An Analytical Study on the Conflicts Regarding the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction by States over Crimes against Humanity
Xing Aifen1, Ilyas Khan2 & Yan Ge3
This article analyses the conflicts regarding the exercise of universal jurisdiction by states over crimes against humanity. The universal jurisdiction of a State over crimes against humanity is divided into two types: absolute universal jurisdiction and limited one. The former will bring about severe international conflicts. The international community has been working to coordinate or resolve these conflicts. In 2019, the Commission completed the second reading of the Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity and
submitted it to the United Nations General Assembly, but its role in addressing the
above problems was limited. In the future convention, five points are worth: to specify the time conditions under which a State has universal jurisdiction on the crime; to determine that the defendant’s country has limited universal jurisdiction instead of granting absolute universal jurisdiction to states; according to the principle of complementarity in international criminal law, only when the relevant country cannot exercise universal jurisdiction over this criminal, other countries or international organizations can replace the exercise of that jurisdiction; to add liability clause when a country fails to fulfil its jurisdictional rights, to clarify
whether senior officials of a country have immunity when committing this crime.
Keywords: Crimes against Humanity, Universal Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Immunity, Rome Statute, International Criminal Law