The application of universal jurisdiction to end impunity for major human rights violations: conflict between accountability and sovereignty

Abstract

Universal jurisdiction is a tool of international criminal law with patchwork application, unclear foundations, and an unsolidified scope. Despite this, its importance is acknowledged by most states and it is flaunted as a favorite tool of human rights advocates and organization. With increased globalization and awareness of major human rights atrocities, the application of universal jurisdiction to end impunities has become more frequent. This increased application increases the need to question whether universal jurisdiction is an effective way of ending impunity for major human rights violations. This work considers the coherence of the principle, first by considering its objectives, evaluating how it is used in state practice, and culminating in consideration of the main impediment in its application: the current understanding of the norms of state sovereignty. Through considering of the rules of immunity and their tangible interactions with universal jurisdiction, this work concludes that under current international practice, the principle meets political opposition rendering it ineffective in completing its objectives. However, trends in the understandings of responsible sovereignty and hierarchies of legal rules provide hope that with increased practice and legal consideration universal jurisdiction has the potential to providing a meaningful tool for ending impunity for major human rights violations.