Redrawing the Map of Justice

At its core, jurisdiction is a geographical question: where does a state have the power to apply its laws? Traditionally, the answer is based on a few clear principles:

• Territoriality: The crime was committed on the state’s territory.
• Nationality: The accused is a citizen of the state.
• Passive Personality: The victim was a citizen of the state.
• Protective Principle: The crime threatened the state’s security (e.g., counterfeiting currency).

Universal jurisdiction shatters this neat, territory-based model. It posits that for a small handful of offenses—genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture—any nation has the right to prosecute the offender, regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationalities of the accused and victims. The crime is considered an affront to all humanity, making the perpetrator an hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind. The entire planet becomes a potential courtroom.

The oldest example of this is piracy. Pirates on the high seas, operating in a lawless geography beyond any single nation’s control, could be captured and tried by any country’s navy. Today, this principle has been extended from the lawless ocean to anywhere on the globe for crimes that “shock the conscience of humanity.”

The Cartography of Accountability: Landmark Cases

The abstract theory of universal jurisdiction comes alive when we trace its application across the globe. These cases are not just legal dramas; they are geographical odysseys that map a new landscape of international accountability.

From Buenos Aires to Jerusalem: The Eichmann Case

After WWII, many high-ranking Nazis melted away, using “ratlines” to escape justice and find refuge, often in South America. Adolf Eichmann, a key architect of the Holocaust, lived for years under a false name in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The geography of his escape suggested safety; he was thousands of miles from the killing fields of Europe. But in 1960, Israeli Mossad agents abducted him and flew him to Jerusalem for trial. Israel’s legal argument rested heavily on universal jurisdiction. The crime of genocide, they argued, was so monstrous that it gave them—a state that did not even exist when the crimes were committed—the right to prosecute. The trial’s location in Jerusalem, a city central to the Jewish people who were the primary victims, was a powerful geographical statement. It spatially reconnected the crime with its victims.

From Santiago to London: The Pinochet Precedent

No case did more to catapult universal jurisdiction into the modern geopolitical consciousness than that of Augusto Pinochet. The former Chilean dictator, responsible for the torture and murder of thousands, traveled to London for medical treatment in 1998, believing his status as a former head of state granted him immunity. He was wrong.

A Spanish judge, Baltasar Garzón, issued an international arrest warrant, citing universal jurisdiction for the crimes of torture. Pinochet was arrested, stunning the world. Suddenly, the map had been redrawn. A tyrant was held accountable in a third country (the UK) for crimes committed in his home country (Chile) at the request of a fourth country (Spain). The legal battle raged for 16 months in London. Though Pinochet was eventually returned to Chile on grounds of ill health, the precedent was seismic. The “Pinochet effect” sent a clear message: the world was shrinking for dictators. The geography of immunity was beginning to crumble.

From Chad to Senegal: An African Solution

For years, a common criticism of universal jurisdiction was that it was a tool of the “Global North”, with European courts prosecuting figures from the “Global South.” The case of Hissène Habré, the brutal former dictator of Chad, offered a powerful counter-narrative. After being deposed in 1990, Habré found a comfortable exile in Dakar, the capital of Senegal.

After decades of tireless campaigning by victims, Senegal, in partnership with the African Union, established a special court—the Extraordinary African Chambers—to try him. In 2016, Habré was convicted of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture. This was a landmark moment: for the first time, a court established in one country in Africa had prosecuted the former ruler of another for human rights abuses. It was a demonstration of universal jurisdiction applied within the Global South, a case of “Africa judging Africa”, fundamentally altering the political geography of accountability on the continent.

The Geopolitics of a Borderless Law

Despite these successes, universal jurisdiction remains a contentious geopolitical tool. Some nations view it as an infringement on their sovereignty—a legal form of neo-colonialism where powerful Western states appoint themselves global police. Russia and China, for instance, are deeply skeptical. This has led to a “geography of prosecution”, where cases are overwhelmingly initiated in a few European countries like Spain, Belgium, Germany, and France, whose legal systems are more amenable to such claims.

In response, some countries have narrowed the scope of their universal jurisdiction laws, often requiring a connection to their own territory (like the suspect being present on their soil) before a case can be opened. This represents a partial retreat to the familiar geography of territorial law. Yet, the principle endures. Today, German courts are actively prosecuting former Syrian officials for torture and crimes against humanity committed in Damascus, because the suspects are now residents of Germany. The law followed the refugee, re-establishing jurisdiction in a new geography.

Conclusion: No Geographical Safe Haven

Universal jurisdiction is the law’s answer to a globalized world. It argues that just as capital and information flow freely across borders, so too should accountability for the worst of crimes. It is a radical reimagining of legal geography, one that seeks to erase any “Here be dragons” from the map of justice.

For perpetrators of genocide, torture, and war crimes, the world is becoming an increasingly small place. The comfortable retirement villa in a sunny, non-extraditing country is no longer a guarantee of safety. Borders, which once provided the ultimate shield, are becoming more permeable to the reach of justice. Universal jurisdiction, the law’s longest arm, is slowly but surely ensuring there is no true geographical safe haven.