Abstract

The paper "Universal Jurisdiction Over Crimes Against Humanity" examines the concept of jurisdiction in international law over crimes against humanity, with a specific focus on the universality principle. This principle provides a means for addressing the gravest of crimes that appeal to the "universal concern" - especially crimes against humanity when domestic avenues of justice are not available. The paper explores the origins and nature of such 'crimes against humanity', distinguishing them from other types of crimes, and presents arguments for why the universality principle is an appropriate means of addressing them. The paper also discusses the legal sources of authority that support the universality principle, including treaties, conventions, and customary international law to present an academic account of the evolution of the principle itself, with brief case descriptions to connect it to the broader domain of legal research. Finally, the paper presents arguments both for and against the implementation of universal jurisdiction, highlighting its potential benefits and shortcomings. The paper concludes with recommendations for further research and policy development in this area. Overall, the paper contributes to a growing body of scholarship on the use of universal jurisdiction as a tool for combating impunity and promoting accountability for the gravest of crimes.

Keywords