Basic characteristics of universal jurisdiction in contemporary criminal law

Abstract

Universal jurisdiction is resorted to when a territorial state or another state with jurisdictional priority based on the nationalities of perpetrator and victim will not or can not act in order to prevent international crimes stricto sensu (core crimes) or when there is no reaction of international judicial institutions in this respect. Having broad powers in terms of specific links to a prosecuting state and often in terms of perpetrator's presence in a prosecuting state, universal jurisdiction successfully fills these gaps, and takes part in the global effort of the international community to prevent the impunity of the perpetrators of core crimes. Using a comparative method (German, Spanish and Belgian legislation), we endeavored to point out the basic legal features of the matter, thus providing a basis for discussion in Serbian criminal law de lege lata and de lege ferenda. Major issues standing out in this context are universal jurisdiction in absentia, principle of subsidiarity and sham process. Even though universal jurisdiction, in its genuine form, appears only in core crimes, many important and recent issues in this field have been related to treaty-based crimes, as well as to ordinary crimes, and to certain extent they have also been touched upon in this paper.