Anticipating the needs of today, the International Law Commission (ILC) decided in 2018 to add the topic of \u201cuniversal criminal jurisdiction\u201d to its longterm program of work. The commission, by consensus, concluded that work on the topic would constitute a useful contribution to the progressive development of international law and its codifcation, and, in its 2018 report to the General Assembly, invited \u201cthe views of States\u201d on the topic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
To date, twelve countries have opened investigations under the principle of universal jurisdiction on the crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine: Germany, Spain, Sweden, France, Lithuania, Canada, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Other countries will undoubtedly follow. In numerous conversations with the Ukrainian Prosecutor, Andriy Kostim, it is clear that Ukraine wants these countries to actively pursue justice through the principle of universal jurisdiction.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This Article surveys the domestic legislation of these countries regarding universal jurisdiction and assesses whether the application of this principle can bring Russian soldiers, offcials, and leaders to justice for their involvement in the war in Ukraine.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Anticipating the needs of today, the International Law Commission (ILC) decided in 2018 to add the topic of \u201cuniversal criminal jurisdiction\u201d to its longterm program of work. The commission, by consensus, concluded that work on the topic would constitute a useful contribution to the progressive development of international law and its codifcation, and, in its…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,22,453],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4359","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles-2","category-print-archive","category-volume-56-issue-4"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4359","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/58"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4359"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4359\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4369,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4359\/revisions\/4369"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4359"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4359"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4359"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}