Universal Jurisdiction

The principle of universal jurisdiction is central to the mandate of the Legal Committee and at the forefront of legal questions facing the international community today. Universal jurisdiction is the principle in international law in which a state claims criminal jurisdiction over an individual who committed the crime outside of the prosecuting state. The prosecuting state says they have the right to arrest the individual because the state considered his crimes to be crimes against all mankind. Naturally, this issue is extremely controversial because of the vagueness of the terms and the capacity for the principle to be abused for ulterior political motives. It is precisely this high level of controversy that makes this legal issue so important for the Legal Committee to discuss. While universal jurisdiction has always been a discussion point of the Legal Committee, the principle is frequently attacked when exercised, and so a clearer, more widely accepted legal framework is in order.

Universal jurisdiction is a relatively specific principle in international law, and it is not used often enough to justify limiting the discussion to a particular region. Debate on this topic should revolve around the principle itself, not on a particular region’s utilization of the principle. It also does not make sense to limit the scope of this topic for legal purposes: all states would be equally affected by the resolutions passed because universal jurisdiction is a global principle, not a regional one.

Delegates will find this topic interesting because it stands out among most other international law principles. At first, the idea of one state arresting an individual whose crime was committed outside that state appears very contrary to the values of the UN. It seems like a blatant disregard of national sovereignty, a value to which most nations cling very tightly. However, upon a deeper look at the principle, it seems that there are exceptions that justify universal jurisdiction. For instance, could Finland not have arrested Osama bin Laden just because Osama never terrorized Finland specifically? Most of the international community would agree that this arrest would be completely justified, as the extent of bin Laden’s terrorism constitutes a crime against mankind. So how does one decide what is and what is not a “crime against humanity”? That is what makes this topic so interesting to high school delegates.