Elies van Sliedregt, (2026) Does “Undeserving” Last Forever?, Refugee Survey Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdag011

“This article examines the enduring consequences of refugee exclusion under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention for individuals associated with core international crimes (CICs), focusing on two groups: acquitted or sentenced former international defendants, and excluded but unprosecuted asylum-seekers at the domestic level. It argues that the interaction between international refugee law and international criminal law creates a structural mismatch. This mismatch, combined with a persistent “enemy of mankind” narrative, condemns individuals to prolonged legal limbo, often without prosecution, removal, or access to residence rights. The article critiques the assumption that association with CICs justifies permanent exclusion, highlighting how security rationales and stigma overshadow individualised assessments and evidence of rehabilitation. Against this backdrop, it proposes conceptualising a “right to start over”, grounded in human dignity. Two normative foundations support this right: European Union law protections of family life and residency, and the European Court of Human Rights’ recognition of a “right to hope” under Article 3 European Convention of Human Rights. The article concludes by advocating concrete solutions: resettlement mechanisms for acquitted or released international defendants, and leave-to-remain regimes for excluded but unprosecuted individuals. It argues that “undeservingness” should not be permanent, and that redemption must have a place within both refugee protection and international criminal justice.”

Gezy Schuurmans, (2026) The Domestic Prosecutor as an Enforcer of ICL: Prosecutorial Policy in Domestic Prosecutions of International Crimes in the Netherlands, Journal of International Criminal Justice, https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqag011

“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.”

Didem Doğar, (2026) Universal Jurisdiction in a Common Law Context: Lessons from Canada’s Experience, Journal of International Criminal Justice, https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqag006

“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.”

Senuri de Silva, (2026) Sri Lanka and Charging Practices in Systemic Crimes Cases: A Role for Command Responsibility? Journal of International Criminal Justice, https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqaf058

“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.”

William Fortin & Ligeia Quackelbeen, (2026) The use or misuse of terrorist membership labels for the prosecution of core international crimes, Journal of International Criminal Justice, https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqaf043

“This article evaluates the use of minor terrorist offences, particularly membership in a terrorist organization (MTO), in the prosecution of core international crimes through the lens of fair labelling. Examining the jurisdictions of Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, it argues that the MTO label risks over-inclusiveness. Because it can encompass conduct ranging from minor support roles, such as cooking or delivering clothes, to serious participatory acts like providing weapons, the label risks losing its expressive value. Through case analysis, the article highlights the fair labelling concerns that arise when MTO offences are used in cases connected to international crimes. A recurring pattern across the three jurisdictions is the prosecution of women whose involvement in terrorist groups was relatively minor, with courts placing significant weight on their roles as wives and caregivers. Given the over-inclusive nature of the MTO label and its potential to indirectly expand liability for international crimes, the article calls for a reconceptualization of MTO offences within domestic international criminal law.”