Sixth Committee Debate on Scope, Application of Universal Jurisdiction Begins

Sixth Committee Debate on Scope, Application of Universal Jurisdiction Begins

As the Sixth Committee (Legal) began consideration of "the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction" today, speakers alternately emphasized the importance of combatting impunity and ensuring that justice is not applied selectively.

Universal jurisdiction enables States to prosecute the most serious international crimes, regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of those involved, said the representative of the Czech Republic, also speaking for Austria and Slovakia. It thus complements traditional jurisdictional bases, she noted, "serving as a vital safeguard against impunity when other avenues of justice remain closed". However, greater legal clarity is needed, and she said that entrusting this topic to the International Law Commission would "help to depoliticize the discussion".

"There is far from an international consensus on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction," observed China's representative. She noted that some States establish jurisdiction based on principle of aut dedere aut judicare [Latin for "either extradite or prosecute"] or exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction based on certain factors. "Both constitute departures from the traditions of jurisdiction rationae loci [based on the place] or jurisdiction rationae personae [based on the individual]," she observed, stressing that universal jurisdiction should only be exercised in "extremely exceptional and isolated cases".

Similarly, the representative of Türkiye said that the exercise of universal jurisdiction should not supersede or substitute the jurisdiction of States having a "direct nexus" with the alleged crime. Further, treaty obligations concerning aut dedere aut judicare are both conceptually and legally distinct from universal jurisdiction, as the former provide a reliable and predictable framework for ensuring accountability for relevant offenses. The use of universal jurisdiction, she emphasized, should only "be contemplated where States having primary jurisdiction are unable or unwilling, genuinely, to investigate or prosecute".

Informed by Experience

Providing an example, the representative of Myanmar underscored: "Our legal system has been entirely controlled by the military junta." In circumstances such as this - "when the State apparatus is hijacked by criminals" - he underscored that "the international legal framework must step in". Stressing that the junta continues to act as though the international community will not intervene, he called on States to "prove them wrong". He added: "In this regard, we view universal jurisdiction as a critical lifeline."

"For Rwanda, our position on universal jurisdiction is informed by experience," said that country's representative. The principle ensures that perpetrators of the gravest crimes do not escape justice, but it is also prone to abuse. "We have seen judges in some capitals seek to exercise jurisdiction over African officials on questionable grounds," she noted, adding: "It is difficult to reconcile such activism with situations where genocide suspects - against whom evidence and indictments have been provided - have lived in those same jurisdictions for years."

Outlining another issue, the representative of Maldives pointed out that adequate resources are essential for the effective exercise of universal jurisdiction, as complex cross-border investigations place significant demands on national judicial institutions. "Too often, discussions on international legal principles focus on their scope without giving equal attention to the capacity required for their implementation," she emphasized, urging that international cooperation be strengthened through mutual legal assistance, evidence-sharing, specialized judicial training and cooperation between national authorities.

The representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, acknowledged the diversity of views among States, which "reflect legitimate specificities alongside a shared commitment that the gravest crimes must not go unpunished". Thus, the international community should pursue two goals, he said - limiting the need to resort to universal jurisdiction and ensuring legal certainty where it is exercised. Urging efforts to harmonize the criminalization of international crimes, he said that doing so will ensure that "accountability rests on a stronger foundation, regardless of jurisdiction".

Debate Concludes on Future Treaty to Protect People Affected by Disasters

A single, universal instrument can provide both coherence across the whole disaster cycle and legal certainty to affected persons, observed the representative of Belize, also noting the benefits of a treaty that makes disaster response more predictable, timely and effective. Ultimately, the value of such a convention will be defined by its ability to protect people, rights and livelihoods. She emphasized: "The instrument is about people. It should keep at its centre the dignity, rights and essential needs of those affected."

"The protection of persons in the event of disaster is not an abstract question of international law - it is a human question," concurred the representative of the Bahamas. While the Committee negotiates legal texts, he urged States to remember the people this instrument is intended to protect. Observing that a convention can establish clear, predictable rules on how assistance is requested and received, he also said that aid should support national efforts and be provided with the consent of affected States.

Relatedly, Iran's representative stressed that a future convention should avoid placing unnecessary burdens on affected States, and that national ownership is key. Affected States are best positioned to determine the magnitude of the disaster and evaluate the need for external assistance, he pointed out. Also emphasizing the importance of affected State consent, the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said that the treaty's effectiveness will depend on its ability to translate international cooperation into concrete commitments.

A Warning to the World

"International assistance must reinforce national leadership and priorities," Nepal's representative agreed. Underscoring that recent, disastrous flash floods in his country sound a "warning to the world", he said that resilience must begin with those exposed to disaster risks. To that end, a future convention must clearly delineate the rights and responsibilities of both affected States and those offering aid.

Providing another tangible example of the stakes, the representative of Panama stressed that the recent earthquake in his country "laid bare how exposed societies are to phenomena that, in a matter of seconds, could put people's lives at risk". He therefore underscored the importance of legal and institutional frameworks for prevention and response - especially when the magnitude of a disaster exceeds domestic capacities.

Thus, a future convention on this subject is "timely, necessary and can save lives", declared the representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). Soft-law instruments and regional mechanisms alone cannot always ensure effective global cooperation. While this treaty will not "solve every challenge overnight", she said that it will establish a strong foundation for consistent implementation by both assisting and affected States. She concluded, however: "The treaty must also be more than words on paper. It must be implementable."