute”. In order to give effect to the complementarity principle of the Rome Statute, South Africa passed the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 (hereafter the Implementation Act); which determines the modalities of prosecuting perpetrators of the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in South African courts. The Implementation Act also provides that South African courts will have jurisdiction over these crimes not only when they are committed on South African territory but also when they are committed outside the Republic, thus empowering South African courts to exercise “universal jurisdiction” over these three international crimes. This thesis examines the extent to which South African courts, acting under the complementarity regime of the Rome Statute are, or are not, allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed in foreign States. The study is based on two assumptions. First, it is assumed that since under the principle of complementarity South African courts are required to do the same job as the ICC, they should have the same powers as those States Parties gave to the ICC when they adopted the Rome Statute. Secondly, it is assumed that, although having the same mandate as the ICC in terms of the complementarity principle, South African courts are nonetheless domestic courts as opposed to the ICC which is an international court and that, accordingly, the international law principle of State sovereignty may impose limitations on their ability to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed in foreign States. In the light of the above assumptions, this study investigates three issues. Firstly, do South African courts have the same powers as the ICC has to disregard immunities of foreign States’ officials which, under international customary law, attach to their functions or status? Secondly, are South African courts entitled, as the ICC is, to disregard amnesties granted by foreign States, either in the process of national reconciliation or as means to shield the criminals from prosecution by the ICC? Finally, are South African courts entitled, as the ICC is, to retry a case which has already been tried in a foreign country but with the aim of shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or where, for example, the sentence imposed was too lenient in comparison with the gravity of the crime? / PhD (Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Because of its mandate and its enforcement powers, the ICC has been hailed as a major advance on the road towards individual accountability for the perpetration of the most heinous violations of human rights (international crimes) and thus as a major contribution to the prevention of such horrible crimes. However, with its limited resources in terms of human and financial means, the ICC will not be able to deal with all perpetrators of the crimes that come under its jurisdiction wherever such crimes are committed throughout the world. For this reason, in order to end impunity in the commission of international crimes, there will always be a need for combined efforts by the ICC and national courts. This reality is recognised by the Rome Statute which, in the preamble and article 1 of the Statute, provides that the jurisdiction of the ICC is “complementary” to national courts and that, therefore, States Parties retain the primary responsibility for the repression of international crimes. In legal literature, this is generally referred to as the “principle of complementarity” or the “complementarity regime of the Rome Statute”. In order to give effect to the complementarity principle of the Rome Statute, South Africa passed the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 (hereafter the Implementation Act); which determines the modalities of prosecuting perpetrators of the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in South African courts. The Implementation Act also provides that South African courts will have jurisdiction over these crimes not only when they are committed on South African territory but also when they are committed outside the Republic, thus empowering South African courts to exercise “universal jurisdiction” over these three international crimes. This thesis examines the extent to which South African courts, acting under the complementarity regime of the Rome Statute are, or are not, allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed in foreign States. The study is based on two assumptions. First, it is assumed that since under the principle of complementarity South African courts are required to do the same job as the ICC, they should have the same powers as those States Parties gave to the ICC when they adopted the Rome Statute. Secondly, it is assumed that, although having the same mandate as the ICC in terms of the complementarity principle, South African courts are nonetheless domestic courts as opposed to the ICC which is an international court and that, accordingly, the international law principle of State sovereignty may impose limitations on their ability to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed in foreign States. In the light of the above assumptions, this study investigates three issues. Firstly, do South African courts have the same powers as the ICC has to disregard immunities of foreign States’ officials which, under international customary law, attach to their functions or status? Secondly, are South African courts entitled, as the ICC is, to disregard amnesties granted by foreign States, either in the process of national reconciliation or as means to shield the criminals from prosecution by the ICC? Finally, are South African courts entitled, as the ICC is, to retry a case which has already been tried in a foreign country but with the aim of shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or where, for example, the sentence imposed was too lenient in comparison with the gravity of the crime? / PhD (Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

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...