Emory International Law Review
Revisiting Universal Jurisdiction: The Application of the Complementarity Principle by National Courts and Implications for Ex-Post Justice in the Syrian Civil War
After the Syrian conflict has ended, the international community will demand that the perpetrators of the heinous war crimes and crimes against humanity be held accountable. Since the International Criminal Court will likely be impeded by a Security Council veto, the concept of universal jurisdiction in its mitigated form may be the best option for prosecuting Syrian leaders responsible for the crimes committed under the jurisdictions of foreign states. The chances are high that post-conflict Syrian society would have great difficulty undertaking the legal trials of perpetrators of international core crimes in good faith. In this article, Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen argues that mitigated universal jurisdiction, dependent mainly on its subordination to the principle of complementarity, could serve as a practical tool for prosecuting those perpetrators of crimes in the courts of foreign states.
Hilly M. Khen,
Revisiting Universal Jurisdiction: The Application of the Complementarity Principle by National Courts and Implications for Ex-Post Justice in the Syrian Civil War,
Emory Int'l L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol30/iss2/4