Abstract Universal criminal jurisdiction (UJ) over core international crimes is frequently justified on the basis that forum states act as trustees or agents of the international community. However, the normative and procedural implications of this characterization for the proper administration of UJ remain largely unexplored, while past UJ trials have faced criticism for insufficient engagement with victim communities and inadequate communication with the international public. Against this backdrop, the article challenges the theoretical understanding of UJ as an extension of state sovereignty, instead emphasizing its role within the legal framework of the international community. It advocates for a more reflective engagement with UJ as a derivative right — more precisely, as a form of vicarious or representational jurisdiction, wherein states exercise adjudicative jurisdiction while relying on another legal system’s prescriptive jurisdiction and normative authority. Through the development of a framework of structural principles and duties, the article explores how the derivative and representational structure of vicarious UJ informs the domestic adjudication of international crimes. This reconsideration not only provides a more precise analytical foundation for current UJ practice but also offers normative constraints to guide its expanding application.
Morten Boe (Fri,) studied this question.