Extraterritorial Justice

What is universal and extraterritorial Jurisdiction?

For most victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, justice in the country where the crimes were committed remains out of reach. National courts may be unwilling or unable to act, international tribunals only address a fraction of cases, and decades can pass without any meaningful accountability. Although the practice has grown steadily, with 91 active cases prosecuted in 20 countries in 2025, extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction remain underused mechanisms, whose application depends heavily on the persistent efforts of victims, lawyers, and civil society organizations. Extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction are legal mechanisms that allow this gap to be bridged, enabling national courts to prosecute international crimes even when they were committed abroad, by foreigners, against foreigners.

A legal framework

International law allows States to prosecute the gravest crimes even when they were committed elsewhere – but only under specific conditions, and through distinct legal bases.

Under classical principles of criminal law, a State exercises jurisdiction over offences committed on its own territory. Several additional grounds of jurisdiction, however, allow States to prosecute crimes committed abroad. Taken together, these bases are commonly referred to as forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Under the active personality principle, a State may prosecute crimes committed abroad by one of its own nationals. Under the passive personality principle, it may prosecute crimes committed abroad against one of its nationals.

Universal jurisdiction, a specific form of extraterritorial jurisdiction, goes further: it allows a State to prosecute certain grave international crimes – genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture – even in the absence of any link between the prosecuting State and the crime, whether through the nationality of the perpetrator, the nationality of the victim, or the place where the crimes were committed. Its rationale lies in the gravity of the crimes themselves, which are understood to affect the international community as a whole.

Universal jurisdiction takes two main forms. In its absolute form, no link between the prosecuting State and the crime is required. In its conditional form – the most common in practice – the State may only exercise jurisdiction if specific conditions are met, most often the presence or habitual residence of the suspect on its territory.

Why these mechanisms matter

The gravest international crimes are not subject to statutes of limitation and may be prosecuted as long as their alleged perpetrators are alive. Extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction offer one of the legal avenues through which the accountability gap can be addressed.

These mechanisms do not displace the justice systems of the countries where the crimes occurred – primary responsibility for prosecution remains, in the first instance, with the State on whose territory the crimes took place. But where that State fails to act, these mechanisms ensure that no other territory becomes a safe haven for those responsible.