The Peace Palace in the Hauge, Netherlands, seat of the ICJ. CC BY-SA 3.0
Lilya Garzon-Boyd | April 6, 2026
History of Universal Jurisdiction
Universal jurisdiction is rooted in ancient piracy laws. Initially applied to pirates, hostis humani generis, a Latin phrase and concept meaning “enemies of mankind”, has been applied to allow a state to prosecute individuals who were not directly within their territory. Universal jurisdiction has undergone a massive transformation since its inception in ancient law. The first modern interpretation of universal jurisdiction is widely accredited to the Nuremberg Trials, which created a pathway to prosecute individuals who committed “crimes against the peace” regardless of their nationality, location, or domestic law. During the Nuremberg Trials, universal jurisdiction was applied to prosecute numerous top Nazi officials, including Adolf Eichmann.
The concept of universal jurisdiction was codified into international law by the 1949 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). Universal jurisdiction has been implemented through the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions contains a grave breaches provision and an obligation to prosecute or extradite. Participating states must prosecute those who have committed “grave breaches,” this may include wilful killing; torture; wilfully causing suffering, and numerous other acts. The Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions extends the term “grave breaches” to allow states to assert universal jurisdiction in cases that involve war crimes. Universal jurisdiction is often thought of as a safety net for individuals who are unable to find redress in the court of the state in which they are residing.
Universal Jurisdiction and International Criminal Court
Universal jurisdiction as a concept allows a state to prosecute those who have been linked to crimes committed against humanity. This process was created to ensure that individuals who are stateless or reside in third countries can be tried for crimes they have committed against those residing in the state bringing suit (referred to as a state party). State parties may bring these cases through universal jurisdiction established by national legislation. Universal jurisdiction is codified in national legislation in numerous ways such as Germany’s Code of Crimes Against International Law, or Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Universal jurisdiction has two different forms. One of legislative universal jurisdiction, which refers to the enactment of national law. The second is adjudicative universal jurisdiction, which refers to the investigation and trial of alleged offenders.
The concept of universal jurisdiction is tied to extraterritorial jurisdiction, which occurs in circumstances where a state may adjudicate on events that occur outside of their territory if it involves one of their nationals. Universal jurisdiction expands on this concept and allows for adjudication over offences that occur outside of a given state and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim in certain circumstances.
Universal jurisdiction imposes An active duty is brought onto states to ensure that an individual who has committed crimes that can be brought under the conventions is arrested and prosecuted. When a victim brings forward an allegation against an alleged offender, the state is required to search for such offenders regardless of nationality. The state may bring the violator to its court or to another state. However, to extradite an individual to another state, a prima facie case must be made to justify the prosecution or extradition of an individual.
How Universal Jurisdiction is established for War Crimes
Under the Geneva Conventions, a state must meet a high bar to enable the prosecution of an individual through universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction requires a state to enact national legislation that allows for grave breach to be prosecuted regardless of where the breach occurred or the nationality of the individual who committed the act. Often, states have barriers in place that bar the use of universal jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who are not citizens of the state. For example, many European countries maintain a presence requirement that requires a suspect to be within their borders before they can be investigated or charged with war crimes.
Treaty law is the basis through which states allow for universal jurisdiction to be applied. International treaties allow a state party to assert universal jurisdiction for crimes within another state’s borders, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, 1973 Convention against Apartheid, 1984 Convention against Torture, and 2006 Convention against Enforced Disappearance.
The United States and the Scope and application of Universal Jurisdiction
The United States maintains national legislation that implements the use of universal jurisdiction. For example, the Torture Statute, recognizes certain obligations in the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This statute established jurisdiction over individuals who resided in the United States and committed the outlined offenses in the statute regardless of where they committed the crimes. The United States has brought forward numerous statutes throughout the years. The United States exercises its universal jurisdiction through Constitutional congressional authority to regulate foreign affairs. The Constitution imposes little to no restraint over Congress’s current exercise of universal jurisdiction. The United States’ current use of universal jurisdiction allows a path to expand Congress’s delegated powers to regulate foreign affairs however it pleases.
Many around the world view the United States as selectively supporting the use of universal jurisdiction when it is opportune to them. This selective use is demonstrated by the United States’ encouragement of the prosecution of adversaries. In 2023, the United States Department of Justice cooperated with the International Criminal Court (ICC) to help Ukraine carry out their war crime investigations against Russian officials including the President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov. However, the United States has historically opposed the use of universal jurisdiction when it comes to its use against its allies, such as Israel, and continues to resist the use of the ICC. On February 6, 2025 Donald Trump published an Executive Order entitled, Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court in response to its issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. In the order, President Trump states that the ICC and the Rome Statute are illegitimate and a means to target the United States and their “close ally Israel.”
Currently, the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, which establishes the ICC’s universal jurisdiction over war crimes. As a result, the ICC has limited avenues to hold United States citizens accountable. In Afghanistan for example, there are reports of multiple violations of international humanitarian law by the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency. When pushed to investigate the abuses committed in Afghanistan, the United States has kept the scope of their investigations incredibly limited and brought no formal charges forward.
Universal jurisdiction is a powerful tool used in international law. However, many states (including the United States) chose to recognize universal jurisdiction when it holds their adversaries accountable. While the United States wishes to keep others accountable for atrocities committed, there seems to be little to no regard given to their own accountability.