Universal jurisdiction: how one country can try crimes from another

Most criminal cases are heard in the country where the offence took place. Universal jurisdiction is a deliberate exception. It allows a state to investigate and prosecute certain very serious crimes even when the suspect, the victims and the place of the offence have no link to that state. The idea is that some conduct harms the international community as a whole, so no one should be able to escape trial simply by crossing a border.

What the principle means

Courts normally rely on a connection to the case. They may act because the crime happened on their territory, because the suspect or the victim is a national, or because the state's own security was threatened. Universal jurisdiction needs none of these links. The seriousness of the offence is the reason the court can act.

The principle is usually tied to a short list of international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Torture and enforced disappearance are often added, either as separate offences or as acts within those wider categories. These crimes are generally regarded as so grave that every state has an interest in punishing them.

Where the authority comes from

The authority has several sources. Some treaties oblige states to prosecute or extradite suspects found on their territory. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 require states to search for people accused of grave breaches and bring them before their own courts, or hand them over. The United Nations Convention against Torture contains a similar duty. Customary international law, meaning long-standing state practice accepted as binding, is also relied on for the core crimes.

Each state must still put the principle into its own law. A treaty duty has no effect in a domestic courtroom until legislation, or an equivalent rule, allows prosecutors to bring a case. That is why the scope of universal jurisdiction differs so much from one country to another.

How it differs from the International Criminal Court

Universal jurisdiction is not the same as the work of the International Criminal Court. The court in The Hague is a permanent institution with its own rules on which states and situations it can cover. Universal jurisdiction is exercised by national courts under domestic law and does not depend on a state's membership of the court. The two systems are often described as complementary. National proceedings can fill gaps where the international court has no reach or limited resources.

Germany as a leading example

Germany is among the countries that have used the principle most actively. Its Code of Crimes against International Law, in force since 2002, covers genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Under its first section, German criminal law applies to these offences whatever the nationality of the perpetrator or victim and wherever the crime took place. The crime of aggression was added to the Code later but was left outside the universal jurisdiction provision.

The Federal Public Prosecutor General leads these investigations, and specialist police and prosecution units gather evidence. The prosecutor has wide discretion to decline a case involving a non-German suspect, for example where the suspect is not in Germany and is not expected to arrive. Trials in absentia are not part of the German system, so a suspect generally has to be present for a trial to go ahead.

Many of the resulting war crimes trials concern the conflict in Syria and the persecution of the Yazidi community by Islamic State. Germany has said publicly that this reflects the arrival of many refugees since 2015, together with some suspected perpetrators. Among the best-known cases is the trial before the Higher Regional Court in Koblenz of a former Syrian intelligence officer, who was convicted of crimes against humanity and given a life sentence in January 2022. In June 2025 a Syrian doctor was sentenced to life imprisonment in Frankfurt for crimes against humanity and war crimes linked to military hospitals. The Higher Regional Court in Munich has also dealt with the cases of people accused of enslaving Yazidi women and girls.

Other early and notable cases

Germany is not alone. In 1998 a Spanish judge sought the arrest of the former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet while he was in London. The case led the House of Lords to examine whether a former head of state could claim immunity for torture, and it became a reference point for later debates. Courts in France, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands have also handled cases involving crimes committed abroad, with varying legal bases.

Limits and criticisms

Universal jurisdiction faces real obstacles.

• Immunity. Serving heads of state, foreign ministers and some other senior officials generally enjoy personal immunity from foreign prosecution while in office.
• Evidence. Witnesses and documents may be in a conflict zone or a country that will not co-operate, so cases can take years to prepare.
• Presence of the suspect. Many states require the accused to be on their territory before they will open a full case.
• Fair trial concerns. The passage of time, the difficulty of testing evidence and the use of interpreters all raise questions that courts must handle carefully to protect the right to a fair trial.
• Political tension. Governments sometimes object that foreign prosecutions interfere with their sovereignty or are selective.

Why it matters

Universal jurisdiction does not replace trials in the country where the crimes occurred or before international tribunals. It operates as a back-up when those routes are closed. For survivors who have settled abroad, a trial in a foreign courtroom may be the only realistic chance of seeing the allegations tested in public. Recent reforms in Germany to improve victims' participation in proceedings suggest the approach is still developing. As more suspects and witnesses move across borders, national courts are likely to keep playing a part in the prosecution of international crimes.