What Universal Jurisdiction Is
Universal jurisdiction is a principle of international law (supported by customary law and domestic legislation in many states) that allows a country’s national courts to investigate and prosecute certain serious crimes—such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, and (historically) piracy—regardless of:
• Where the crime occurred,
• The nationality of the perpetrator or victims, or
• Any other traditional link to the prosecuting state. seoul.ohchr.org
It is grounded in the idea that these crimes are so grave they harm the international community as a whole, so any state may act to prevent impunity. It is not exercised by the ICJ or ICC themselves.
• The ICJ (“World Court”) settles legal disputes between states; it does not prosecute individuals and has no role in universal jurisdiction criminal cases. hrw.org
• The ICC has limited, treaty-based jurisdiction (primarily territorial or nationality of States Parties, plus UN Security Council referrals). It is complementary to national systems and does not itself exercise pure universal jurisdiction. States can and have withdrawn from the Rome Statute (e.g., Burundi and the Philippines; others have given notice), but this does not affect national courts’ ability to use universal jurisdiction. jurist.org
A state’s withdrawal from the ICJ’s optional clause (accepting compulsory jurisdiction in inter-state cases) or from the ICC is therefore irrelevant to whether other states’ courts can invoke universal jurisdiction against that state’s nationals or for crimes connected to it.
Who Enforces It?
Enforcement is entirely national and state-driven:
• The police, prosecutors, and courts of the state choosing to exercise universal jurisdiction handle investigation, indictment, arrest, trial, and any punishment.
• In practice, most states require the accused to be present on their territory (or reachable via extradition) before proceeding, to avoid purely “in absentia” cases that create diplomatic friction.
• Other states may assist through extradition treaties, mutual legal assistance, or evidence-sharing, but there is no automatic international enforcement mechanism, no UN or ICJ police force, and no requirement that the ICC or any other body step in.
• High-level officials may still benefit from personal immunities under international law while in office (as clarified in ICJ cases such as the Arrest Warrant case), which can limit practical application.
Examples of states that have used universal jurisdiction include various European countries (Germany, France, Sweden, etc.) in cases linked to Syria, Rwanda, Liberia, and elsewhere; Israel in the Eichmann case; Argentina regarding certain Myanmar officials; and others. These cases proceeded independently of whether the territorial or nationality state was an ICC party or accepted ICJ jurisdiction. en.wikipedia.org
Practical Limits
While legally available, universal jurisdiction is used selectively because of resource demands, evidentiary challenges (crimes often occurred far away), political/diplomatic costs, and the risk of accusations of selective or politicized justice. Many states treat it as subsidiary—preferring prosecution by the territorial state, the state of nationality, or an international tribunal when those options are viable.
In short: withdrawal from the ICJ or ICC does not shield individuals from universal jurisdiction claims by other countries’ courts. Those national authorities enforce any such proceedings through their own domestic systems, subject to the usual constraints of international cooperation and immunities.
Q:
When you say “states” do you mean countries?
A:
Yes, in international law (and in the discussion of universal jurisdiction, the ICC, the ICJ, and related topics), the term “states” means sovereign countries – independent nation – states with defined territory, population, government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other countries.
It does not refer to sub-national entities such U.S. states (e.g., California or Texas), provinces or other internal divisions. Those are usually called “states” only in domestic contexts (especially in federal systems like the United States).
So, when sources or legal discussions say things like “any state may exercise universal jurisdiction” or “States Parties to the Rome Statute,”, they mean countries.
On Jul 31, 2026, at 9:44 am, Richard Kostelanetz from KostelOmnibus <richardkostelanetz@substack.com> wrote:
Once a legitimate strategy for a defendant in a trial, in testimony to Congress Anthony Fauci made it hard for others to use it again without reminded everyone of his glib and smug rote evasions.
Without a tinge of irony, he recited it over one hundred times for everything, including questions that had nothing to do with self-incrimination, such as the colors of the rug or his tie and today’s day of his week.
Nonetheless, everyone could see that he was responding. In his body language, two commentators online identified replies:
Innocent he wasn’t.
Though Fauci himself has been pardoned, should his lawyers be disbarred?
I expect to say more about this later.
You're currently a free subscriber to KostelOmnibus. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.