The emerging international criminal Jurisdiction: An assault on the concept of State sovereignty

Abstract

This research project or study takes cognisance of the fact that State sovereignty is a central pillar of international law since States are the primary unit of political organization. Ordinarily, each State makes its own criminal law, administers and enforces it within its own territory under the doctrine of sovereignty. The study acknowledges, however, that international criminal jurisdiction under the rubric of universal jurisdiction has entered the national scene by way of judicial intervention through international criminal tribunals or coutts in the name of protecting the human rights of the people at national level when the international community reckons there are compelling circumstances warranting such intervention. The study acknowledges that the emergence of international criminal jurisdiction on the national scene has tended to be perceived by States as an assault on their sovereignty. The study has identified the emergence of a conceptual revolution. The revolution calls into question the traditional perception of sovereignty of States as encompassing inviolability of State territory whether or not given states inflict, or permit to be inflicted, atrocities on their citizens. The conceptual revolution accords a higher premium to the responsibility of States to be custodians of their citizens' welfare and to be protectors of their citizens from dehumanising but avoidable catastrophes. In view of experience gained down the ages about atrocities, including State-sponsored atrocities, committed by humans upon fellow humans, it is a major finding of the study: (1) that States bear the primary responsibility for safeguarding the well-being of their citizens; (2) that where the States fail to discharge this responsibility, a duty arises on the part of the international community collectively to intervene and protect the oppressed but helpless masses; and (3) that such intervention may include intervention by way of the exercise of universal jurisdiction through international criminal tribunals or courts as a back-stop to provide alternative remedy when national criminal tribunals or courts fail to provide requisite remedy.