This document outlines a presentation on universal jurisdiction under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It discusses traditional principles of jurisdiction, defines universal jurisdiction, and outlines limits on its use. It describes the ICC's jurisdiction and justifications for universal jurisdiction, such as denying safe havens for perpetrators and closing impunity gaps. However, it also discusses arguments against universal jurisdiction, such as threats to sovereignty. The conclusion is that while there seems to be consensus on universal jurisdiction in theory among states, it remains controversial in practical application due to sovereignty concerns. The ICC also does not exercise pure universal jurisdiction due to its complementarity and cooperation regimes.

1. University of
Leicester
Universal Jurisdiction Under the
Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court: A Consensus or a
Controversy? Ovo Imoedemhe
Graduate Conference
22nd March 2012

2. Outline
Introduction
The Traditional Links of Jurisdiction
Universal Jurisdiction (UJ)
Limits/Restrictions on the use of UJ
Universal Jurisdiction under the Rome Statute
Justification for the use of UJ
The Case against the use of UJ
 Conclusions; UJ: A Consensus or A Controversy?

3. Introduction
 General overview
 Territoriality Principle
 Nationality Principle (Active or Passive)
 Protective Principle

4. Universal Jurisdiction (1)
 Universal jurisdiction requires a state to
exercise jurisdiction over specific crimes
without a connection or a nexus between
the offence, the offender, or the victim
and the state exercising jurisdiction.

5. Limits on the Use of UJ
 The ‘Presence’ requirement
 The Subsidiarity Principle.

6. Jurisdiction of the ICC
 Jurisdiction over the territory of a state party
 Jurisdiction over nationals of a state party
 Jurisdiction over the territory of a state non-party who makes a
declaration to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC
 Jurisdiction where the Security Council makes a referral
 (- Articles, 12, 13 & 14 Rome Statute of the ICC)

7. Justification for UJ (1)
 To Deny Safe Havens to perpetrators of
International Crimes
 To Close impunity gaps

8. Justification for UJ 2
The rationale underlying universal
jurisdiction is that crimes of international
concern are crimes against the
international community as a whole
because they infringe on universal values.
Hostis humanis juris-enemy of humanity

9. Justification for UJ (3)
 ‘In the prospect of an international criminal
court lies the promise of universal justice.
That is the simple and soaring hope of this
vision. We are close to its realization. We will
do our part to see it through till the end. We
ask you . . . to do yours in our struggle to
ensure that no ruler, no state, no junta and no
army anywhere can abuse human rights with
impunity…’ (Kofi Anan)

10. The Case Against UJ
UJ does not possess enough legal
persuasiveness in comparison to other
jurisdictional principles
Poses a threat to Sovereignty
Breaches the principle of immunity.
Instigates sovereign inequality.

11. Conclusion
 Is UJ a consensus or a controversy?
 On the part of states, there seems to be a consensus
on the use of UJ and yet it is a controversy in
practical terms.
 On the part of the ICC, no universal jurisdiction in
view of the Complementarity and Cooperation
regimes of the Rome Statute. (Arts 1 & 17)

12. Thank you.