The universal jurisdiction of national courts over international crimes
Fight against impunity or interference?
Versandkostenfrei!
Versandfertig in 6-10 Tagen
41,99 €
inkl. MwSt.
PAYBACK Punkte
21 °P sammeln!
Traditionally, the courts of a State have jurisdiction only over persons who have committed a crime within its territory (territorial jurisdiction). Gradually, international law recognized that national courts could exercise forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction: to try crimes committed outside their territory, by their nationals (active personal jurisdiction); against their nationals (passive personal jurisdiction); or against their essential security interests (actual jurisdiction). In addition, international law has begun to recognise that the courts of a State may exercise jurisdiction, i...
Traditionally, the courts of a State have jurisdiction only over persons who have committed a crime within its territory (territorial jurisdiction). Gradually, international law recognized that national courts could exercise forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction: to try crimes committed outside their territory, by their nationals (active personal jurisdiction); against their nationals (passive personal jurisdiction); or against their essential security interests (actual jurisdiction). In addition, international law has begun to recognise that the courts of a State may exercise jurisdiction, in the absence of any connecting factors, on behalf of the international community as a whole with respect to certain serious crimes of international concern (universal jurisdiction). Yet the attribute that allows a State to dispense justice has always been seen as a characteristic of its sovereignty. This study addresses the remaining problem between the principle of state sovereignty and the fight against impunity through the implementation of universal jurisdiction.
Andere Kunden interessierten sich für
