Sixth Committee (Legal) — 80th session
The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction (Agenda item 85)
- Authority: resolution 79/127
- List of speakers
- List of crimes mentioned in the comments by Governments concerning which universal jurisdiction (including other bases of jurisdiction) is established under their national legislation
Documentation
- A/80/274 — Report of the Secretary-General
- A/C.6/80/L.12 — Draft resolution
Additional documents from previous sessions:
- Reports of the Secretary-General:
A/79/269 | A/78/130 | 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/80/100)
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).
At its seventy-ninth session, the Assembly decided to establish, at its eighty-first 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 “how the principle of universal jurisdiction is distinct from other related concepts”. The Assembly also decided that the working group should 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, before 25 April 2025, 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 submit to the Assembly at its eightieth session a report based on such information and observations (resolution 79/127).
Consideration at the eightieth session
The Sixth Committee considered the item at its 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 38th meetings, on 21, 22 and 23 October and 21 November 2025 (A/C.6/80/SR.22, 23, 24 and 38).
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-ninth 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, A/78/130 , A/79/269 and A/80/274).
Statements were made by the representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), the European Union (also on behalf of its member States (the candidate countries Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Monaco, aligned themselves with the statement)), Brazil (also on behalf of Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Lebanon, Mexico and South Africa), Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Norway)), Australia (on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (CANZ)), Slovakia (on behalf of Austria, Czechia and Slovakia (S3)), Lithuania (on behalf of the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Germany, Slovenia, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, France, Cameroon (on behalf of the African Group), Israel, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Ethiopia, the observer of the Observer State of Palestine, and the representatives of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, Burkina Faso, Mexico, Eritrea, the Philippines, Senegal, Indonesia, the United States of America, China, Costa Rica, Algeria, Myanmar, Togo, Singapore, Türkiye, the Russian Federation, Malaysia, Congo, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Morocco, Pakistan, Chile, Bangladesh, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mozambique, Guinea, Argentina, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Equatorial Guinea and Viet Nam.
A statement was also made by the observer of the International Committee of the Red Cross.The representatives of the Russian Federation and Israel, and the observer of the Observer State of Palestine spoke in the exercise of the right of reply.
Delegations generally reaffirmed that universal jurisdiction might, when exercised in conformity with international law, contribute to efforts to prevent and punish the most serious crimes and to combat impunity. In parallel, several delegations cautioned against politically motivated, selective or otherwise abusive invocation of the principle, stressing that it must be applied consistently with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with fundamental rules of international law. Some delegations underscored that views of States remained divided as to whether, and to what extent, universal jurisdiction had crystallized as a rule of customary international law, referring to divergences in national legislation and practice and calling for careful assessment of State practice and opinio juris on the matter. Methodological difficulties in establishing customary international law on universal jurisdiction were raised, including the limited public availability of information on prosecutorial decisions and cases in which jurisdiction had been declined. A view was expressed that treaty regimes establishing non-territorial forms of jurisdiction were not probative for the purpose of establishing a permissive rule of universal jurisdiction in international law.
On the scope of universal jurisdiction, a number of delegations considered that it might be invoked in relation to the most serious crimes under international law and referred, inter alia, to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture, with some also mentioning enforced disappearance, slavery and the slave trade, piracy, terrorism and, in some instances, the crime of aggression. Several delegations emphasized that universal jurisdiction derived from the exceptional gravity of certain offences affecting the fundamental interests of the international community and recalled that no uniform understanding existed as to the precise list of crimes to which it applied. In that context, a number of delegations stressed the need for clear criteria and mechanisms to determine which offences fell within the scope of the principle. Other delegations cautioned against undue expansion of crimes subject to universal jurisdiction and underscored that the scope should remain limited and be regulated by clear parameters. A number of delegations stressed the importance of distinguishing universal jurisdiction from other jurisdictional bases arising from treaty obligations, including obligations to extradite or prosecute.
On the exercise of universal jurisdiction, a number of delegations emphasized its exceptional character and underscored that it should be applied cautiously, on a restrictive basis and subject to clear safeguards to prevent abuse. A suggestion was made to establish a monitoring mechanism to prevent the abuse or misuse of the principle. Subsidiarity or complementarity was frequently highlighted, with several delegations stressing that priority should be accorded to States with a closer nexus to the offence, in particular the territorial State and/or the State of nationality, and that recourse to universal jurisdiction should be contemplated only where those States had not been genuinely able or willing to pursue effective investigations or prosecutions, or where proceedings had otherwise not been effectively pursued. A number of delegations indicated that the presence of the alleged offender in the territory of the forum State, and in some cases prior consultation in good faith with relevant States, constituted important conditions for the exercise of universal jurisdiction, and cautioned against proceedings conducted in absentia. It was emphasized that universal jurisdiction should not be understood as displacing primary jurisdiction, but rather as a subsidiary avenue aimed at addressing accountability gaps in limited circumstances.
Delegations underscored that the exercise of universal jurisdiction must be consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and with applicable rules of international law, including respect for sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity, political independence and the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States. Several delegations emphasized that the legal framework governing immunities of State officials must be duly observed, while others expressed differing views as to the scope of such immunities in relation to accountability for the most serious crimes. Delegations recalled that any proceedings should be conducted in accordance with fundamental guarantees of criminal law and procedure, including due process, fair trial rights, legal certainty andprotection against double jeopardy and that judicial independence should be safeguarded. Some delegations drew attention to additional conditions and safeguards reflected in domestic practice, such as requirements of double criminality, consultation with and notification of relevant States and information sharing and other measures intended to prevent discriminatory or selective application of the principle of universal jurisdiction.
Several delegations provided information on their national legal frameworks and practice concerning universal jurisdiction. Delegations also highlighted practical challenges associated with the exercise of universal jurisdiction, including investigative complexity and obstacles related to securing evidence and witness testimony across borders. In that regard, a number of delegations emphasized the importance of effective cooperation. Several delegations underscored the importance of timely preservation of evidence and sustained access to evidentiary material, including through relevant international mechanisms, in order to enable future domestic proceedings. Some delegations referred to the usefulness of cooperation instruments and operational arrangements, at bilateral, regional and multilateral levels, in supporting domestic accountability efforts for international crimes.
Delegations took note of the report of the Secretary-General as a helpful basis for identifying points of convergence and divergence. Concerning future consideration of the item, a number of delegations supported continuing work within the Sixth Committee and its Working Group. Views continued to differ on whether the International Law Commission should be requested to undertake work on the topic, with some delegations favoring such work and others considering it premature. A view was expressed that future discussions could lead to the development of a legally binding instrument or at least a declaration governing the exercise of universal jurisdiction.
Archived videos and summaries of plenary meetings
22nd meeting (21 October 2025, 3:00pm – 6:00pm) | Summary
23rd meeting (22 October 2025, 3:00pm – 6:00pm) | Summary
24th meeting (23 October 2025, 10:00am – 1:00pm) | Summary
38th meeting (21 November 2025, 10:30am – 1:00pm) | Summary
Action taken by the Sixth Committee
At the 38th meeting, on 21 November, the representative of Uganda, on behalf of the Bureau, introduced a draft resolution entitled “The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction” (A/C.6/80/L.12). At the same meeting the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.6/80/L.12 without a vote. The representative of Czechia (on behalf of Austria, Slovakia and Czechia (S3)) spoke in explanation of position after the adoption of the draft resolution.
Under the terms of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would invite Member States and relevant observers, as appropriate, to submit, before 24 April 2026, 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 prepare and submit to the Assembly, at its eighty-first session, a report based on such information and observations. The Assembly would moreover decide that the Sixth Committee would continue its consideration of the item in plenary at the eighty-first session. A working group would be established at the eighty-first 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 “how the principle of universal jurisdiction is distinct from other related concepts”. The General Assembly would decide 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.
Subsequent action taken by the General Assembly
This agenda item will be considered at the eighty-first session (2026).
Full texts of submissions (A/80/274)
| State | Original submission | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Andorra | French | English |
| Austria | English | |
| Bahrain | Arabic | English |
| France | French | |
| India | English | |
| Norway | English | |
| Rwanda | English | |
| Observer | Original submission | Translation |
| ICRC | English | |
| OPCW | English | |
