Global Law Guidelines Drafted

TRENTON, N.J. —  No matter where the offense was committed, fugitives accused of war crimes, torture or genocide should be liable for trial in the courts of the country where they are found, according to new principles devised by a panel of international legal scholars.

The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction, a result of 18 months of work, aim to clarify an increasingly important area of international law: universal jurisdiction.

“Universal jurisdiction is a potent weapon,” said Princeton University professor Stephen Macedo, chairman of the project. “It would cast all the world’s courts as a net to catch alleged perpetrators of serious crimes under international law.”

But the principles also recognize the need for reasonable limits on prosecutions by one country against citizens of another, said panel member M. Cherif Bassiouni, president of the International Human Rights Law Institute at DePaul College of Law.

Crimes covered by the 14 principles include piracy, war crimes, torture, genocide, slavery, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.

There are now no adequate means to ensure that people responsible for atrocities will be held accountable, Macedo said. International tribunals such as those convened by the United Nations on Rwandan genocide and Bosnia’s ethnic cleansing have limited mandates.

The new International Criminal Court, established by a 1998 treaty as the world’s first permanent war crimes tribunal and expected to begin operating next year, will help fill a need, proponents say. But it will have limited resources.

“National courts will always have an important role to play,” Macedo said.

He cited the recent case of four Rwandans convicted in a Belgian court for their role in the 1994 ethnic massacres in their African homeland. The trial was held under a 1993 Belgian law that gives local courts jurisdiction over violations of the Geneva Convention on war crimes, no matter where they occurred.

The drafters of the Princeton Principles hope other nations adopt similar laws.

The principles “are the most serious attempt ever made to guide national courts in meeting the challenge of crimes of state,” said Richard Falk, a Princeton emeritus professor and project participant.

Universal jurisdiction is not without pitfalls. The key issue President Bush has raised in opposing ratification of the international criminal court treaty--concern that it would make U.S. soldiers and government officials vulnerable to politically motivated prosecutions.

Even President Clinton, who signed the treaty, said it should not be submitted for ratification until there were more assurances that U.S. citizens would not face frivolous prosecutions.

Such abuses are “a very real possibility,” Bassiouni conceded. “That is why we felt it was better to have guidelines . . . on the use of universal jurisdiction.”

“We don’t want to see a situation where there is a race between Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush to see who can indict the other first,” Bassiouni said.