Abstract This research examines the limited use of universal jurisdiction in Canada for the prosecution of serious international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture. Despite Canada’s early adoption of a robust legal framework permitting universal jurisdiction, actual prosecutions remain rare, especially when compared to continental European states. The analysis identifies three primary factors contributing to this gap: political and institutional constraints, legal challenges inherent to the common law system, and practical obstacles in evidence gathering and prosecution. Employing doctrinal research and insights from an interview with Canadian officials, the article explores how Canada’s ‘no safe haven’ policy, selective prosecution strategies, and reliance on immigration remedies have shaped its approach. The study shows the impact of executive influence, prosecutorial discretion, and evidentiary hurdles, as well as the evolving practice of structural investigations and international cooperation. Ultimately, this article argues that Canada’s approach — grounded more in political calculation and alliance consensus than in proactive international justice — limits the effectiveness of universal jurisdiction as a tool for accountability.
Didem Doğar (Sat,) studied this question.