Earlier this month, Spain’s National Court decided to hear a case arising by a lawsuit from a pro-Tibet group against seven Chinese officials over the pre-Olympics repression of protests in Tibet. This case draws on that court’s Doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction, as no Spaniards were personally harmed and, of course, the events in question did not occur on Spanish territory. Perhaps the most notable instance of Spain’s use of Universal Jurisdiction is the charge of genocide against former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet (those interested specifically in this case may want to check out my review of a recent documentary chronicling Chile’s attempts at reconciliation)–though, of course, the initial charges against Pinochet in Spain arose because of his crimes specifically against Spanish citizens in Chile. Spain isn’t the only country that has begun to use such a legal doctrine more widely in recent years to attempt prosecutions for crimes against humanity. Belgium and Canada are among the handful of countries that have asserted similar jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against humanity extra-territorially.
Plenty of law review articles have been written about Universal Jurisdiction and what it means for international law, but what might it mean for international relations more generally? What does it mean that one state can rule against the actions of another that don’t directly affect citizens or property of the first state? Is this the death knell for the sovereign state?
Cynthia Van Maanen is a contributor to the Quantitative Peace blog and researcher in political science.