IV. In Conclusion
The House of Lords’ decisions in the Pinochet case placed the United Kingdom at the forefront of developments on universal jurisdiction, particularly in respect of the recognition that there should be no immunity (ratione materiae) for the most egregious crimes under international law. Nonetheless, the practice of the UK ever since, calls into question the commitment of the Government to make any real progress at all. Aside from the important prosecution of Sarwar Zardad for torture and hostage taking, there is very little sign of commitment to universal jurisdiction, both in respect of criminal and civil cases. The continued ability of the Attorney General to disallow prosecutions on public policy grounds is highly problematic. Further, the few opportunities for victims to directly access justice by seeking an arrest warrant have not met with any success; and in fact the recent failure to implement the warrant in the case of Almog suggests outright obfuscation by the Government in order to avoid application of the law. In civil cases, immunities continue to be the principle stumbling blocks for potential claimants. Here too, the UK Government has taken a stance in direct opposition to such claims. Indeed in Ron Jones v. Saudi Arabia, the UK Government has intervened in support of the application of immunities in favor of the Saudi officials said to be responsible for the torture and the Saudi state itself.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Prosecutor v. TadiĆ, ICTY Case No. IT-94-1-I, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction of October 2, 1995, para. 137.
International Criminal Court Act 2001.
For a list of cases that are in the public domain see REDRESS and FIDH, Legal Remedies for Victims of “International Crimes”: Fostering an EU Approach to Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (2004), p. 77, available at http://www.redress.org/publications/Legal-RemediesFinal.pdf.
Parliamentary answer to Lord Avebury on July 1, 2004, published by Hansard (official parliamentary reports), http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=section+134+criminall+justic+act+J0scotland+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds04/text/40701w02.htm#40701w02_wqn2.
The most recent case is that of the Afghan warlord, Sarwar Zardad, who was arrested and charged with torture under Section 134 of the CJA and hostage taking in July 2003 and who was convicted of conspiracy to commit torture and take hostages in Afghanistan between 1991 and 1996 and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment in 2005. The extradition case of Pinochet turned on Section 134 of CJA, where Pinochet remained under house arrest pending the outcome of the judicial review between 1999 and 2000. Dr. Magoub, a Sudanese doctor, was charged under Section 134 of the CJA for torture in September 1997, however, the case was withdrawn during the preparation of the trial. See REDRESS, Universal Jurisdiction in Europe Criminal prosecutions in Europe since 1990 for war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and genocide (1999), pp. 44–47, available at http://www.redress.org/publications/UJEurope.pdf.
R. v. Bull (1994), 99 Cr App R 193. Confirmed in the application for the arrest of Narenda Modi, Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat, for torture under Section 134 of the CJA before District Judge Workman at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court on August 20, 2003.
R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendary Magistrate ex parte Pinochet Ungarte (3) (1999), 2 WLR 827.
Ibid. Lord Millet was the only Law Lord to find that systematic practice of torture prior to September 1988 was a common law crime however, he found that a singe act of torture was not “the systematic use of torture on a large scale and as an instrument of state policy had joined piracy, war crimes and crimes against peace as an international crime of universal jurisdiction well before 1984. I consider that it had done so by 1973.” (p. 103 of the judgment).
Ibid. Lord Hope and Lord Browne-Wilkinson reached this conclusion. Out of the other three, Lord Millet found that torture, as part of a systematic practice, was a crime in the UK under the common law, though a single act of torture was not. Lord Hutton, Lord Saville of Newdigate and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers all agreed with Lord Hope’s analysis but made no specific comment about this.
Ibid., p. 846.
Ibid., p. 913.
See REDRESS, Challenging Impunity for Torture: A Manual for Bringing Criminal and Civil Proceedings in England and Wales for Torture Committed Abroad (2000), pp. 125–163.
Al-Adsani v. The United Kingdom (2002), 34 E.H.R.R. 11, at para. 61.
Ron Jones v. Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya (The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs; the Redress Trust (Intervenors); Sandy Mitchell and Ors. v. Ibrahim Al-Dali & Ors., Court of Appeal (Civil Division) A2 2003/2155 & A2 2004/0489 (October 28, 2004).
Ibid., para. 16.
Ibid., para. 17.
Ibid., p. 80.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ferstman, C. (2007). The Approach of the United Kingdom to Crimes under International Law: The Application of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. In: Kaleck, W., Ratner, M., Singelnstein, T., Weiss, P. (eds) International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46278-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46278-1_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-36648-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46278-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)