Today universal jurisdiction is used by both international tribunals and national courts, though somewhat differently. International tribunals exercise universal jurisdiction through treaties, such as the Rome Statute, state consent, or referrals from the United Nations. National legal systems authorize their courts to assert universal jurisdiction by way of legislative mandates or treaty obligations; in some countries these prosecutions may invoke a combination of universal jurisdiction principles and ordinary domestic criminal law. International treaties that authorize nations to assert universal jurisdiction include the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1984 Convention Against Torture (which require signatory nations to exercise de facto universal jurisdiction over the crimes addressed in their text) and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (which requires signatories to prosecute or extradite any person accused of torture who is located within their territory).
Universal Civil Jurisdiction
Today universal jurisdiction is used by both international tribunals and national courts, though somewhat differently. International tribunals exercise universal jurisdiction through treaties, such as the Rome Statute, state consent, or referrals from the United Nations. National legal systems authorize their courts to assert universal jurisdiction by way of legislative mandates or treaty obligations; in some countries these prosecutions may invoke a combination of universal jurisdiction principles and ordinary domestic criminal law. International treaties that authorize nations to assert universal jurisdiction include the1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1984 Convention Against Torture (which require signatory nations to exercise de facto universal jurisdiction over the crimes addressed in their text) and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (which requires signatories to prosecute or extradite any person accused of torture who is located within their territory).
Application
To commence a universal jurisdiction case, the prosecuting state must have a legal basis for asserting jurisdiction over the crime or crimes in question, typically a domestic statute or customary international law. Once a legal basis is established, the prosecuting nation files an indictment, issues a domestic or international arrest warrant, and – where possible – detains the defendant. The trial proceeds before the appropriate domestic tribunal.
More than 75 percent of UN member states empower their courts to exercise universal jurisdiction over one or more core violations of international law: war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and torture. Some countries also include the crime of aggression. In 2000, New Zealand and Canada passed laws authorizing their courts to assert universal jurisdiction in cases involving war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Some nations have expanded the traditional scope of universal jurisdiction to include other crimes of international concern. For example, in 1974, Sierra Leone passed two laws authorizing universal jurisdiction over the crime of airplane hijacking, regardless of where the hijacking takes place.
Complexity and Controversy
Universal jurisdiction cases raise complex challenges including their potential impact on international relations, debates over whether they meet the goal of deterring future atrocities, and accusations of selective prosecution. In 2008, the African Union criticized the number of universal jurisdiction cases brought by (former colonial) European nations prosecuting crimes committed in the (formerly colonized) Global South. The African Union noted the importance of pursuing accountability for grave crimes committed by repressive regimes; but it expressed concerns that this tool was being implemented disproportionately against African leaders.
Universal Jurisdiction Around the World
Complexity and Controversy Universal jurisdiction cases raise complex challenges including their potential impact on international relations, debates over whether they meet the goal of deterring future atrocities, and accusations of selective prosecution. In 2008, the African Union criticized the number of universal jurisdiction cases brought by (former colonial) European nations prosecuting crimes committed in the (formerly colonized) Global South. The African Union noted the importance of pursuing accountability for grave crimes committed by repressive regimes; but it expressed concerns that this tool was being implemented disproportionately against African leaders.
Argentina
Argentina exercised universal jurisdiction to prosecute Spanish officials for crimes committed under the Franco dictatorship. It also has opened investigations into Myanmar and Nicaragua. Though many countries bar in absentia trials for universal jurisdiction prosecutions on fundamental due process grounds, Argentina makes an exception when an international arrest warrant has been open for four months or an extradition request has gone unanswered.
Belgium
In a high-profile attempt to assert universal jurisdiction against global powers, Belgian investigators filed complaints alleging that George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell committed war crimes during the 1991 Gulf War. After objections and diplomatic pressure from the United States, the Belgian legislature narrowed the scope of its universal jurisdiction law.
Finland
In 2025, Finland exercised universal jurisdiction to prosecute a Russian military commander connected to the Wagner Group for war crimes committed in Ukraine.
The Gambia
In 2019, The Gambia asserted universal jurisdiction against Myanmar, filing a case in the International Court of Justice alleging that its atrocities against the Rohingya violate the Genocide Convention. Civil society organizations in The Gambia have sought to assert universal jurisdiction to prosecute the country’s former dictator for crimes against humanity.
Germany
Germany exercised universal jurisdiction to prosecute high-ranking Syrian officials for atrocities committed in an infamous detention facility during the war. The trial took place in 2020 and revealed evidence of state-sponsored torture perpetrated by the Assad regime.
Senegal
Senegal made history when it prosecuted Hissène Habré, the former dictator of Chad. In 2016, Habré became the first former head of state to be convicted under universal jurisdiction. He was convicted of committing war crimes, torture, and crimes against humanity, including sexual violence.
Sierra Leone
In 2006, the government of Sierra Leone worked with the UN to establish the first “hybrid” war crimes tribunal: the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The court was created to address crimes against humanity committed during Sierra Leone’s civil war. The Special Court sentenced Charles Taylor, the president of Liberia, to 50 years in prison for his direct role in funding and inciting the war in Sierra Leone. This trial was the first since Nuremberg to successfully prosecute a current head of state for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Spain
Spain exercises universal jurisdiction through a special trial court, the Audiencia Nacional. This court also has jurisdiction over serious domestic crimes. Spain has prosecuted Guatemalan soldiers who served under the Rios Montt dictatorship, Salvadoran officials who murdered six Jesuit priests, and an Argentine naval officer who committed crimes against humanity during the country’s Dirty War.
In 1998, a Spanish judge tried to extradite former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet from the United Kingdom, sparking diplomatic tension among all three countries. In 2013, Spanish courts indicted and issued arrest warrants against two of China's former presidents for acts of genocide in Tibet. After China responded by threatening bilateral relations with Spain, the Spanish parliament curtailed its courts’ jurisdictional reach. The country’s universal jurisdiction now extends only to cases that (a) are not already before another court with competent jurisdiction and (b) involve Spanish victims, perpetrators located in Spain, or Spanish interests.
Sweden
A Swedish court exercised universal jurisdiction in 2023 to prosecute Swiss oil company executives for aiding and abetting atrocities committed in what is now South Sudan. The crimes took place between 1997 and 2003 when the Swiss executives directed Sudanese nationals to clear land needed for oil exploration.
Switzerland
In 2024, Switzerland convicted the former interior minister of The Gambia for crimes against humanity, sentencing him to 20 years in prison. This is the highest- ranking former public official brought to trial in Europe in a case involving universal jurisdiction.