By Lauren R. Gardner
During law school, Lauren represented clients in the Immigration Law Clinic and volunteered with the Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York, gaining experience advocating for individuals who are navigating complex legal and humanitarian challenges. She has been recognized for her advocacy skills as winner of the Donna Jo Morse Client Counseling Competition and finalist at the ABA Regional Client Counseling Competition.
Lauren's professional interests focus on public interest law, advocacy, and advancing the rights of vulnerable populations.
This paper explores the evolving principle of universal jurisdiction and its role in addressing crimes that shock the conscience of humanity. As an exception to state sovereignty, universal jurisdiction empowers national courts to prosecute perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture, regardless of where such crimes occur or the nationality of those involved. While theoretically a powerful tool for global justice, its practical application has been rare and fraught with political, legal, and logistical obstacles. State sovereignty, diplomatic concerns, cultural relativism, uneven domestic legislation, and the high resource demands of transnational prosecutions limit its effectiveness and contribute to an “accountability gap.”
Through historical and contemporary case studies—including piracy prosecutions, the Nuremberg Trials, Israel’s prosecution of Adolf Eichmann, Spain’s Guatemalan genocide litigation, and U.S. cases such as United States v. Chuckie Taylor Jr.—the paper evaluates how national courts have attempted to wield universal jurisdiction. These examples illustrate both the potential for justice and the risks of perceived overreach or political misuse.
The analysis also considers international treaties, customary international law, and scholarly debates that question whether universal jurisdiction represents legitimate global enforcement or the imposition of one state’s norms upon another. The paper concludes that universal jurisdiction remains underdeveloped but not untenable.
With clearer international consensus, harmonized definitions of prosecutable crimes, and mechanisms to prevent abuse while respecting sovereignty, the principle could become a more effective instrument against impunity. Strengthening its framework is essential to ensure that perpetrators of mass atrocities are held accountable when their own states fail to act..
_________________
To read the paper, open HERE.
