{"id":28928,"date":"2026-06-24T09:00:29","date_gmt":"2026-06-24T07:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/?p=28928"},"modified":"2026-06-18T12:05:54","modified_gmt":"2026-06-18T10:05:54","slug":"the-complex-realities-of-international-criminal-justices-growing-domestic-practice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/the-complex-realities-of-international-criminal-justices-growing-domestic-practice\/","title":{"rendered":"The Complex Realities of International Criminal Justice\u2019s Growing Domestic Practice"},"content":{"rendered":"

As we write this post,<\/em> we reiterate our firm condemnation<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>of the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide \u2013 such as in <\/em>Gaza, <\/em>the Middle East<\/em>, South Sudan,<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>and<\/em> the Democratic Republic of Cong<\/em>o<\/em>.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Domestic criminal trials under universal jurisdiction have been expanding<\/u><\/a> significantly in recent years. Notably,\u00a0Eurojust reports<\/u><\/a> that more than 4000 cases are ongoing within EU Member States. Domestic trials under universal jurisdiction have become an integral part of international criminal justice\u2019s ecosystem and are frequently encouraged by NGOs, international organisations, and scholars alike.\u00a0This evolution contrasts with the ongoing backlash against, and waning support for, the International Criminal Court.<\/p>\n

Universal jurisdiction is\u00a0praised as an alternative and less costly avenue for international criminal justice, enhancing accountability worldwide.\u00a0The practice\u2019s ability to escape the recurring critiques levelled against the ICC, however,\u00a0is far from certain\u00a0(see here<\/u><\/a> and here<\/u><\/a>). This blogpost\u00a0offers a socio-legal examination of existing tendencies in universal jurisdiction proceedings in Belgium, France, and Switzerland through the prism of those implementing it daily. Based on observations and qualitative interviews with legal professionals, it delves into their aspirations and the contrasting realities of universal jurisdiction in action. Far from immune to the criticisms formulated against the\u00a0ICC,\u00a0its practice is constrained by material impediments and procedural contingencies.<\/p>\n

Methodological <\/strong>C<\/strong>larifications<\/strong><\/p>\n

The results presented\u00a0are part\u00a0of a larger socio-legal research project on universal jurisdiction in law, action, and context in Belgium, France and Switzerland. These states provide a useful framework to\u00a0analyse the law and practice of universal jurisdiction. First, they are particularly active in this field and have seen\u00a0several trials completed within their respective jurisdiction. Second, the similarity of their legal and procedural frameworks allows for both a macro-comparison (of key overarching themes) and a micro-comparison of specific rules presenting differences in law or jurisprudential interpretation (such as the definition of the residence\/presence of the perpetrator, the procedural rights of the accused or of victims, among others). This blogpost\u00a0relies on findings drawn from 28 interviews conducted between September 2024 and March 2026 with investigators (2), prosecutors (5), investigative judges (3), chamber judges (3), defence (7) and civil parties\u2019 lawyers (8) in the three states. The data is complemented by two trial observations (Emmanuel <\/em>Nkunduwimye<\/em> trial, Brussels; Dabbagh<\/em>\u00a0trial, Paris), the participant observation of a training at the French School of Magistrature (December 2024), and the analysis of all completed trials in these states as of April 2026. While the first round of qualitative analysis has been conducted and is presented here, the comprehensive and systematic coding of the data through Nvivo is ongoing. Additionally, the authors are currently interviewing civil parties and convicted persons and, as such, these interviews do not form part of the corpus analysed here.<\/p>\n

Aspirations of Universal Jurisdiction Professionals<\/strong><\/p>\n

The qualitative interviews shed light on how legal professionals perceive their role within the universal jurisdiction enterprise. One of the main rationales articulated by interviewees is contributing to the fight against impunity. This goal translates into two different ways. Some of the professionals express a sense of belonging to a broader, global\u00a0effort\u00a0to combat impunity\u00a0\u2013\u00a0what is referred to as the \u2018G<\/u>lobal <\/u>E<\/u>nforcer<\/u><\/a>\u2019 model. A victims\u2019 lawyer, for example, explained:<\/p>\n

\u201cToday, today the fight is that impunity is not 100%. [\u2026] I mean impunity is everywhere. So, we\u2019re keeping [universal jurisdiction] proceedings alive\u2026\u201d.<\/p>\n

Others articulate a more \u2018localised vision\u2019 of this fight,\u00a0which includes the duty to ensure that fleeing perpetrators cannot live in impunity. This requires that the host state hold them criminally accountable\u2013 echoing Langer\u2019s\u00a0notion of \u2018No Safe Haven\u2019. A defence lawyer stated:<\/p>\n

\u201cI think that, obviously, universal jurisdiction trials are extremely important to avoid creating a sense of impunity among the\u2026 the people prosecuted, the people who are perpetrating such atrocities\u201d.<\/p>\n

The second main rationale is the duty to provide justice to victims. For the professionals, this duty includes recognising victims\u2019 status, giving them a voice in proceedings, treating them with respect, and\u00a0ensuring the prosecution of their case. While several interviewees articulated this duty in relation to victims in abstract terms<\/u><\/a>, for others it is grounded in personal experiences shared by real victims. A prosecutor, for example, emphasised the driver of his work:<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s the opportunity to change people\u2019s lives. Of course, the defendant\u2019s, but especially the victims. So, when they come to tell you that you have changed their lives, that they have finally been able to speak out and that they then thank you, it\u2019s worth everything\u201d.<\/p>\n

A minority of respondents fundamentally rejected\u00a0the concept of universal jurisdiction and its exercise by the Belgian, French, and Swiss judicial authorities. Notably,\u00a0one defence lawyer criticised the political use of universal jurisdiction trials, noting:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the Rwanda Papers we realise that there is corruption in Rwanda, we realise\u00a0that, in reality, these Rwanda trials are a way\u2026 politically, to justify the ruling\u00a0power. [\u2026]\u00a0The prosecution of the perpetrators of genocide in collaboration with [the prosecuting State] is\u00a0political propaganda\u201d.<\/p>\n

These interviewees aside, values of justice, universality and shared humanity appear to lie at the centre of the professionals\u2019 aspirations. They are primarily motivated\u00a0by the belief that their work contributes\u00a0to a larger cause \u2013 international justice \u2013 and to provide justice for victims of international crimes.\u00a0But are these values and aspirations\u00a0reflective of the actual practice of universal jurisdiction?<\/p>\n

Realities of Universal Jurisdiction <\/strong>in Belgian, French and Swiss Practice<\/strong><\/p>\n

Understanding universal jurisdiction \u2013 as it actually <\/u>is<\/u><\/a> \u2013 requires\u00a0an empirical examination of\u00a0its practice.\u00a0Focusing on\u00a0nuances of universality, this post analyses the Belgian, French, and\u00a0Swiss trials for international core crimes completed to date through the prism of three questions: 1)\u00a0Which crimes and who is prosecuted? 2) On which basis? and 3) By whom?<\/p>\n

As of April 2026, nine domestic trials for international crimes have been completed in Belgium, twelve in France, and four in Switzerland.\u00a0For each of them, Figure 1 illustrates the Situation States, i.e. the\u00a0States in which the crimes were committed. Figure 2 shows the jurisdictional basis of the cases in each State.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Figure <\/em>1<\/em> Situation State by Prosecuting State<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Figure<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>2<\/em> Jurisdictional Basis by Prosecuting State<\/em><\/p>\n

Two main\u00a0empirical observations emerge from the data. First, there is a discrepancy between universal jurisdiction as a legal principle and universal jurisdiction as a legal phenomenon. In law, this principle refers to States\u2019 ability to exercise jurisdiction over core international crimes based solely on their nature and regardless of an absence of territorial or personal connections of the State to the crimes. With the exception of French prosecutorial authorities, most legal actors interviewed described these cases as universal jurisdiction proceedings. In reality, however, a significant part of these cases is based on extraterritorial jurisdiction instead of genuine universal jurisdiction. Particularly, the\u00a0multiple proceedings based on active\/passive personability in Belgium and France suggest that the practice of universal jurisdiction is more localised than at first glance.<\/p>\n

Second, the data clearly demonstrates that\u00a0the practice of universal jurisdiction tends to reproduce the dynamics observed in international criminal justice, namely \u201can ostensibly universal regime [that] seems to apply only to countries in the Third World \u2013 and those countries that are expeditiously categorized in this way\u201d (see Anghie<\/u><\/a>).\u00a0The Belgian, French and Swiss practice focuses solely on crimes committed in the Global South. Moreover, as visible in Figure 3, the majority of the accused are nationals \u2013 or were nationals at the time of the crimes \u2013 of Global South states, with a primary geographical focus on Africa. In both Belgium\u00a0and France, there is a noticeable tendency to prosecute perpetrators originating from former colonies.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Figure <\/em>3<\/em> Nationality of the <\/em>A<\/em>ccused<\/em><\/p>\n

This pattern closely mirrors longstanding critiques<\/u><\/a> of the ICC\u2019s practice and\u00a0reflect a global trend in relation to the prosecution of international crimes: only one part of the world is subject to both international and national criminal justice systems. Considering the colonial and postcolonial role of the prosecuting states in the territories concerned, prominent for Belgium and France \u2013 but also existent in Switzerland<\/u><\/a> \u2013 this is perhaps unsurprising. Taken together, the empirical findings evoke an uncomfortable sense of colonial\u00a0d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu<\/em>, in which\u00a0\u201cthe North provides justice and order for the violent and unruly South\u201d (see Anghie<\/u><\/a>, see also here<\/u><\/a> and here<\/u><\/a>). Some interviewees were conscious and critical of these\u00a0(post)colonial continuities and called for broader accountability in prosecutorial selection, as well as the exercise of universal jurisdiction by Global South states.<\/p>\n

Causes of <\/strong>Disjuncture<\/strong><\/p>\n

The gap between the aspirations of professionals and the practice of universal jurisdiction derives from a combination of legal, political, and social factors. The first obstacle to a genuinely universal exercise of jurisdiction lies in the procedural limitations embedded in the legislative framework, i.e. the requirement of an element of local connection to the prosecuting State.\u00a0Belgian, French and Swiss criminal law all require either\u00a0the presence or residence of the alleged perpetrator on the territory\u00a0(arts. 8, 13 CPPB<\/u><\/a>; art. 689-11 CPF<\/u><\/a>; art. 264m<\/em>\u00a0CPS<\/u><\/a>). Additionally, restrictions apply to victims\u2019 procedural rights, notably the right to initiate criminal proceedings, while prosecutorial discretion and administrative authorities\u2019 powers are more expansive (art. 13 CPPB; art. 689-11 CPF;\u00a0art. L121-10 French<\/u> Asylum Law<\/u><\/a>\u00a0allowing referrals by asylum bodies to criminal authorities). These legal conditions severely restrict the type of cases and perpetrators that may face justice in Belgium, France and \u2013 to a lesser extent \u2013 Switzerland.<\/p>\n

Second, the limited financial and human resources allocated to universal jurisdiction proceedings by political authorities impact prosecutorial policy.\u00a0Interviewees underscored\u00a0several factors that enable jurisdictions to operate at relatively low cost, thereby projecting the image of acting \u2018at minimal expense\u2019. These factors include the prioritisation of cases involving domestic victims, genocide (in Belgium) as well as the existence of judicial cooperation with situation states and access to the crime scenes. Rwanda, for example, has proven highly cooperative in prosecutions of alleged perpetrators of the 1994 genocide \u2013 in part explaining its high representation in completed trials to date.<\/p>\n

Finally, this discrepancy can also be explained by the migration routes<\/u><\/a> taken by victims of international crimes, which \u201ctypically espouse postcolonial trajectories<\/u><\/a>\u201d. One of the driving forces behind universal jurisdiction proceedings \u2013 particularly in Belgium and France \u2013 is the presence of victims within the prosecuting state. The predominance of Rwandan trials reflects not only patterns of judicial cooperation, but also the composition of the political communities of these states. Belgium hosts one of the largest Rwandan diasporas in the world, and a significant Rwandan community is also present in France. By initiating proceedings\u00a0under universal jurisdiction, Global South victims act as agents of international criminal justice,\u00a0asserting their right to access to justice and remedies. While the (post)colonial dynamics identified above are crucial to understanding the structural contours of universal jurisdiction practice, this mechanism\u00a0retains an emancipatory potential, particularly for Global South victims when pathways to domestic or international criminal institutions are blocked.<\/p>\n

Conclu<\/strong>ding <\/strong>R<\/strong>emarks<\/strong><\/p>\n

These preliminary findings suggest that universal jurisdiction is a legal concept rather than a legal reality in Belgian, French and Swiss practice. Financial, material, and procedural contingencies significantly constrain its operation, leaving\u00a0limited possibilities for the prosecution of international crimes. Legal professionals, for their part, are driven by a commitment to defending universal values which underpin their daily work. Yet this noble engagement appears contradicted by the realities of practice: some professionals fail to perceive this contradiction, while others openly acknowledge and regret it. Taken together with the fact that what is labelled as universal jurisdiction in practice encompasses both a truly universal jurisdiction and an expanded form of extraterritorial jurisdiction, these findings invite a rethinking of the notion of universal jurisdiction itself, situated somewhere between belief, emotion, and legal reality.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As we write this post, we reiterate our firm condemnation\u00a0of the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide \u2013 such as in Gaza, the Middle East, South Sudan,\u00a0and the Democratic Republic of Congo.\u00a0 Domestic criminal trials under universal jurisdiction have been expanding significantly in recent years. Notably,\u00a0Eurojust reports that more than 4000 cases […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6639],"tags":[7105,4094,3965,7348],"authors":[7040,8028],"article-categories":[3572],"doi":[],"class_list":["post-28928","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-international-criminal-justice","tag-international-criminal-law","tag-socio-legal-studies","tag-universal-jurisdiction","authors-damien-scalia","authors-marie-wilmet","article-categories-symposium"],"acf":{"subline":"A Socio-Legal Analysis of Belgium, France and Switzerland\r\n"},"meta_box":{"doi":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28928","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28928"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28928\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28958,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28928\/revisions\/28958"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28928"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28928"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28928"},{"taxonomy":"authors","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/authors?post=28928"},{"taxonomy":"article-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-categories?post=28928"},{"taxonomy":"doi","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/doi?post=28928"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}