Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘On Behalf of Africa’: Towards the Regionalization of Universal Jurisdiction?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Africa and the International Criminal Court

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 1))

Abstract

Several times, the African Union has voiced concerns regarding the alleged “abuse” of the principle of universal jurisdiction. The Union refers in particular to the prosecution of ‘African leaders’ before European courts which, in the view of the Union, could endanger international law, order and security. Against this background, the author examines the exercise of universal jurisdiction in Africa as well as in Europe over accused from Africa. While there is support for the assumption that so-called low-cost accused are exposed disproportionally to universal jurisdiction, there is no evidence of a geographical or racial bias. The author points to three current trends in the exercise of universal jurisdiction: the decline of universal jurisdiction in Europe, the ‘reversion’ of universal jurisdiction and the regionalization of universal jurisdiction. The latter trend is demonstrated in particular by the prosecution of Hissène Habré ‘on behalf of Africa’ before the Extraordinary African Chambers in Senegal. The author suggests that the regionalization of universal jurisdiction may represent a novel mode of extraterritorial jurisdiction, which has the potential to ease European-African tensions in the area of international criminal justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more information on this affair, see Jalloh 2010, pp. 29–42; van der Wilt 2011, pp. 1061–1062; see also Beste et al. 2008.

  2. 2.

    Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 18 February 2014.

  3. 3.

    For more information on this case, see Dehner 2014 and Johnson 2014; see also Kroker 2011.

  4. 4.

    Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Frankfurt am Main, Decision of 6 November 2008.

  5. 5.

    Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, ICTR (TC), Decision of 28 May 2008; partly confirmed in Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, ICTR (AC), Decision of 8 October 2008. In the meantime, the ICTR as well as the European Court of Human Rights reassessed the conditions of criminal proceedings in Rwanda; today, suspects can be extradited or transferred to Rwanda, see Prosecutor v. Uwinkindi, ICTR (TC), Decision of 28 June 2011, paras 222–225; confirmed in Prosecutor v. Uwinkindi, ICTR (AC), Decision of 16 December 2011; see also Ahorugeze v. Sweden, ECHR, Judgment of 27 October 2011, paras 117–129.

  6. 6.

    See Sections 220a and 6 No. 1 of the German Criminal Code in the applicable version (now, Sections 1 and 6 of the German Code of Crimes against International Law).

  7. 7.

    See Dehner 2014.

  8. 8.

    See, inter alia, Dehner 2014 and Johnson 2014 and the sources quoted there.

  9. 9.

    For more details, see Jeßberger 2009 and Werle and Jeßberger 2014, marg nos 212 et seq.

  10. 10.

    On the theory of universal jurisdiction, see also Sammons 2003, pp. 125–137.

  11. 11.

    In determining whether a particular case is being or was investigated or prosecuted by a state and, therefore, whether proceedings before the International Criminal Court are generally inadmissible, the Court adopts a narrow approach and requires that the same person is investigated or prosecuted by the state’s authorities for substantially the same conduct as he or she would be before the International Criminal Court (“same person, same conduct” test), see Prosecutor v. Muthaura, Kenyatta and Hussein Ali, ICC (AC), Judgment of 30 August 2011, paras 39–46; Prosecutor v. Ruto, Kosgey and Sang, ICC (AC), Judgment of 30 August 2011, paras 40–47.

  12. 12.

    For discussion of this issue, see Ambos 2013; du Plessis et al. 2013; Magliveras and Naldi 2013. As is well known, the International Criminal Court in particular does not have universal jurisdiction—with the notable exception of Security Council referrals.

  13. 13.

    On this topic, see Chap. 6 by Kemp in this book.

  14. 14.

    Decision on Africa’s Relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC), AU Extraordinary Session, 2013 Addis Ababa, Ext/Assembly/AU/Dec. 1 (Oct. 2013), para 3. This Decision, as well as the Decisions referred to in the following footnotes, can be found in the Annex to this book.

  15. 15.

    Decision on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, Doc.EX.CL/731(XXI), AU 19th session, 2012 Addis Ababa, Doc. Assembly/AU/Dec. 420 (XIX); Decision on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, Doc.EX.CL/640(XVIII), AU 16th session, 2011 Addis Ababa, Assembly/AU/ /Dec. 335 (XVI); Decision on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, Doc.EX.CL/606(XVII), AU 15th session, 2010 Kampala, Assembly/AU/Dec. 292 (XV); Decision on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, Doc.EX.CL/540(XVI), AU 14th session, 2010 Addis Ababa, Assembly/AU/Dec. 271 (XIV); Decision on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, Doc. Assembly/AU/11(XIII), AU 13th session, 2009 Sirte, Assembly/AU/Dec. 243 (XIII) Rev. 1; Decision on the Implementation of the Assembly Decision on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, DOC. Assembly/AU/3(XII), AU 12th session, 2009 Addis Ababa, Assembly/AU/Dec. 213 (XII).

  16. 16.

    For a thorough discussion, see Commentator 2008.

  17. 17.

    Decision on the Report of the Commission on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, Doc. Assembly/AU/14(XI), AU 11th session, 2008 Sharm El-Sheik, Assembly/AU/ Dec. 199 (XI), para 5 (i–iii).

  18. 18.

    For references to severe criticism expressed by the Rwandan government, see Commentator 2008, p. 1009 n. 39.

  19. 19.

    African Union (Draft) Model National Law on Universal Jurisdiction over International Crimes, Meeting of Government Experts and Ministers of Justice/Attorneys General on Legal Matters, 7–15 May 2012, Addis Ababa, EXP/MIN/Legal/VI.

  20. 20.

    Section 4(2) of the African Union (Draft) Model National Law on Universal Jurisdiction over International Crimes, Meeting of Government Experts and Ministers of Justice/Attorneys General on Legal Matters, 7–15 May 2012, Addis Ababa, EXP/MIN/Legal/VI.

  21. 21.

    Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the African Union (Draft) Model National Law on Universal Jurisdiction over International Crimes, Meeting of Government Experts and Ministers of Justice/Attorneys General on Legal Matters, 7–15 May 2012, Addis Ababa, EXP/MIN/Legal/VI.

  22. 22.

    In the case of crimes under international law, immunity ratione materiae is inapplicable not only to trials before international courts, but also vis-à-vis state judiciaries. This is today anchored in customary international law, see Cassese 2002, pp. 870–874 (with numerous examples from state practice); Werle and Jeßberger 2014, marg no 721 et seq. On the more restrictive approach taken by the International Law Commission, see International Law Commission, Sixtieth session, Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction, Memorandum by the Secretariat, 31 March 2008, UN Doc. A/CN.4/596, para 189 (“uncertainty that still appears to surround this question”), and the Report by the Special Rapporteur RA Kolodkin concluding that “the arguments set out above demonstrate that the various rationales for exceptions to the immunity of officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction prove upon close scrutiny to be insufficiently convincing”, International Law Commission, Sixty-second session, Second Report on Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction, 10 June 2010, UN Doc. A/CN.4/631, para 90. Immunity ratione personae, however, creates an obstacle to prosecution before domestic courts, at least as long as the respective person holds office, see DR Congo v. Belgium, ICJ, judgment of 14 February 2002 (Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000), para 56; Cassese 2002, pp. 865–866; Gaeta 2002, pp. 983–989.

  23. 23.

    It is unsettled if other officials than acting Heads of State, Heads of Government, Foreign Ministers, and diplomats belong to the small set of persons entitled to immunity ratione personae. For discussion of this issue, see Akande and Shah 2010, pp. 820–825 (with further references); Cryer et al. 2010, p. 548; Sanger 2013, pp. 196–199.

  24. 24.

    AU-EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, paras 8-14. For detailed discussion of this report, see Geneuss 2009. Council of the EU, The AU-EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, Doc. 8672/1/09 Rev. 1, 16 April 2009.

  25. 25.

    AU-EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, para 14. See also Geneuss 2009, pp. 955–959.

  26. 26.

    AU-EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, R9.

  27. 27.

    Decision on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, Doc.EX.CL/640(XVIII), AU 16th session, 2011 Addis Ababa, Assembly/AU/ /Dec. 335 (XVI), para 6; Decision on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, Doc. EX.CL/606(XVII), AU 15th session, 2010 Kampala, Assembly/AU/Dec. 292 (XV), para 8.

  28. 28.

    See also Jalloh 2010, pp. 29–49.

  29. 29.

    Section 8(c) of Kenya’s International Crimes Act 2008; Article 669 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Senegal; Section 18(d) of Uganda’s International Criminal Court Act 2010; Section 4(3)(c) of South Africa’s Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002. See also AU-EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, para 15–16.

  30. 30.

    See also Chap. 6 by Kemp in this volume. For more information on the South African implementation of the Rome Statute, see Jeßberger and Powell 2001.

  31. 31.

    AU-EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, para 19.

  32. 32.

    See also Chap. 8 by Fall in this book.

  33. 33.

    Southern Africa Litigation Centre 2013, p. 70; Werle and Bornkamm 2013, pp. 660–661.

  34. 34.

    Southern Africa Litigation Centre 2013, p. 71.

  35. 35.

    SALC and Another v. National Director for Public Prosecutions and Others, High Court of South Africa (North Gauteng High Court), Judgment of 8 May 2012. For a more detailed discussion of this judgment, see Werle and Bornkamm 2013, pp. 665–673. See also Southern Africa Litigation Centre 2013, pp. 72–76.

  36. 36.

    National Commissioner of the South African Police Service and Another v. Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre and Another, Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, Judgment of 27 November 2013, paras 51–70. On both decisions see Chap. 6 by Kemp in this book.

  37. 37.

    One of the immediate effects of the judgment of the North Gauteng High Court was the opening of criminal proceedings against the former Madagascan president Marc Ravalomanana who lives in exile in South Africa. In August 2012, the South African prosecuting authorities initiated an investigation against Ravalomanana who is allegedly responsible as a superior for crimes against humanity committed in Antananarivo in 2009. See Southern Africa Litigation Centre 2013, p. 76.

  38. 38.

    Van der Wilt 2011, p. 1054 (he additionally mentions proceedings in Sierra Leone and Uganda).

  39. 39.

    In Rwanda, tens of thousands of génocidaires have been tried by national courts and so-called Gacaca courts. However, the view on these mass proceedings is divided. In particular, the guarantee of fair trial rights to the suspects is questionable. See, e.g., Lahiri 2009; Sadat 2009, p. 556. See also Bornkamm 2012, and Chap. 7 by Rugege in this book.

  40. 40.

    For further details and references, see van der Wilt 2011, pp. 1052–1053, in particular for the Mengistu Haile Mariam trial in Ethopia see Tiba 2007.

  41. 41.

    See AU-EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, para 26 (EU member states); Jalloh 2010, pp. 14–28; Langer 2011 (for the period of 1961 until June 2010); Reydams 2003, pp. 86–219; van der Wilt 2011, pp. 1055–1059.

  42. 42.

    AU-EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, para 23.

  43. 43.

    See Langer 2011, pp. 32–41.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., pp. 26–32.

  45. 45.

    For details and further references see Werle and Jeßberger 2014, marg nos 344 et seq.; Langer 2011, p. 42 (Table 2). AU-EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, para 26.

  46. 46.

    Langer 2011, p. 8 (Table 1).

  47. 47.

    Ibid., p. 8 (Table 1).

  48. 48.

    Ibid., p. 5.

  49. 49.

    See also AU-EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, para 40; Jalloh 2010, pp. 14–18.

  50. 50.

    See Werle and Jeßberger 2014, marg nos 344 et seq. See also Reydams 2003, pp. 149–156.

  51. 51.

    Langer 2011, pp. 14–15.

  52. 52.

    Keller 2013, p. 147; Langer 2011, p. 14.

  53. 53.

    See Amnesty International 2008, pp. 104–105. For detailed discussion of the Prosecutor’s decision, see Zappalà 2006.

  54. 54.

    Amnesty International 2008, pp. 103–104; Keller 2013, pp. 143–144.

  55. 55.

    Keller 2013, p. 142. See also Amnesty International 2008, p. 104.

  56. 56.

    Keller 2013, p. 143.

  57. 57.

    Langer 2011, p. 15.

  58. 58.

    Keller 2013, pp. 144–145.

  59. 59.

    For details see Keller 2013, pp. 148–151.

  60. 60.

    See the contributions in Jeßberger and Geneuss 2013.

  61. 61.

    Luban 2013, p. 505.

  62. 62.

    Hamilos 2013; Minder 2013.

  63. 63.

    For more background information, see Brody 2006, pp. 278–281. See also Moghadam 2007–2008, pp. 495–496; Neldjingaye 2011, pp. 187–189. See also Belgium v. Senegal, ICJ Judgment of 20 July 2012 (Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite), paras 15–41.

  64. 64.

    See Brody 2006, p. 283.

  65. 65.

    Ibid., pp. 286–287; Moghadam 2007–2008, pp. 497–499.

  66. 66.

    République du Sénégal, Cour d’Appel de Dakar, Chambre d’accusation, Arret no. 135 du 4 juillet 2000. For a critical view on this decision, see Magliveras 2012, p. 3; see also Moghadam 2007–2008, pp. 501–503.

  67. 67.

    République du Sénégal, Cour de Cassation, Première chamber statuant en matière pénale, Arret no. 14 du 20 mars 2001.

  68. 68.

    Brody 2006, pp. 288–289.

  69. 69.

    Magliveras 2012, p. 5 (with further references).

  70. 70.

    Decision on the Hissene Habré Case and the African Union, Doc.Assembly/AU/8 (VI) Add.9, AU 6th session, 2006 Khartoum, Assembly/AU/Dec.103 (VI). See also Magliveras 2012, pp. 6–7.

  71. 71.

    Decision on the Hissène Habré Case and the African Union, Assembly/AU/Dec.127(VII), August 2, 2006, Doc. Assembly/AU/3(VII), para 5(ii).

  72. 72.

    UN Committee against Torture, Communication No. 181/2001: Suleymane Guengueng and Others v. Senegal, 19 May 2006.

  73. 73.

    For thorough discussion, see Niang 2009. See also Adjovi 2013, p. 1021 (with further references); Magliveras 2012, pp. 9–11.

  74. 74.

    See Magliveras 2012, pp. 12–13.

  75. 75.

    Habré v. Senegal, Court of Justice of the Economic Community of States of Western Africa, 18 November 2010. For a critical assessment of this judgment, see Spiga 2011, pp. 16–22. See also Magliveras 2012, pp. 13–15; Neldjingaye 2011, pp. 190–191.

  76. 76.

    The International Court of Justice held by majority that Senegal has breached its obligations under Articles 6(2) and 7(1) of the Torture Convention “by failing to make immediately a preliminary inquiry into the facts relating to the crimes allegedly committed by […] Habré” and “by failing to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution”, see Belgium v. Senegal, ICJ, Judgment of 20 July 2012 (Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite), para 122.

  77. 77.

    International Legal Materials 2013, 1024–1027.

  78. 78.

    The four different chambers established according to Article 2 of the EAC Statute are mainly composed of judges of Senegalese nationality but both the trial and the appeals chamber will be presided by a non-Senegalese judge from another African Union Member State. See Articles 11(3)(2) and (4)(2) of the Statute. On the structure of the Extraordinary African Chambers, see also Southern Africa Litigation Centre 2013, p. 88, and Chap. 8 by Fall in this book.

  79. 79.

    In the meantime, the African Union even considered building special criminal chambers at the existing African Court of Justice and Human Rights to prosecute, inter alia, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, see Draft Protocol on Amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, Revisions up to Tuesday 15 May 2012, Meeting of Government Experts and Ministers of Justice/Attorneys General on Legal Matters, 7–11 and 14–15 May 2012, Addis Ababa, EXP/MIN/IV/Rev.7. The decision on the adoption of the amended protocol was postponed for further consideration. See Decision on the Protocol on Amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, Doc. Assembly/AU/13(XIX)a, AU 19th session, 2012 Addis Ababa, Assembly/AU/Dec. 427 (XIX). See also Decision on Africa’s Relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC), AU Extraordinary Session, 2013 Addis Ababa, Ext/Assembly/AU/Dec. 1 (Oct. 2013), para 10(iv). For discussion, see Murungu 2011.

  80. 80.

    The Chambers have jurisdiction ratione materiae with respect to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture. These crimes are defined by Articles 5 to 8 of the EAC Statute. Besides international law and the Statute itself, the Chambers will apply Senegalese law in particular the Code of Senegalese Criminal Procedure, Article 1(4) of the Agreement and Articles 16 and 17(1) of the Statute. According to Article 3(1) of the Agreement and Article 32 of the Statute, the Chambers will be financed “in accordance with the budget approved by the Donor’s Round Table of 24 November 2010.” Table ronde des donateurs pour le financement du process de Monsieur Hissène Habré, Dakar, le 24 novembre 2010, Document Final, p. 4. Thus, the costs will be bore, inter alia, by the EU (2 million Euro), the AU (1 million US Dollars), Chad (2 billion CFA francs or 3,743,000 US Dollars), Belgium (1 million Euro), and Germany (500,000 Euro).

  81. 81.

    Adjovi 2013, p. 1020. See also Chap. 8 by Fall in this volume.

  82. 82.

    Southern Africa Litigation Centre 2013, p. 88.

  83. 83.

    See also AU-EU Expert Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, paras 26, 40; Jalloh 2010, pp. 20–25.

  84. 84.

    Moghadam 2007–2008, pp. 511–521.

References

  • Adjovi R (2013) Introductory note to the Agreement on the Establishment of the Extraordinary African Chambers within the Senegalese judicial system between the Government of the Republic of Senegal and the African Union and the Statute of the Chambers. Int Leg Mater 52:1020–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akande D, Shah S (2010) Immunities of state officials, international crimes, and foreign domestic courts. Eur J Int Law 21:815–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2013) Expanding the focus of the, African Criminal Court’. In: Schabas WA, McDermott Y, Hayes N (eds) The Ashgate research companion to International Criminal Law. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 499–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2008) Germany, End impunity through universal jurisdiction. www.amnesty.de/files/2696_Univ_Jurisd_003Germany_final.pdf. (All internet sources in this chapter were accessed on 20 March 2014)

  • Beste R, Puhl J, Simons S (2008) Kigali v. Paris: shedding lights on the Rwandan genocide. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/kigali-v-paris-shedding-light-on-the-rwandan-genocide-a-590967.html

  • Bornkamm PC (2012) Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts between retribution and reparation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brody R (2006, reprinted 2008) The Prosecution of Hissène Habré: international accountability, national impunity. In: Roht Arriaza N, Mariezcurrena J (eds) Transitional justice in the twenty-first century, beyond truth versus justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 278–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2002) When may senior state officials be tried for international crimes? some comments on the Congo v. Belgium Case. Eur J Int Law 13:853–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commentator (2008) The Spanish indictment of high-ranking Rwandan officials. J Int Crim Justice 6:1003–1011

    Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2010) An introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dehner D (2014) 14 Jahre Haft wegen Beihilfe zum Völkermord in Ruanda. Der Tagesspiegel, 18 February 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • du Plessis M, Maluwa T, O’Reilly A (2013) Africa and the International Criminal Court, Chatham House. www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International%20Law/0713pp_iccafrica.pdf

  • Gaeta P (2002) Official capacity and immunities. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary, vol I. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 975–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • Geneuss J (2009) Fostering a better understanding of Universal jurisdiction, a comment on the AU-EU report on the principle of Universal jurisdiction. J Int Crim Justice 7:945–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilos P (2013) Argentina calls for extradition of Francoists over human rights abuses. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/argentina-spain-franco-extraditions

  • Jalloh CC (2010) Universal jurisdiction, universal prescription? A preliminary assessment of the African Union perspective on universal jurisdiction. Crim Law Forum 21:1–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeßberger F (2009) Universal jurisdiction. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford companion to International Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 555–557

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeßberger F, Geneuss J (eds) (2013) Recent setbacks for International Criminal Justice put into perspective. J Int Crim Justice 11:501–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeßberger F, Powell C (2001) Prosecuting Pinochets in South Africa—implementing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. S Afr J Crim Justice 14:344–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson D (2014) Ein grenzwertiges Urteil. Tageszeitung, 18 February 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller R (2013) Das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch in der praktischen Anwendung: Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme. In: Jeßberger F, Geneuss J (eds) Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, Bilanz und Perspektiven eines “deutschen Völkerstrafrechts”. Nomos, Baden-Baden. Stämpfli Verlag, Bern, pp 141–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroker P (2011) Universal jurisdiction in Germany: the trial of Onesphore R. Before the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt. Ger Yearb Int Law 54:671–687

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahiri K (2009) Rwanda’s ‘Gacaca’ courts: a possible model for local justice in international crime? Int Crim Law Rev 9:321–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer M (2011) The diplomacy of Universal Jurisdiction, the role of political branches in the transnational prosecution of international crimes. AJIL 105:1–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luban D (2013) After the honeymoon: reflections on the current state of international criminal justice. J Int Crim Justice 11:505–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magliveras KD (2012) Fighting impunity unsuccessfully in Africa, The African Union and the Habré Case. www.academia.edu/1513605/African_Union_and_the_Case_of_Hissene_Habre.

  • Magliveras KD, Naldi GJ (2013) The International Criminal Court’s involvement with Africa: evaluation of a fractious relationship. Nord J Int Law 82:417–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minder R (2013) Argentine judge seeks to put Franco officials on trial. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/world/europe/argentine-judge-seeks-to-put-franco-officials-on-trial.html

  • Moghadam T (2007–2008) Revitalizing universal jurisdiction: lessons from hybrid tribunals applied to the case of Hissène Habré. Columbia Hum Rights Law Rev 39:471–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Murungu CB (2011) Towards a criminal chamber in the African Court of Justice and Human Rights. J Int Crim Justice 9:1067–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neldjingaye K (2011) The trial of Hissène Habré in Senegal and its contribution to international criminal law. In: Murungu C, Biegon J (eds) Prosecuting international crimes in Africa. Pretoria Law University Press, Pretoria, pp 185–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Niang M (2009) The Senegalese legal framework for the prosecution of international crimes. J Int Crim Justice 7:1947–1062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reydams L (2003) Universal jurisdiction, international and municipal legal perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadat L (2009) Transjudicial dialogue and the Rwandan genocide: aspects of antagonism and complementarity. Leiden J Int Law 22:543–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sammons A (2003) The under-theorization of universal jurisdiction: implications for legitimacy on trials of war criminals by national courts. Berkeley J Int Law 21:111–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanger A (2013) Immunity of state officials from the criminal jurisdiction of a foreign state. Int Comp Law Q 62:193–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southern Africa Litigation Centre (2013) Positive reinforcement: advocating for International Criminal Justice in Africa, Johannesburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiga V (2011) Non-retroactivity of Criminal Law, a new chapter in the Hissène Habré saga. J Int Crim Justice 9:5–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiba FK (2007) The Mengistu genocide trial in Ethiopia. J Int Crim Justice 5:513–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werle G, Jeßberger F (2014) Principles of International Criminal Law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle G, Bornkamm PC (2013) Torture in Zimbabwe under scrutiny in South Africa—the judgment of the North Gauteng High Court in SALC v. National Director of Public Prosecution. J Int Crim Justice 11:659–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Wilt H (2011) Universal Jurisdiction under attack, an assessment of African Misgivings towards international criminal justice as administered by Western States. J Int Crim Justice 9:1043–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zappalà S (2006) The German federal prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute a former Uzbek minister, missed opportunity or prosecutorial wisdom. J Int Crim Justice 4:602–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

Cases

  • The Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, ICTR (TC), Decision of 28 May 2008, ICTR-97-36-R11bis

    Google Scholar 

  • The Prosecutor v. Munyakazi, ICTR (AC), Decision of 8 October 2008, ICTR-97-36-R11bis

    Google Scholar 

  • The Prosecutor v. Uwinkindi, ICTR (TC), Decision of 28 June 2011, ICTR-2001-75-R11bis

    Google Scholar 

  • The Prosecutor v. Uwinkindi, ICTR (AC), Decision of 16 December 2011, ICTR-01-75-AR11bis

    Google Scholar 

  • The Prosecutor v. Muthaura, Kenyatta and Hussein Ali, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber II of 30 May 2011 entitled “Decision on the application by the Government of Kenya challenging the admissibility of the case pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) of the Statute”, ICC-01/09-02/11OA, 30 August 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • The Prosecutor v. Ruto, Kosgey and Sang, Judgment on the appeal of the Republic of Kenya against the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber II of 30 May 2011 entitled “Decision on the application by the Government of Kenya challenging the admissibility of the case pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) of the Statute”, ICC-01/09-01/11OA, 30 August 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • DR Congo v. Belgium, ICJ, Judgment of 14 February 2002 (Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000), ICJ Reports 2002, pp 3 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Belgium v. Senegal, ICJ, Judgment of 20 July 2012 (Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite), ICJ Reports 2012, pp 422 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Committee against Torture, Communication No. 181/2001: Suleymane Guengueng and Others v. Senegal, 19 May 2006, UN Doc. CAT/C/36/D/181/2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahorugeze v. Sweden, ECHR, Judgment of 27 October 2011 (Application No. 37075/09)

    Google Scholar 

  • Habré v. Senegal, Court of Justice of the Economic Community of States of Western Africa, Decision No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/10, 18 November 2010 http://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/20120419T034816-Habre%20Ecowa%202010.pdf

  • Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main, Decision of 6 November 2008, 2 Ausl A 175/07

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgment of 18 February 2014, 5-3 StE 4/10 - 4 - 3/10

    Google Scholar 

  • SALC and Another v. National Director for Public Prosecutions and Others, High Court of South Africa (North Gauteng High Court), Judgment of 8 May 2012, Case No. 77150/09

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commissioner of the South African Police Service and Another v. Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre and Another, Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, Judgment of 27 November 2013, Case No. 485/2012

    Google Scholar 

  • République du Sénégal, Cour d’Appel de Dakar, Chambre d’accusation, Arret no. 135 du 4 juillet 2000. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/french/themes/habre-decision.html

  • République du Sénégal, Cour de Cassation, Première chamber statuant en matière pénale, Arret no. 14 du 20 mars 2001. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/french/themes/habre-cour_de_cass.html

Download references

Acknowledgments

The valuable assistance of Eva Bohle, LLM (University of the Western Cape) in the preparation of this paper is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Florian Jeßberger

Authors
  1. Florian Jeßberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Jeßberger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Humboldt-Universität Juristische Fakultät, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Gerhard Werle

  2. Faculty of Law Department for Criminal Law, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa

    Lovell Fernandez

  3. Humboldt-Universität Juristische Fakultät, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Moritz Vormbaum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jeßberger, F. (2014). ‘On Behalf of Africa’: Towards the Regionalization of Universal Jurisdiction?. In: Werle, G., Fernandez, L., Vormbaum, M. (eds) Africa and the International Criminal Court. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 1. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-029-9_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation