A Step Back for Universal Jurisdiction

The world's favorite activist judges are about to find their hands tied: Legislation in parliament, passed under international pressure, will prohibit Spanish judges from investigating genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in foreign countries, unless Spaniards themselves are victims.

"There will be fewer places a victim can turn when he does not find justice in his own country," said Reed Brody, spokesman for non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch. "There's no doubt that the diplomatic heavyweights were throwing their weight around".

Indeed, the progression of "universal jurisdiction," whereby national courts can prosecute grave violations of human rights committed in other countries, appeared to open new paths to justice and recompense for victims of such abuse.  According to Amnesty International:

"Since the end of the Second World War, more than 15 countries have exercised universal jurisdiction in investigations or prosecutions of persons suspected of crimes under international law, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Senegal, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and others, such as Mexico, have extradited persons to countries for prosecution based on universal jurisdiction."

Universal jurisdiction seemed largely uncontroversial when perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide were prosecuted in Belgium, but the prospect of inquests into the Bush administration and Israel were much less welcome. Is this fair, or did the Spanish judges go too far? Will we ever have a balanced system of international justice?

[Photo from Reuters: In this January 19, 2009 file photo, reviewed by the U.S. Military, a sign marks a closed-off area at Camp Justice, the location of the U.S. Military Commissions court for war crimes, at the U.S. Naval Base, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ]