The term “universal jurisdiction” refers to the idea that a national court may prosecute individuals for any

serious
crime against international law — such as crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and torture — based on
the principle that such crimes harm the international community or international order itself, which individual States
may act to protect. Generally, universal jurisdiction is invoked when other, traditional bases of criminal jurisdiction
do not exist, for example: the defendant is not a national of the State, the defendant did not commit a crime in that
State’s territory or against its nationals, or the State’s own national interests are not adversely affected.

The definition and exercise of universal jurisdiction varies around the world. A national or international court’s
authority to prosecute individuals for international crimes committed in other territories depends on the relevant
sources of law and jurisdiction, such as national legislation or an international agreement, which may, for example,
require that only individuals within the country’s national territory be subject to prosecution.

Nullum crimen sine lege

Definition
Nullum crimen sine lege is latin for "no crime without law."

Overview
Nullum crimen sine lege is the principle in criminal law and international criminal law that a
person cannot or should not face criminal punishment except for an act that was
criminalized by law before he/she performed the act. This idea is also manifested in laws
that require criminal acts to be publicized in unambiguous statutory text.
Nullum crimen sine lege is sometimes called the legality principle. It is also interchangable
with "nullum poena sine lege," which translates to "no punishment without law".
Nulla poena sine lege (Latin for "no penalty without a law") is a legal principle, requiring that one cannot be
punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. This principle is accepted and codified in modern
democratic states as a basic requirement of the rule of law.[1] It has been described as "one of the most 'widely held
value-judgement[s] in the entire history of human thought'

Individual criminal responsibility

Besides State responsibility for violations of international law, individuals may be held
criminally responsible for international crimes (i.e., war crimes, crimes against humanity,
and genocide).

Each member of the armed forces is directly responsible for breaches he or she commits and
can be held individually responsible before a criminal court for violations of the laws of war.
The principle of individual criminal responsibility for war crimes can be dated back to the
Lieber Code and is a long-standing rule of customary international law. Not only is it
possible to hold accountable individuals who actually commit a war crime, but different
forms of individual criminal responsibility allow persons who attempt, assist, facilitate, aid,
abett, plan or instigate the commission of a war crime to face accountability for their
actions. Finally, the law of armed conflict assigns responsibility to military commanders
who order their subordinates to violate IHL or who fail to prevent or repress such violations.
International criminal law deals with the criminal responsibility of individuals for
international crimes. There is no generally accepted definition of international crimes. A
distinction can be made between international crimes which are based on international
customary law and therefore apply universally and crimes resulting from specific
treaties which criminalize certain conduct and require the contracting states to
implement legislation for the criminal prosecution of this conduct in their domestic legal
system. The international core crimes, i.e., crimes over which international tribunals
have been given jurisdiction under international law, are: genocide, war crimes, crimes
against humanity and aggression. International criminal law finds its origin in both
international law and criminal law and closely relates to other areas of international law.
The most important areas are human rights law and international humanitarian law as
well as the law on state responsibility. The sources of international criminal law are the
same as those of general international law mentioned in article 38(1) of the Statute of
the International Court of Justice: treaties, international customary law, general
principles of law, judicial decisions and writings of eminent legal scholars. The
Nuremberg and Tokyo trials signaled the birth of present-day international criminal law,
i.e., the prosecution of individuals for international crimes before international tribunals.
In the early nineties of the previous century international criminal law received a major
stimulus with the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda by the United Nations
Security Council. The creation of various internationalized or mixed criminal courts and
the proposals of the International Law Commission, which resulted in the creation of
the International Criminal Court in 2002, contributed to the rapid development of
international criminal law during the last two decades.

After the war, some of those responsible for crimes committed during the
Holocaust were brought to trial. Nuremberg, Germany, was chosen as a
site for trials that took place in 1945 and 1946. Judges from the Allied
powers—Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States—
presided over the hearings of twenty-two major Nazi criminals.

Twelve prominent Nazis were sentenced to death. Most of the defendants

The Nazis' highest authority, the person most to blame for the Holocaust,
was missing at the trials. Adolf Hitler had committed suicide in the final
days of the war, as had several of his closest aides. Many more criminals
were never tried. Some fled Germany to live abroad, including hundreds
who came to the United States.

Trials of Nazis continued to take place both in Germany and many other
countries. Simon Wiesenthal, a Nazi-hunter, provided leads for war crimes
investigators about Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann, who had helped plan and
carry out the deportations of millions of Jews, was brought to trial in Israel.
The testimony of hundreds of witnesses, many of them survivors, was
followed all over the world. Eichmann was found guilty and executed in
1962

Key Dates
August 8, 1945
Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) announced at London
Conference
The International Military Tribunal (IMT) is composed of judges from the
United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. Leading Nazi
officials will be indicted and placed on trial in Nuremberg, Germany, under
Article 6 of the IMT's Charter for the following crimes: (1) Conspiracy to
commit charges 2, 3, and 4, which are listed here; (2) crimes against
peace—defined as participation in the planning and waging of a war of
aggression in violation of numerous international treaties; (3) war crimes—
defined as violations of the internationally agreed upon rules for waging
war; and (4) crimes against humanity—"namely, murder, extermination,
enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any
civilian population, before or during the war; or persecution on political,
racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime
within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic
law of the country where perpetrated."
October 6, 1945
Leading Nazi officials indicted for war crimes
The four chief prosecutors of the International Military Tribunal (IMT)—
Robert H. Jackson (United States), Francois de Menthon (France), Roman
A. Rudenko (Soviet Union), and Sir Hartley Shawcross (Great Britain)—
hand down indictments against 24 leading Nazi officials. The indicted
include Hermann Göring (Hitler's heir designate), Rudolf Hess (deputy
leader of the Nazi party), Joachim von Ribbentrop (foreign minister),
Wilhelm Keitel (head of the armed forces), Wilhelm Frick (minister of the
interior), Ernst Kaltenbrunner (head of security forces), Hans Frank
(governor-general of occupied Poland), Konstantin von Neurath (governor
of Bohemia and Moravia), Erich Raeder (head of the navy), Karl Doenitz
(Raeder's successor), Alfred Jodl (armed forces command), Alfred
Rosenberg (minister for occupied eastern territories), Baldur von Schirach
(head of the Hitler Youth), Julius Streicher (radical Nazi antisemitic
publisher), Fritz Sauckel (head of forced-labor allocation), Albert Speer
(armaments minister), and Arthur Seyss-Inquart (commissioner for the
occupied Netherlands). Martin Bormann (Hitler's adjutant) is to be tried in
absentia.

October 1, 1946
Verdict at Nuremberg
The International Military Tribunal (IMT) announces its verdicts. It imposes
the death sentence on 12 defendants (Göring, Ribbentrop, Keitel,
Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Sauckel, Jodl, Seyss-
Inquart, and Bormann). Three are sentenced to life imprisonment (Hess,
economics minister Walther Funk, and Raeder). Four receive prison terms
ranging from 10 to 20 years (Doenitz, Schirach, Speer, and Neurath). The
court acquits three defendants: Hjalmar Schacht (economics minister),
Franz von Papen (German politician who played an important role in
Hitler's appointment as chancellor), and Hans Fritzsche (head of press and
radio). The death sentences are carried out on October 16, 1946, with two
exceptions: Göring committed suicide shortly before his scheduled
execution, and Bormann remained missing. The other 10 defendants are
hanged, their bodies cremated, and the ashes deposited in the Iser River.
The seven major war criminals sentenced to prison terms are remanded to
the Spandau Prison in Berlin.
Unit4 1 immunity from prosecution is a doctrine of international law that allows an accused to avoid prosecution
for criminal offences. Immunities are of two types. The first is functional immunity, or immunity ratione materiae.
This is an immunity granted to people who perform certain functions of state. The second is personal immunity, or
immunity ratione personae. This is an immunity granted to certain officials because of the office they hold, rather than
in relation to the act they have committed.

Functional immunity arises from customary international law and treaty law and confers immunities on those
performing acts of state (usually a foreign official). Any person who, in performing an act of state, commits a criminal
offence is immune from prosecution. That is so even after the person ceases to perform acts of state. Thus, it is a
type of immunity limited in the acts to which it attaches (acts of state) but ends only if the state itself ceases to exist.
The immunity, though applied to the acts of individuals, is an attribute of a state, and it is based on the mutual respect
of states for sovereign equality and state dignity. States thus have a significant interest in upholding the principle in
international affairs: if a state's officials are to be tried at all for anything, it will be at home.
State offices usually recognised as automatically attracting the immunity are the head of state or the head of
government, senior cabinet members, ambassadors and the foreign and defence ministers.[1] Many countries have
embodied the immunities in domestic law.[2]
States regularly assert that every official acting in an official capacity is immune from prosecution by foreign
authorities (for noninternational crimes) under the doctrine of ratione materiae.[3] Such officers are immune from
prosecution for everything they do during their time in office. For example, an English court held that a warrant could
not be issued for the arrest of Robert Mugabe on charges of international crimes on the basis that he was serving as
head of state at the time that the proceedings were brought. [4] Other examples are the attempts to prosecute Fidel
Castro in Spain and Jiang Zemin in the US.
However, once the accused leave their offices, they are immediately liable to be prosecuted for crimes committed
before or after their term in office or for crimes committed whilst in office in a personal capacity (subject to
jurisdictional requirements and local law).
It may be the case that functional immunity is itself being eroded. Recent developments in international law suggest
that ratione materiae may remain available as a defence to prosecution for local or domestic crimes or civil liability,
but it is not a defence to an international crime. (International crimes include crimes against humanity, war crimes,
and genocide.)
…next point: personal immunity arises from customary international law and confers immunity on people holding a
particular office from the civil, criminal, and administrative jurisdiction. It is extended to diplomatic agents and their
families posted abroad and is also valid for their transfer to or from that post, only for the country to which they are
posted. Under personal immunity, private residence, papers, correspondence, and property of an official enjoying
personal immunities are inviolable.
According to Cassese (2005), personal immunities are extended to cover personal activities of an official, including
immunity from arrest and detention (but the host state may declare the person persona non grata), immunity from
criminal jurisdiction, immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the host state. No immunities hold for
private immoveable property unless it is held on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission, issues of
succession, professional or commercial activity exercised outside of official functions, or the official has voluntarily
submitted to the proceedings. Personal immunities cease with the cessation of the post.
It is not for the official's personal benefit but is based on the need for states to function effectively and thus not be
deprived of their most important officials.

Jurisdiction of icc

Jurisdiction
The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes
were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:
  the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a
State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or
 the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

As of 17 July 2018, a situation in which an act of aggression would appear to have occurred could be
referred to the Court by the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter,
irrespective as to whether it involves States Parties or non-States Parties.

In the absence of a UNSC referral of an act of aggression, the Prosecutor may initiate an investigation on
her own initiative or upon request from a State Party. The Prosecutor shall first ascertain whether the
Security Council has made a determination of an act of aggression committed by the State concerned.
Where no such determination has been made within six months after the date of notification to the UNSC
by the Prosecutor of the situation, the Prosecutor may nonetheless proceed with the investigation,
provided that the Pre-Trial Division has authorized the commencement of the investigation. Also, under
these circumstances, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime of aggression when
committed by a national or on the territory of a State Party that has not ratified or accepted these
amendments.

Complementarity
The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only
when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.