No abstract

This essay presents a systematic study of the incidence of universal jurisdiction (UJ) prosecutions for the international crime of piracy. Using data on the number of piracies committed in a twelve-year period (1998-2009) obtained from international agencies and maritime industry groups, we determined the percentage of these cases where nations exercised universal jurisdiction. Studies of the worldwide use of UJ prosecutions for other crimes simply count how often universal jurisdiction has been exercised but do not attempt to determine the rate of prosecution. Simply counting cases does not allow one to appreciate the significance of universal jurisdiction in relation to the total problem. While the expressive or symbolic value of universal justice may be satisfied by a small number of isolated prosecutions, the deterrent effect depends on its incidence relative to the number of perpetrated crimes.

This Article explores whether and when rules of customary international law (CIL

In the wake of the United Nations General Assembly's recognition of Palestinian statehood, the Palestinian government has made clear its intention to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), where it could, in principle, challenge the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. This article explores a significant jurisdictional hurdle for such a case. (To focus on jurisdictional issues, the article assumes for the sake of argument the validity of the merits of legal claims against the settlements.) The ICC can only consider situations 'on the territory'of Palestine. Yet the scope of that territory remains undefined. The norm against settlements arises in situations of occupation. However, in the majority view an 'occupation' can arise even in an area that is not the territory of any state. In this respect, ICC jurisdiction is narrower than the corresponding Geneva Convention norm, as it only extends to sovereign state territory. Thus even if Israel is an occupying power throughout the West Bank for the purposes of substantive humanitarian law, this does not establish that settlement activity occurs 'on the territory' of Palestine. Moreover, both the General Assembly resolution and the International Court of Justice's Wall Advisory opinion make clear that the borders of Palestine remain undefined. The ICC lacks the power to determine boundaries of states, and certainly of non-member states. Given that Israel is a non-member state, determining the borders of Palestine, even for jurisdictional purposes, would violate the Monetary Gold principle, as it would also determine Israel's borders. Moreover, the Oslo Accords give Israel exclusive criminal jurisdiction over Israelis in the West Bank. Palestine cannot delegate to the ICC territorial jurisdiction that it does not possess.

No abstract