Sixth Committee (Legal) — 78th session
The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction (Agenda item 84)
- Authority: resolution 77/111
Documentation
- A/78/130 — Report of the Secretary-General
- A/C.6/78/L.15 — Draft resolution
Additional documents from previous sessions:
- Reports of the Secretary-General:
A/77/186 | A/76/203 | A/75/151 | A/74/144 | A/73/123 + Add.1 | A/72/112 | A/71/111 | A/70/125 | A/69/174 | A/68/113 | A/67/116 | A/66/93 + Add.1 | A/65/181 - A/C.6/77/SR.35, A/C.6/75/SR.17 | A/C.6/74/SR.34 | A/C.6/73/SR.33 — Summary records of the 35th meeting (10 November 2022), the 17th meeting (11 November 2020), the 34th meeting (11 November 2019) and the 33rd meeting (5 November 2018)
- A/C.6/66/WG.3/1 — Informal Working Paper
- A/C.6/66/WG.3/DP.1 — Informal paper of the Working Group: Non-paper by Chile
- Informal Working Paper (Annex)
Summary of work
Background (source: A/78/100)
The item entitled “The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction” was included in the agenda of the sixty-fourth session of the General Assembly at the request of the United Republic of Tanzania on behalf of the Group of African States (A/63/237/Rev.1). The Assembly has had the item on its agenda annually since then (resolutions 64/117, 65/33, 66/103, 67/98, 68/117, 69/124, 70/119, 71/149, 72/120, 73/208, 74/192, 75/142, 76/118 and 77/111).
At its seventy-seventh session, the Assembly allocated the item to the Sixth Committee, where statements in the debate were made by 53 delegations (see A/C.6/77/SR.12–13). The Assembly decided to establish, at its seventy-ninth session, a working group of the Sixth Committee to continue to undertake a thorough discussion of the scope and application of universal jurisdiction and invited the working group to consider and comment on the question “on the relevant elements of a working concept of universal jurisdiction”. The Assembly also decided that the working group would be open to all Member States and that relevant observers to the Assembly would be invited to participate in the work of the working group. The Assembly invited Member States and relevant observers, as appropriate, to submit information and observations on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction, including, where appropriate, information on the relevant applicable international treaties and on their national legal rules and judicial practice, and requested the Secretary-General to prepare and submit to the Assembly at its seventy-eighth session a report based on such information and observations. The Assembly further requested the Secretary-General to submit a report to the Assembly at its seventy-ninth session reviewing all the submissions of Member States and relevant observers as well as views expressed in the debates of the Sixth Committee since the sixty-second session of the Assembly and identifying possible convergences and divergences on the definition, scope and application of universal jurisdiction for the consideration of the Sixth Committee (resolution 77/111).
Consideration at the seventy-eighth session
The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 12th, 13th, and 37th meetings, on 13 and 16 October and on 17 November 2023 (A/C.6/78/SR.12, 13, and 37).
For its consideration of the item, the Committee had before it the reports of the Secretary-General submitted to the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth to seventy-eighth sessions (A/65/181, A/66/93 + Add.1, A/67/116, A/68/113, A/69/174, A/70/125, A/71/111, A/72/112, A/73/123 + Add.1, A/74/144, A/75/151, A/76/203, A/77/186 and A/78/130).
Statements were made by the representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Uganda (on behalf of the African Group), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC)), the European Union (also on behalf of its Member States, the candidate countries North Macedonia, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the potential candidate country Georgia, as well as Monaco and San Marino aligned themselves with the statement), Lithuania (on behalf of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Canada (on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (CANZ)) [in English], Sweden (on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden (Nordic Countries)), Czech Republic (on behalf of Austria, Czech Republic and Slovakia), Thailand, Liechtenstein, Brazil, the United States of America, Germany, Hungary, Belarus, Israel, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Sri Lanka, Senegal, Mexico, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Argentina, Costa Rica, Slovenia, Ireland, Egypt, Uganda, Pakistan, Sudan, the Russian Federation, Cuba, Cameroon, China, Burkina Faso, El Salvador, the Philippines, Mali, India, Sierra Leone, Togo, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, the United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Côte d'Ivoire, Mozambique, Singapore, Morocco [in French], Kenya, Türkiye, Myanmar, the United Arab Emirates, the Syrian Arab Republic, Algeria and Eritrea.
Statements were also made by the observers for the State of Palestine and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
Delegations generally stated that universal jurisdiction was an important, well-established principle of international law aimed at combating impunity. It was highlighted that the principle served as a jurisdictional basis to hold perpetrators accountable for the most serious crimes under international law. Several delegations stated that universal jurisdiction should be exercised in exceptional circumstances and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, underscoring that the focus of the discussion should be the limitations in the application of the principle. Other delegations emphasized that the principle should only apply when the territorial or the nationality State was “unwilling or unable” to investigate and/or prosecute the alleged offender. A view was expressed that universal jurisdiction should be understood as the jurisdiction of the nationality State to prosecute an offender irrespective of their geographical location.
On the scope of the principle, several delegations considered that universal jurisdiction applied to the most serious crimes under international law and provided various examples of such crimes, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, slavery, torture, piracy, apartheid, terrorism and aggression, even though there remained divergences as to which crimes in particular the principle would apply. Some delegations stated that only piracy was a classic example under international law.
With respect to the application of universal jurisdiction, a number of delegations reaffirmed their concerns over the uncertain scope of the principle and its potential for abuse or misuse. Several delegations stressed that the principle must be applied in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Thus, the importance of applying the principle respecting the sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity, political independence and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, as well as the immunity of State officials was emphasized. A number of delegations further highlighted the need for its application to be in accordance with principles of criminal law, such as the right to a fair trial, due process and the avoidance of double jeopardy. Some delegations stressed that universal jurisdiction could only be exercised when the alleged offender was present in the territory of the State exercising universal jurisdiction. Some delegations provided information on their national legislation on universal jurisdiction, spelling out the crimes to which it applied and the conditions for its application, while others urged States to incorporate universal jurisdiction into their national legislation.
On the future consideration of the agenda item, while several delegations supported continued discussions within the Sixth Committee and its Working Group, others stated that the discussions within the Sixth Committee were at an impasse, noting the lack of progress. Some delegations favoured the consideration of the legal aspects of the topic by the International Law Commission, but others reiterated their view that it would be premature and counterproductive at this stage for the Commission to undertake such a study. Several delegations mentioned that the report of the Secretary-General for the seventy-ninth session, reviewing submissions of Member States and relevant observers, as well as views expressed in the debates of the Sixth Committee, and identifying possible convergences and divergences on the definition, scope and application of universal jurisdiction, could contribute to the revitalization of the work of the Sixth Committee on the agenda item.
Archived videos and summaries of plenary meetings
12th meeting (13 October 2023, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary
13th meeting (16 October 2023, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary
37th meeting (17 November 2023, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary
Action taken by the Sixth Committee
At the 37th meeting, on 17 November, the representative of Mauritius, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced a draft resolution entitled “The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction” (A/C.6/78/L.15). At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/78/L.15 without a vote.
Under the terms of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would invite Member States and relevant observers, as appropriate, to submit, before 26 April 2024, information and observations on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction, including, where appropriate, information on the relevant applicable international treaties, their national legal rules and judicial practice. The Assembly would request the Secretary-General to submit a report to the Assembly, at its seventy-ninth session, reviewing all the submissions of Member States and relevant observers, as well as views expressed in the debates of the Sixth Committee, since the sixty-second session of the Assembly and identifying possible convergences and divergences on the definition, scope and application of universal jurisdiction for the consideration of the Committee. The Assembly would moreover decide that the Sixth Committee would continue its consideration of the item in plenary at the seventy-ninth session. A working group would be established at the seventy-ninth session to continue to undertake a thorough discussion of the scope and application of universal jurisdiction. The General Assembly would also invite the said working group to consider and comment on the question “on the relevant elements of a working concept of universal jurisdiction”. The General Assembly would decide that the working group would be open to all Member States and that relevant observers to the Assembly will be invited to participate in the work of the working group.
Subsequent action taken by the General Assembly
This agenda item will be considered at the seventy-ninth session (2024).
Full texts of submissions (A/78/130)
| State | Original submission | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | English | |
| Brazil | English | |
| Bulgaria | English | |
| Denmark | English | |
| Hungary | English | |
| Ireland | English | |
| Malaysia | English | |
| Morocco | Arabic | English |
| Netherlands (Kingdom of the) | English | |
| Oman | English | |
| Saudi Arabia | Arabic | English |
| Türkiye | English |
