A comparative study of the formal requirements of the principle of ‎universal jurisdiction in the legal systems of Germany and Sweden

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Public International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of ‎Tehran, Tehran, Iran‎

2 Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, ‎Iran‎

Abstract

The rationale behind universal jurisdiction is to combat impunity and prevent third States from becoming safe havens for those who have committed international crimes; that is, when the alleged suspect is not a national of the State, the alleged suspect did not commit a crime in that State's territory or against its nationals, or the State's national interests have not been affected. The present article, with the descriptive-analytical method, and with the aim of explaining the status of universal jurisdiction in the contemporary international law system in general, examines the formal requirements of applying this principle in the legal systems of Germany and Sweden. The findings of this article show that in both legal systems of Germany and Sweden, there is unanimity regarding the application of the principle of absolute universal jurisdiction. In addition, the scope and application of this principle are often similar in these two States. However, in the legal system of Germany and Sweden, the prosecution and trial of alleged suspects of international crimes entail the fulfillment of formal requirements.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    - کتاب‌ها

    1. دلخوش، علیرضا (1390). مقابله با جرائم بین المللی؛ تعهد دولت‌ها به همکاری، تهران: انتشارات شهردانش.
    2. دوسوالدبک، لوییس و هنکرتز، ژان ماری (1387). حقوق بین‌المللی بشردوستانه عرفی، جلد اول: قواعد، ترجمۀ دفتر امور بین‌الملل قوۀ قضاییۀ جمهوری اسلامی ایران و کمیتۀ بین‌المللی صلیب سرخ، ویراستاران: کتایون حسین‌نژاد و پوریا عسکری، تهران: انتشارات مجد.
    3. زمانی، سید قاسم (1400). گفتارهایی در حقوق بین الملل بشر، تهران: انتشارات خرسندی.
    4. ضیایی بیگدلی، محمدرضا (1388). حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، تهران: انتشارات گنج دانش.
    5. کاسسه، آنتونیو (1387). حقوق کیفری بین‌المللی، ترجمۀ حسین پیران و همکاران، تهران: انتشارات جنگل.
    6. والاس، ربکا (1387). حقوق بین‌الملل، ترجمۀ سید قاسم زمانی، تهران، شهردانش.
    7. وکیل، امیرساعد (1390). ضمانت اجرای حقوق بنیادین بشر، تهران: بنیاد حقوقی میزان.

     

    - مقالات

    1. رستمی، سینا (1398). بررسی حدود اعمال اصل صلاحیت جهانی در نظام حقوقی ایران. فصلنامۀ داخلی وکلای دادگستری خراسان، 9 ( 19) پیاپی 19، 137-156.
    2. صابر، محمود و میرمجیدی هشتچین، سپیده (1392). بررسی تطبیقی جرم‌انگاری حاملگی اجباری در دادگاه یوگسلاوی، رواندا و دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی؛ حمایت از جنسیت یا دیگر ارزش‌های موضوع حقوق بین‌الملل. مجلۀ مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، 4) 2) پیاپی 2، 97-121.
    3. فروغی، فضل‌الله (1387). مطالعۀ تطبیقی اصل صلاحیت جهانی در حقوق کیفری آلمان و آمریکا. فصلنامۀ حقوق، مجلۀ دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، 38 (2)، 261-283.

     

    ب) انگلیسی

    -   Book

    1. Cryer, Robert; Friman, Håkan; Robinson, Darryl; Wilmshurst Elizabeth (2007). an Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge University Press.

     

    -     Article & Thesis

    1. Fernández-Sánchez (2018). Universal Jurisdiction and Terrorism, (GJIL). 6 (1).
    2. Takeuchi, Mari (2014). Modalities of the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in International Law. Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of PhD, School of Law College of Social Science University of Glasgow.
    3. Wyngaert, C. van den. (1989). Double criminality as a requirement to jurisdiction. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Kriminalvidenskab, 76 (5). Available at: https://doi.org/10.7146/ntfk.v76i5.71230.

     

    • Laws, Reports, and Statements
    1. Act on criminal responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (UCA), issued on 28 May 2014, Published 11 June 2014.
    2. Charter of the International Military Tribunal - Annex to the Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis (“London Agreement”), 8 August 1945.
    3. Code of Crimes against International Law (CCAIL) of 26 June 2002 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 2254), as last amended by Article 1 of the Act of 22 December 2016 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 3150).
    4. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984.
    5. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984.
    6. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 14 May 1954.
    7. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, 23 September 1971.
    8. Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation, 10 March 1988.
    9. Convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure of aircraft, 16 December 1970.
    10. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948.
    11. Cordero, I. Blanco (2008), Universal jurisdiction; General report, Dans Revue internationale de droit pénal 2008/1-2 (Vol. 79), pages 59 à 100.
    12. Criminal Code in the version published on 13 November 1998 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 3322), as last amended by Article 2 of the Act of 19 June 2019 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 844).
    13. Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 14 May 1954.
    14. ICJ, separate opinion of president guillaume, Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment of 14 February 2002.
    15. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic aka “Dule”, (Case No. IT-94-1-I, Oct. 2, 1995).
    16. Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, 9 December 1985.
    17. International Convention against the taking of hostages, 17 December 1979.
    18. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 23 December 2010.
    19. Iraqi High Tribunal, Dujail Trial, 5 November 2006.
    20. Ministry of Justice Sweden, The Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations, reference LA/COD/59/1. 2021.
    21. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998.
    22. Second Protocol to The Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 26 March 1999.
    23. Statement by Sweden on behalf of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), at the Sixth Committee on “The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction”, 2018.
    24. Statement by the Federal Republic of Germany at the Sixth Committee on “The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction”, October 2021.
    25. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
    26. Statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
    27. The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. New York, 26 November 1968, Entry into force: 11 November 1970.
    28. The French Criminal Code of Procedure (CCP), Date Published 1988.
    29. The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction, Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction, With a Foreword by Hon. Mary Robinson United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2001.
    30. The Swedish Criminal Code (SCC), adopted in 1962 and entered into force on 1 January 1965, and amendments.
    31. TRIAL International, Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review 2022.
    32. TRIAL International, Universal Jurisdiction Law and Practice in Germany, March 2019.
    33. TRIAL International, Universal Jurisdiction Law and Practice in Sweden, April 2020.
    34. UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.967, 11 May 2022.
    35. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 10 December 1982.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 15, Issue 2
Autumn & Winter 2024-2025
December 2024
Pages 573-599

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics