Will the UK address the glaring impunity for international crimes?

In recent years, the global community has witnessed a spike in international crimes, including conflict-related sexual violence. As time passes by, we learn more and more about the true scale and nature of such crimes, and despite their pervasiveness, impunity is a legacy that the world still cannot shake off. For victims/survivors, access to justice and accountability is often rare, while the omnipresent impunity for perpetrators sends the message that one can get away with some of the most horrific crimes that can be committed against another person and whole communities. In the majority of such cases, justice and accountability cannot be secured locally, be it due to the lack of relevant laws, a weak judiciary, the government’s implication in the crimes and the list goes on. What are the other options? Alternative options are limited and different in each case. Among others, the only international criminal court in existence, the International Criminal Court (ICC), has a limited territorial and personal jurisdiction that depends on the membership in the Rome Statute. In some cases, the UN Security Council can refer situations to the ICC; however, this has only been achieved in some cases (such as Darfur and Libya), while blocked in others (for example, Syria) - all depending on political will. Also, where the ICC can engage, it will only pursue a few of the leaders. What about the thousands of other perpetrators? This is where the principle of universal jurisdiction can be of assistance. 

States exercise jurisdiction over crimes that take place beyond their territory, and this has long been permitted under international law (extraterritorial jurisdiction). Where the accused is a national of the prosecuting state, the principle of active personality is implicated, while passive personality pertains to cases in which the victim is a national of the prosecuting state. However, when the crimes are committed outside of the country, and neither the alleged perpetrator nor the victim is a national of that country, the principle of universal jurisdiction provides a basis for jurisdiction.

The principle of universal jurisdiction aims to equip states with jurisdiction over international crimes when (1) they were perpetrated outside the state’s territory and (2) neither the victim nor the perpetrator is a national of that state at the time of the commission of the offence. Universal jurisdiction can be asserted over several crimes, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, torture and enforced disappearance, as a function of treaty implementation or permissive customary international law. The notion behind the principle of universal jurisdiction is that ‘certain crimes are so grave that they affect the international community as a whole, and that every state therefore has an interest in prosecuting them.’  

The principle of universal jurisdiction should be used to obstruct alleged perpetrators of international crimes such as genocide or conflict-related sexual violence from travelling globally and enjoying impunity. However, too often this is not the case. 

Unfortunately, in the UK, the principle of universal jurisdiction is a wonderful promise yet to be fulfilled. As it stands, it is included, for example, in the Geneva Conventions Act of 1957 and in relation to the crime of torture in Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1988. The International Criminal Court Act (ICCA) 2001 (and the International Criminal Court Act (Scotland) 2001), the very legislation which domesticates the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, includes active extraterritorial jurisdiction only. Sections 51 and 58 of the ICCA 2001 allow British courts to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes (as defined in the Rome Statute) committed abroad only if they were perpetrated by British citizens or residents (or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction). As such, British courts can prosecute breaches of the Geneva Conventions or torture committed anywhere in the world, but they cannot do so in relation to international crimes as defined in the Rome Statute. 

This means that if alleged perpetrators of genocide and conflict-related sexual violence can travel to and from the UK without fear of prosecution. Unfortunately, this is not a theoretical scenario but a sad reality of the current justice system in the UK. Alleged perpetrators of core international crimes can travel to the UK with impunity.

While some war crimes and the crime of torture may fall within the purview of the principle of universal jurisdiction in the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and in Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the options are limited. While the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the ICCA 2001 both criminalise war crimes, the former is much narrower and primarily concerns international armed conflict, while the latter, in addition, concerns non-international armed conflicts. While Section 134 criminalises torture, its scope is much narrower than the ICCA 2001, in that Section 134 concerns torture as a self-standing crime, while in the ICCA 2001 context, torture is part of the Rome Statute crimes, for example, as a crime against humanity. 

As a result of the legal gap, suspects of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity, as defined in the Rome Statute, who are not UK citizens or residents, are free to visit and transit through the UK without any fear of prosecution by UK authorities.

In 2025, the Joint Committee of Human Rights (JCHR) published two reports that touch upon the issue of universal jurisdiction: the Daesh Inquiry report and the legislative scrutiny report on the Crime and Policing Bill. Both reports make a very clear recommendation to ensure that the current shortfalls concerning the principle of universal jurisdiction are addressed by way of removing the requirement of UK citizenship or residence of the suspect. The same recommendations were made by the House of Commons’ International Development Committee in its report on the UK’s role in upholding international humanitarian law.

These amendments, 472 and 473, to the Crime and Policing Bill remove the requirement of citizenship and residence from the ICCA 2001, enabling investigation and prosecutions of the alleged perpetrators of international crimes such as genocide or conflict-related sexual violence, among other crimes. The amendments are now proceeding through the House of Lords, where they will be debated in early February.

The International Bar Association and the IBAHRI have been doing significant work on the issue of universal jurisdiction. Some of these resources can be found below: