Universal Jurisdiction as a Tool for Justice and Accountability in Ukraine and Beyond

When Russia conducted a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a significant step was made in the direction of making the most of the principle of universal jurisdiction. With Russia’s war of aggression well into its third year, the concept to prosecute war crimes in Ukraine in other national courts is garnering new supporters and strategies to ensure that no stone on justice and accountability is left unturned

The first use of the principle of universal jurisdiction in the context of Ukraine was brought within days of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, with several prosecutors opening structural investigations into the core international crimes allegedly perpetrated by Russia in Ukraine. Over subsequent months, several cases were filed with prosecutors across Europe, especially in Germany and Austria. For example, in October 2023, German prosecutors were presented with evidence of alleged Russian war crimes in Odesa, Kharkiv, and Kyiv. German courts have been at the forefront of efforts to apply the principle of universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators of international crimes globally, including for crimes in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere.

In December 2023, the United States unsealed a Criminal Indictment charging four Russian military officials with committing war crimes involving a United States victim who was living in southern Ukraine at the time of the invasion. This marked the first case of conditional universal jurisdiction related to the 2022 full-scale invasion, with charges based on the citizenship of the victim.

As momentum builds, legal advocates are strategizing ways to invoke the concept more broadly. Earlier this month, a conference organized at the CEELI Institute, together with the International Bar Association and the Center for International Law and Policy in Africa, brought together national prosecutors, international law experts, representatives of international organizations, and civil society in Prague to discuss universal jurisdiction, including structural investigations, prosecutions, and likely hurdles.

To Ukraine’s leadership, the concept of using universal jurisdiction to bring Russia to justice is sound, and its application not only ensures justice in Ukraine, but also ensures greater global accountability for these heinous crimes.

“Establishing justice for international crimes is something that could help to protect victims and witnesses for [past] war crimes, and others from [future] crimes,” Andriy Kostin, Ukraine’s prosecutor general, told delegates during an online keynote address.

As a foundational legal principle, “universal jurisdiction” is rooted in international efforts to police piracy on the open seas. It gained heightened attention after World War II and saw its heyday after the 1998 arrest in London of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet on charges of torture. Since then, courts in Spain, France, Belgium, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have been among those to successfully prosecute international crimes using the concept.

And yet, the principle of universal jurisdiction faces many practical obstacles. “The concept of universal jurisdiction may not be that contested, but the modalities of implementing universal jurisdiction may well be,” observed panelist Cedric Ryngaert, a professor of public international law at Utrecht University. Those modalities, he said, include handling universal jurisdiction in absentia, investigation methods, and the “question of immunity” for leaders, soldiers, and other potential defendants.

Another concern is how to establish strong chains of evidence. Stephen Rapp, a former prosecutor in Rwanda and the Sierra Leone special tribunals and former United States ambassador-at-large for war crimes, asked how Ukraine’s leaders and NGOs can ensure linkage of evidence to senior Russian leaders in such difficult wartime conditions.

“If you're successful on the battlefield in arresting a colonel or a general, how can you relate this involvement to war crimes by his units, by those he was working with?” Rapp asked. 

Kostin replied that efforts are being taken to “build the chain of command from the bottom to the top.”

Beyond Ukraine, the picture gets even more complicated based on historical imbalances.

During a discussion about developments at the United Nations to codify universal jurisdiction in international law, panelists noted that in the past, the concept has been applied selectively and disproportionately, particularly with regards to African leaders. Panelists highlighted the importance of incorporating international treaties into domestic law and touched on the complexities of sovereign immunity and the need for global dialogue to address these issues. Speakers added that in Africa, 80 percent of defendants are citizens of former colonies, while most prosecuting states are former colonial powers, an imbalance that doesn’t go unnoticed. 

“Africa needs to be not a law taker, but a lawmaker,” declared another panelist, the African Union’s legal counsel, Hajer Gueldich.

The thrust of the two days was on practical solutions and building momentum for broader support. In Ukraine, for instance, greater coordination among nations was considered key to marshalling resources and building effective legislation. The central importance of political will and international support was underscored. Participants also mapped universal jurisdiction and other forms of expanded jurisdiction responses to the war in Ukraine, including in countries that opened some form of structural investigation.

Kostin said implementation of universal jurisdiction concepts is something courts in many countries should aspire to, especially those in legal systems with limited capacity to enforce international law. Conferences like the one organized at the CEELI Institute, he said, can “encourage and inspire those who have an opportunity and legal capacity to pursue universal jurisdiction, as well as those who are still not very active.”

Throughout the two-day conference, participants shared practical solutions, emphasizing the need for greater coordination among nations, political will, and international support to bolster the application of universal jurisdiction.

To capture these insights, the organizers of the conference—the CEELI Institute, the International Bar Association, and the Center for International Law and Policy in Africa—prepared a "Prague Statement," outlining the key recommendations and reflections from the discussions, offering a roadmap for future efforts to pursue universal jurisdiction. We thank the U.S. Department of State Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs for supporting this important project.

Download The Prague Statement on Universal Criminal Jurisdiction