Universal Jurisdiction and the Dynamics of Empire in the Semi-Periphery

In a recent article, Evan Criddle argues that states’ “authority to make extraterritorial law is narrower than the international law of prescriptive jurisdiction alone would suggest.” 1 This is because “the right of peoples to self-determination … limits when states may resort to extraterritoriality.” 2 Extraterritoriality, he contends, is intrinsically connected with imperial rule and must be resisted. 3 In my previous work on this topic, I have shared Criddle’s concerns about how certain forms of extraterritorial prescriptive jurisdiction are normatively unwarranted, and should be abrogated. 4 More recently, I have even defended a general presumption against extraterritoriality that can be overridden only by sufficiently strong considerations. 5 In this piece, by contrast, I examine the intricate relationship between extraterritoriality and empire in the context of Argentina’s experience with universal jurisdiction for serious crimes under international law.