SOAS Research Online

Abstract

This major new study examines the developing practice of universal jurisdiction, as well as the broader phenomenon of "globalizing" justice, and its ramifications. With a detailed overview of the contemporary practice of universal jurisdiction, it discerns three trends at work: pure universal jurisdiction, universal jurisdiction "plus", and non-use. It also argues that these disparities in practice should raise serious concerns as to the legitimacy and perceived legitimacy of such globalized justice. It then turns to a further consideration, that of globalized justice, precisely because it takes place far from the locus of the crime, and is therefore "externalized" and may fail to achieve many of its putative goals. In addition, this is a key assessment of civil accountability, through the use of the Alien Tort Claims Act in the United States. It details how the use of civil penalties may offer new avenues for redress, particularly with relation to group accountability, whether that of armed groups or of corporations. However, it balances this approach to accountability with recognition of certain flaws within externalized criminal accountability. This study also focuses on mixed tribunals, or other methods of internationalized justice as viable alternatives, which may avoid some of the problems with external justice, but are themselves far from perfect. Mixed or hybrid tribunals in East Timor and Sierra Leone represent different models of hybrid justice and provide the reader with excellent examples of these new forms of justice in action. This book will be of great interest to all students and scholars of human rights international law and political science.