The Domestic Prosecutor as an Enforcer of ICL: Prosecutorial Policy in Domestic Prosecutions of International Crimes in the Netherlands, Gezy Schuurmans

This study examines prosecutorial policy and case selection in domestic prosecutions of international crimes in the Netherlands, revealing that evidence‑gathering and investigatory capacity are the principal determinants of whether a case proceeds. Regardless of the wide discretion granted to Dutch prosecutors under the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, actual prosecutorial strategies remain largely implicit. This article shows that there is little room for prosecutorial policy in universal jurisdiction (UJ) cases, as the difficulties in evidence-gathering and capacity restraints are the determinative factors in realizing a prosecution. Moreover, the study finds that the presence requirement under Dutch law effectively makes prosecutions suspect-driven rather than crime-driven, creating a limitation for more holistic prosecutorial policies. This article thus challenges prevailing narratives that interpret the decision-making behind UJ cases primarily in political terms, arguing instead for a reconceptualization that centres evidentiary difficulties and investigative feasibility

Universal Jurisdiction as Vicarious Jurisdiction: Domestic Adjudication of Core International Crimes and the Claim to Act on Behalf of the International Community, Morten Boe

Universal criminal jurisdiction (UJ) over core international crimes is frequently justified on the basis that forum states act as trustees or agents of the international community. However, the normative and procedural implications of this characterization for the proper administration of UJ remain largely unexplored, while past UJ trials have faced criticism for insufficient engagement with victim communities and inadequate communication with the international public. Against this backdrop, the article challenges the theoretical understanding of UJ as an extension of state sovereignty, instead emphasizing its role within the legal framework of the international community. It advocates for a more reflective engagement with UJ as a derivative right — more precisely, as a form of vicarious or representational jurisdiction, wherein states exercise adjudicative jurisdiction while relying on another legal system’s prescriptive jurisdiction and normative authority. Through the development of a framework of structural principles and duties, the article explores how the derivative and representational structure of vicarious UJ informs the domestic adjudication of international crimes. This reconsideration not only provides a more precise analytical foundation for current UJ practice but also offers normative constraints to guide its expanding application.

The Position of Victims in Trials Concerning Core International Crimes in the Netherlands: Issues from Case Law and Possible Solutions, Tess Castelijn, Romy Hooiszoon, Simon Minks, and Zenzi Ophof

The position of victims is an often overlooked aspect of Dutch criminal procedures related to core international crimes and victims of such crimes are often unable to effectively claim compensation within criminal procedures. This is in contrast with minimum standards on victims’ rights. This contribution identifies the issues related to victims’ ability to secure reparations. It analyses Dutch national cases relating to core international crimes that adequately portray several practical and legal hurdles standing in the way of providing effective financial compensation to victims in universal jurisdiction cases. Practical hurdles include reaching victims in the context of complex conflict situations, ensuring their right of access to information and to successfully join the process as an injured party. Cases that concern crimes committed outside of the Netherlands have to apply foreign law with regards to the estimation of the damages. This may result in judges declaring that the discussion of these damages creates a disproportionate burden on the criminal process. The latter two issues are also relevant when it comes to the Dutch sanction modality of Article 36f of the Dutch Criminal Code (DCC). The contribution concludes by making recommendations, drawn from international criminal law practice, especially the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Trust Fund for Victims. Another possibility is to permit courts to apply Dutch civil law when estimating the amount of damages awarded to the victim, perhaps when applying the sanction set out in Article 36f of the DCC. Lastly, a potential solution may be an option that is already mentioned in the proposed new Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (DCCP): introducing separate proceedings within the criminal process that focus on the victims’ damage claim(s).

Finding Avenues for Prosecuting International Crimes against Migrants before Italian Courts, Maria Crippa

The commission of crimes against migrants and refugees in Libya and along the Central Mediterranean route has long called for accountability of actors at different levels. Yet, despite broad recognition of these crimes, effective prosecutions remain a major challenge. Litigation efforts across national and international fora emphasize the responsibility of states in prosecuting extraterritorial crimes and fostering judicial cooperation. In Italy, the consistent arrival of migrants has prompted investigations into crimes they endure during their journey. Notwithstanding the absence of provisions on universal jurisdiction, Italian criminal law broadly extends to offences committed abroad, particularly those related to illegal immigration. However, as currently interpreted, the extraterritorial application of Italian criminal law limits prosecutions to mid- or lower-level perpetrators. Additionally, the absence of domestic provisions on international crimes compels reliance on ordinary offences, leaving significant gaps in accountability, especially concerning crimes against humanity. This article argues that Italian proceedings are crucial in addressing accountability for crimes committed against migrants in Libya and along the Central Mediterranean route, while critically assessing their limitations. Drawing on existing case law, it examines the potential for these proceedings to effectively target those most responsible for such crimes. The article concludes that a strengthened legal framework would enable Italy to tackle systemic crimes against migrants more comprehensively and to fully cooperate with national and international judicial authorities in fighting impunity.

Universal Jurisdiction in a Common Law Context: Lessons from Canada’s Experience, Didem Doğar

This research examines the limited use of universal jurisdiction in Canada for the prosecution of serious international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture. Despite Canada’s early adoption of a robust legal framework permitting universal jurisdiction, actual prosecutions remain rare, especially when compared to continental European states. The analysis identifies three primary factors contributing to this gap: political and institutional constraints, legal challenges inherent to the common law system, and practical obstacles in evidence gathering and prosecution. Employing doctrinal research and insights from an interview with Canadian officials, the article explores how Canada’s ‘no safe haven’ policy, selective prosecution strategies, and reliance on immigration remedies have shaped its approach. The study shows the impact of executive influence, prosecutorial discretion, and evidentiary hurdles, as well as the evolving practice of structural investigations and international cooperation. Ultimately, this article argues that Canada’s approach — grounded more in political calculation and alliance consensus than in proactive international justice — limits the effectiveness of universal jurisdiction as a tool for accountability

Making the Global Local: Lessons the International Court Can Learn from Finnish Universal Jurisdiction Trials, Caleb Wheeler

When the International Criminal Court (ICC) was created 27 years ago, it was meant to become a court with global reach responsible for investigating, prosecuting, trying and punishing individuals accused of international crimes. However, a variety of factors have reduced the capacity of the ICC and caused those working to impose accountability for international crimes to look elsewhere for solutions. The ICC may need to assess whether it can reorient its trial processes so that it remains relevant in this changing legal landscape. One way this might be achieved is by shifting trials away from the Court’s seat in The Hague and holding them closer to the victims and communities affected by the accused’s alleged criminality. Doing so could help change perceptions of the ICC and grant it the legitimacy it craves. This article assesses the legality, potential effectiveness, and practicality of such a change. It does this through an examination of the Bazaramba and Massaquoi cases, two universal jurisdiction trials held in Finnish domestic courts. These trials are particularly relevant because in both cases the presiding courts relocated the trial to parts of Africa in or near the countries in which the crimes under consideration took place. As a result, they offer insight into the potential impact locally held trials for international crimes can have on victims and witnesses. Through this lens, the article considers whether a practical basis exists for the localization of ICC trials through a thorough examination of the Rome Statute’s relevant provisions. Next, it explores whether relocating trials can improve the standing of the court, both in terms of the justice it delivers and how its activities are perceived. Finally, the article will consider some of the practical challenges faced by the Finnish courts when holding proceedings in Africa, and what the ICC might learn from them.

The Use or Misuse of Terrorist Membership Labels for the Prosecution of Core International Crime, William Fortin and Ligeia Quackelbeen

This article offers a fair labelling evaluation of the use of minor terrorist offences, more specifically the crime of membership in a terrorist organization (MTO), in the context of the prosecution of core international crimes (CIC). By analysing the jurisdictions of Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, this article seeks to demonstrate that there is a danger of over-inclusiveness to this label. The extent to which it can be used for conduct ranging from minor involvement in the organization (e.g. cooking, delivering clothes) to severe, criminal participatory acts (e.g. providing weapons) means that the label loses its expressive strength. This article’s discussion of exemplary cases within the selected jurisdictions will highlight the risks involved in using this label in cases concerning international crimes. Whereas each jurisdiction presents a set of unique fair labelling issues, we see a commonality in the prosecution of women for their involvement in terrorist groups. In each jurisdiction, there are examples of cases of women being convicted for MTOs despite their involvement being relatively minor. These cases show that prosecutorial and judicial authorities place significant emphasis on the women’s roles as wives, attaching considerable weight to their marriage and household and child-rearing tasks. In view of the overinclusion of the current MTO label and its use to indirectly expand liability for international crimes to individuals who were not involved in their commission, this article calls for a reconceptualization of MTO offences in the context of domestic international criminal law.

Domestic Trials, Universal Crime: The Interplay Between the International Definition of Genocide and National Particularisms, Fanny Royen

While international criminal courts were historically considered the cornerstone of the global system for prosecuting international crimes, the growing volume of cases brought on these grounds before national courts can no longer be ignored. As a result, many commentators argue that the future of international justice predominantly lies in the hands of national courts. This development raises critical questions about the universality of genocide and the extent to which national decisions conform to or depart from the international definition set by the 1948 Genocide Convention. Focusing on national practices in Belgium, France, Germany, and Lithuania, this article explores the dynamic relationship between the ‘universal’ (the international definition) and the ‘particular’ (domestic judicial approaches to genocide). The analysis begins by tracing the paradigm shift from international to national enforcement of the crime of genocide. It then examines key points of divergence between the international definition and national judicial interpretations. Particular attention is given to the definition of genocidal intent, as illustrated by German and Lithuanian jurisprudence, and to the requirement of a genocidal plan, which has been incorporated into French law but remains absent in Belgian legislation. Drawing on Mireille Delmas-Marty’s concept of pluralisme ordonné, this article argues that divergences in national approaches reflect the existence of a margin of appreciation granted to states in the interpretation of the crime of genocide. It ultimately questions these divergences in light of a shared normative framework, illustrated by three guiding principles: the peremptory nature of the prohibition of genocide, the principle of complementarity, and the principle of legality.

Sri Lanka and Charging Practices in Systemic Crimes Cases: A Role for Command Responsibility?, Senuri de Silva

This article examines how international criminal law (ICL) concepts, particularly the doctrine of Command Responsibility (CR), can shape domestic prosecutorial strategies in Sri Lanka, despite the absence of formal incorporation of ICL into its legal system. Using several recent indictments filed by the Attorney General as central examples of this prosecutorial strategy, it analyses how prosecutors have relied on domestic liability theories to approximate the attribution of responsibility to high-ranking officials. Through doctrinal analysis, case review, and insights from prosecutorial interviews, the author argues that while Sri Lanka’s legal framework does not explicitly recognize CR, its core elements can be adapted to support accountability for systemic crimes. The article explores how existing provisions of the Penal Code, combined with interpretative practices and an openness to ICL principles, offer a pragmatic, if still evolving, pathway to bridge a domestic accountability gap.

Book Reviews

• Lachezar Yanev and Harmen van der Wilt (eds), Universal Jurisdiction over Core International Crimes: Law and Practice, Anne Hausknecht

• Florian Jeßberger, Chantal Meloni and Maria Crippa (eds),  Domesticating International Criminal Law: Reflections on the German and Italian Experiences, Lavinia Parsi