This paper critically examines the evolving doctrine of universal jurisdiction (UJ) and its role in enforcing accountability for international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture. UJ empowers national courts to prosecute such crimes regardless of where they occurred or the nationality of those involved. Advocates regard it as a necessary instrument to combat impunity when domestic and international forums fail. However, its use has also provoked strong opposition, raising concerns over sovereignty, political manipulation, and judicial overreach.
Through a doctrinal analysis and comparative study of state practices in Germany, Spain, and Belgium, along with critical case studies—including the Pinochet case, Hissène Habré, and Germany’s Koblenz trial—this research evaluates both the legal foundations and the practical challenges of universal jurisdiction. It identifies key benefits, such as filling justice gaps and deterring atrocity crimes, while also addressing the risks of politicization, selective enforcement, and conflict with international institutions like the ICC.
