What Does The Renaissance Of Universal Jurisdiction Mean For Global Justice? – Analysis

By Flavia von Gunten

In Switzerland, a crime can be prosecuted only if it is linked to Switzerland. This means it must either be committed within Swiss borders or involve a suspect or a victim who is a Swiss national.

However, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, this requirement is null and void. In cases of serious crimes, any government has the authority to prosecute and press charges, regardless of any direct link to the country.

The idea behind this principle is that some crimes are so grave that the entire international community is interested in prosecuting them. Therefore, offences such as war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and torture fall under this jurisdiction.

Recently there has been a notable increase in the number of court cases under universal jurisdiction, especially in Switzerland. Here are some answers to the most important questions.

How was the principle of universal jurisdiction established?

The principle of universal jurisdiction emerged after the Second World War. It was first mentioned in the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and subsequently reinforced by other international treaties such as the UN Convention against Torture.

However, it was not until the 1990s that individual governments began to apply this principle. “After the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials in the 1940s, international law lost momentum,” says Anna Petrig, professor for international law and public law at the University of Basel. She believes that the Cold War between the Eastern and Western blocs largely hampered the development of international law, including international criminal law, because international institutions were paralysed and unable to function effectively.

It was only after the fall of the Iron Curtain that discussions on advancing international criminal law gained momentum on the global stage. Academia and governments developed various principles in this field, while more and more governments incorporated universal jurisdiction into their criminal law, enabling them to conduct legal proceedings in their own courts.

The breakthrough came in 1998 when Spain indicted former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. This landmark trial was the first to be based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. It set a precedent for other countries and increased the pressure on governments to prosecute those responsible for international crimes.

In recent years, cases under the principle of universal jurisdiction have increased. Within the European Union, cases rose by 44% between 2016 and 202; globally there was a 33% increase between 2022 and 2024.

There have also been significant developments in Switzerland, even though, according to Petrig, Swiss authorities have been rather inactive in acting on crimes committed abroad. This changed in 2021 when the Swiss Federal Criminal Court in Bellinzona convicted formerLiberian military commander Alieu Kosiahfor crimes against humanity under universal jurisdiction.

Then in May 2024 the Bellinzona court sentenced the former Gambian interior minister,Ousman Sonko, to 20 years in prison under universal jurisdiction for multiple counts of crimes against humanity.

Petrig believes that universal jurisdiction is increasingly becoming standard practice. “As more countries apply this principle, it gains greater acceptance and becomes more normal,” she observes and points out that numerous countries have established special units to prosecute and convict offences under international criminal law.

Which roles do NGOs play?

This increase is partly due to more NGOs reporting incidents to the authorities, Petrig says. One of the world’s leading NGOs in this field is Trial International, which was established in Geneva in 2002 and fights against impunity for international crimes.

Trial International has made the principle of universal jurisdiction a central focus of its mandate. The NGO has initiated several cases in Switzerland, France and other parts of the world. It manages a database documenting both closed and ongoing cases, publishes an annual report and files criminal complaints. The case of Ousman Sonko was initiated after Trial International submitted a formal complaint.

“Our network keeps us informed about any suspects who are in Switzerland or other countries,” says Benoit Meystre, legal adviser at Trial International. “We also have a contact form on our website for victims to get in touch with us, and we conduct our own investigations.”

In Switzerland, Trial International can press charges only if the suspect is within Swiss borders as the authorities are not allowed to open an investigation otherwise.

For this reason, the organisation investigates whether potential offenders are in the country. This happens frequently, according to Meystre, since many international organisations are based in Switzerland. So it’s possible that a suspect might attend an international conference or have an appointment with their banks.

What political significance do such court cases have?

Whether the authorities launch an investigation or are willing to proceed with it is another question. Petrig notes that the political environment plays a significant role. “Depending on which country the potential perpetrator comes from, there is a risk of diplomatic relations being strained.”

Petrig says that some countries deliberately shield other countries. For example, despite an arrest warrant issued for war crimes, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin still travels abroad. However, he only visits countries that sympathise with Russia and where he does not face the risk of being arrested.

The speed and thoroughness with which an authority handles an investigation also depend on the people in charge. Stefan Blättler, who heads the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland, has made international criminal law one of his priorities. According to Meystre, there has been a “positive development” in this regard since Blättler assumed office in January 2022.

What could Switzerland do better?

Meystre believes there is significant room for improvement in Switzerland. Compared to France, Germany and the Netherlands, which have far more resources available in international criminal law, “Switzerland lags far behind”.

Petrig agrees that if the Swiss authorities had more specialised personnel, investigations would be faster and more efficient. This is important, she says. Given that some of the charges date back several decades, there is a risk that offenders will die before a verdict can be reached, she explains.

Petrig highlights the recent case of former Algerian defence minister Khaled Nezzar, who was scheduled to stand trial in June/July 2024 – 12 years after criminal proceedings were initiated against him. However, he died in December 2023 and the trial never took place.

During the trial of Ousman Sonko, Meystre found another flaw in the Swiss system. “The translation was insufficient.” Trial International had requested the entire proceedings to be translated into English, but the court only provided translations of what they deemed essential.

“The plaintiffs, the defendant and the Gambian journalists didn’t understand a word. It’s crucial that such proceedings are also reported in the country where the crime was committed,” Meystre says.

How will the principle of universal jurisdiction develop?

Petrig and Meystre both believe that the principle of universal jurisdiction will increasingly be used in cases involving companies. For examplethe ongoing proceedings against two former bosses of Swedish oil firm Lundinwhich were launched in Sweden in 2023.

The two are accused of fuelling Sudan’s oil wars between 1997 and 2003 by paying the Sudanese army to forcibly remove the population from oil-rich areas, which allowed Lundin to operate in those regions. One of the former executives on trial is a Swiss national.

Meystre assumes that universal jurisdiction is likely to be extended to international crimes that result in environmental damage. Trial International is currently handling three cases related to environmental issues, including the plundering of timber and other natural resources in war zones.

The increase in the number of cases across various fields shows that the principle of universal jurisdiction is alive and that international crimes are being prosecuted.

For Petrig, this is an important signal. “At the moment, it’s impossible to read the papers without coming across reports of major violations of international law. However, there will be a time when at least some of the perpetrators will be held responsible for their crimes, even if it takes several decades,” she says. At the very least, she adds, this is the hope the principle of universal jurisdiction offers to victims of conflicts.