*Taylor Smith
I. Introduction
As conflicts erupt across the globe, justice for human rights abuses often feels elusive. Beyond the well-known International Criminal Court (ICC) or hybrid tribunals, a little-known legal principle is emerging as a viable tool for accountability: universal jurisdiction. Through this mechanism, “national judicial systems [are able] to investigate and prosecute [some] of the most serious crimes . . . no matter where they [a]re committed, and regardless of the nationality of the suspects or their victims.”[1]
Recently, the United States, using universal jurisdiction, convicted a former Gambian soldier of torture and conspiracy to commit torture under the U.S. torture statute.[2] This marked the first conviction of a non-U.S. citizen under the statute in U.S. history.[3] This decision represents an important moment for the United States’ engagement with international criminal law and signals the growing normalization of universal jurisdiction as a legitimate tool for justice.[4] By expanding the circumstances under which U.S. courts may prosecute atrocities committed abroad, contrary to its former posture, the United States is contributing to a broader effort to close the “safe havens” that have historically allowed perpetrators of international crimes to evade accountability.[5] Universal jurisdiction’s use prompts both hope and concern about the concept of justice without borders while also offering an alternative to the gaps left by the ICC.[6]
II. Background and Legal Framework
Customary international law consists of unwritten norms derived from consistent and widespread practices, coupled with the belief that these practices are legally binding (opinio juris).[7] Customary international law applies to all states, unlike treaties, which bind only their signatories.[8] States cannot invoke domestic law to excuse noncompliance with international obligations and are therefore expected to integrate treaties and customary law into national frameworks.[9]
Following World War II, the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals were established to prosecute new international crimes, such as crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, under the emerging principle of universal jurisdiction.[10] The courts’ prosecutions maintained the doctrine that the alleged crimes were so grave that they were concerns of all states, or erga omnes, and violated the very substance of jus cogens, the peremptory norms that bind international law to all.[11]
In the following decades, many countries have incorporated international crimes into domestic law.[12] For instance, in 2024, Germany enacted the Act on the Further Development of International Criminal Law to strengthen its framework for prosecuting international crimes.[13] In the same year, Denmark implemented reforms that incorporated war crimes, torture, and crimes against humanity into its penal code, while also expanding jurisdiction to cover anyone present in Danish territory.[14]
U.S. law criminalizes genocide, torture, and the recruitment of child soldiers.[15] Initially, with regard to the crime of genocide, jurisdiction applied when the acts were either committed within the United States or the nationalities of the victims or perpetrators were Americans.[16] “In . . . 2023, President Biden signed into law the Justice forVictims of War Crimes Act, which [expands the jurisdiction of] 18 U.S.C. § 2441 . . to include any offender present in the United States, regardless of the nationality of the victim or offender.”[17]
III. Case Studies and Recent Developments
The landmark case on universal jurisdiction arose from Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship, which lasted from 1973 to 1990.[18] On October 16, 1998, Pinochet was arrested in London, England, under “a Spanish [warrant] charging [him] with human rights [abuses,] including murder, torture, and [enforced d]isappearance[s] committed . . . in Chile” against nationals of various countries while president.[19] Although he ultimately evaded trial on health grounds and died in 2006, the case set a clear precedent. It affirmed that even former heads of state could be subject to prosecution for international crimes committed abroad.[20]
European courts expanded this precedent.[21] In Germany, Anwar Raslan, a former Syrian intelligence officer with the General Intelligence Service, was convicted of crimes against humanity and received a life sentence for torturing over 4,000 individuals, committing sexual violence, and killing twenty-seven people while they were in a Syrian detention center.[22] Additionally, in Switzerland, Ousman Sonko, Gambia’s former interior minister, was sentenced to twenty years in prison for crimes against humanity.[23] In France, Kunti Kamara, a Liberian commander of the United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy, was convicted of various crimes against humanity committed during Liberia’s civil war and was sentenced to life in 2022.[24]
Most recently, in August 2025, a U.S. federal court convicted Michael Sang Correa, a Gambian national and alleged former member of the Junglers paramilitary group,[25] of torture and conspiracy to torture during the dictatorship of Yahya Jammeh.[26] Correa’s conviction marked the first time a non-U.S. citizen with no direct connection to the United States, other than his presence on U.S. soil, was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2340A for acts of torture committed abroad.[27] After a five-day trial in April 2025, a federal jury unanimously found Correa guilty on all counts.[28] In August 2025, “a federal judge [formally] sentenced . . . Correa to 810 months or 67.5 years in prison for torture committed in The Gambia in 2006.”[29] The Correa conviction underscores a turning point: U.S. courts now recognize universal jurisdiction not merely as a theoretical principle but as an actionable legal strategy.[30]
IV. Political Tensions from Its Usage
Early criticisms of universal jurisdiction were led by Americans like Henry Kissinger, who argued that “universal jurisdiction [i]s a breach of . . . [s]tat[e] sovereignty that creates [a] ‘universal tyranny of judges.’”[31] Opponents also warn that these prosecutions may enable politically motivated cases against government officials, undermining diplomatic relations and national sovereignty.[32]
Furthermore, as with the ICC, critics argue that Western states have disproportionately wielded universal jurisdiction against the Global South, with a focus on African defendants, while ignoring Western abusers.[33] Notably, between 1961 and 2017, 45.9% of universal jurisdiction trials were against African defendants, while only 26.2% were against European defendants, 18% against Middle Eastern defendants, and the remainder against Asian, Central, and South American defendants.[34] Moreover, in the subsequent decade (2008–2017), the share of cases involving African defendants increased to 52.9%.[35] While African defendants continue to face prosecution, recent targets of universal jurisdiction have expanded significantly to also include Syrian officials.[36] Despite geographical expansion, the absence of Western defendants, some from the very states driving these prosecutions, further fuels the accusations of selective enforcement and neocolonial optics.[37]
V. The Future of Universal Jurisdiction and Why It Matters
According to TRIAL International’s Universal Jurisdiction Annual Report, there were 36 new cases lodged in 27 different countries involving at least 297 suspects.[38] This surge shows universal jurisdiction is no longer fringe; it is becoming an actionable mechanism of global justice when traditional avenues fail.[39] The principle’s application in cases from Pinochet to Correa illustrates how national courts can fill the gaps left by international tribunals and challenge the impunity of even the most powerful perpetrators.[40] Yet as its reach expands, so too must intention, ensuring that prosecutions are guided by fairness, rather than politics. Furthermore, the U.S. application of this principle could enhance its legitimacy and encourage broader, more balanced enforcement and narrow safe havens to war criminals.[41]
VI. Conclusion
Impunity often seems guaranteed when perpetrators of atrocities and crimes go unabated. However, universal jurisdiction represents both promise and peril: the promise of a world in which perpetrators of atrocity cannot escape accountability by crossing borders, and the peril of inconsistent or politicized enforcement.[42] As the United States cautiously joins this evolving field, the question becomes not whether universal jurisdiction will grow, but who it will reach next?
*Taylor is a second-year student at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a Staff Editor for Law Review. She serves as Vice President of the International Law Society and Historian for the Black Law Students Association. A dedicated human rights advocate, Taylor is currently an extern with Ipas, a global reproductive rights organization, and with Perseus Strategies, an international law firm. She aims to bring her passion and advocacy skills to the field of international criminal law to protect and promote human rights.
[1] Universal Jurisdiction, Hum. Rts. Watch, https://www.hrw.org/topic/international-justice/universal-jurisdiction (last visited Jan. 29, 2026); accord Basic Facts on Universal Jurisdiction, Hum. Rts. Watch (Oct. 19, 2009, at 08:45 ET), https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/10/19/basic-facts-universal-jurisdiction.
[2] US Trial Against Gambian Accused of Torture, Hum. Rts. Watch (Apr. 7, 2025, at 13:00 ET), https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/04/07/us-trial-against-gambian-accused-torture.
[3] The United States previously tried and convicted the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, Chuckie Taylor, in 2008 for war crimes; he was the first U.S. citizen to be convicted for “overseas torture”. The second U.S. conviction was against Ross Roggio, also a U.S. citizen, for committing torture and conspiracy to commit torture in Iraq. See US Trial Against Gambian Accused of Torture, supra note2. See also Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just. U.S. Att’y Off., Middle Dist. of Pa., Man Convicted of Torture and Exporting Weapons Parts and Related Services to Iraq (May 22, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/pr/man-convicted-torture-and-exporting-weapons-parts-and-related-services-iraq.
[4] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just. Archives: Off. of Pub. Affs., Gambian Man Indicted on Torture Charges (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/gambian-man-indicted-torture-charges (noting that the conviction marked the first application of the Torture Act to a foreign national based solely on presence in the United States); TRIAL International, Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, at 10–15 (2025), https://trialinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/03_TRIAL_UJAR_2025_FINAL_DIGITAL.pdf (documenting increased global reliance on universal jurisdiction prosecutions).
[5] Q&A: The International Criminal Court and the United States, Hum. Rts. Watch (Sep. 2, 2020, at 00:00 ET), https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/02/qa-international-criminal-court-and-united-states (describing longstanding U.S. resistance to international criminal jurisdiction); See Henry Kissinger, The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction, 80 Foreign Affs. 86, 86–87 (2001) (warning that universal jurisdiction threatens sovereignty); Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 10–15 (noting increasing reliance on domestic courts to prosecute international crimes); TRIAL International, Universal Jurisdiction Law and Practice in the United States at 3–4 (May 2022), https://trialinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/UJ-USA-1.pdf (explaining how U.S. courts have operationalized and prosecuted international crimes domestically).
[6] Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 10–12; Q&A: The International Criminal Court and the United States, supra note 5; Factsheet: Universal Jurisdiction, CTR. FOR CONST. RTS. (Dec. 7, 2015), https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/factsheet-universal-jurisdiction.
[7] Customary International Law, Corn. L. Sch.: Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/customary_international_law (last visited Jan. 22, 2026).
[8] Martin Willner, Customary International Law: Can UN Guidelines Affect Domestic Laws?, COUNCIL on FOREIGN RELS. (July 30, 2013, at 10:11 ET), https://www.cfr.org/blog/customary-international-law-can-un-guidelines-affect-domestic-laws.
[9] Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig Territory, Advisory Opinion, 1932 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 44, ¶ 64; see also Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 27, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (“[a] party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46 [provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties].”).
[10] Genocide was later established as well. International Criminal Justice Since Nuremberg, U.S. HOLOCAUST MEM’L MUSEUM, https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/simon-skjodt-center/work/ferencz-international-justice-initiative/transitional-justice/international-criminal-justice-since-nuremberg (last visited Jan. 22, 2026); see also Cleo Meinicke, Domestic Prosecution of International Crimes – Introduction, Pub. Int’l L. & Pol’y Grp. (Mar. 7, 2019), https://www.publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/lawyering-justice-blog/2019/3/7/domestic-prosecution-of-international-crimes-introduction-of-series (discussing the established crimes enforcement through the modern International Criminal Court).
[11] See Int’l L. Comm’n, Rep. on the Work of Its Seventy-Third Session, ch. IV, U.N. Doc. A/77/10 (2022), https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2022/english/chp4.pdf (explaining that peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) give rise to obligations owed to the international community as a whole (obligations erga omnes), in relation to which all States have a legal interest).
[12] Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 10.
[13] Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 10; see also Gesetz zur Fortentwicklung des Völkerstrafrechts [Act on the Further Development of International Criminal Law], July 30, 2024, Bundesgesetzblatt, Teil I [BGBl I] at 255 (Ger.) (the asserted goals of the amendments are to “close gaps in criminal liability, strengthen victims’ rights and improve the broad impact of international criminal law judgments”).
[14] Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 10.
[15] 18 U.S.C. §§ 1091, 2340–2340A, 2442.
[16] Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 § 1, Pub. L. 100–606, 102 Stat. 3045 (1988), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-102/pdf/STATUTE-102-Pg3045.pdf#page=3; Hum. Rts. & Special Prosecutions Section, U.S. Dep’t of Just. Crim. Div., Guide to Human Rights Statutes (2022).
[17] Note there have been no prosecutions under this statute to date. United States Submission: Information and Observations on the Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, UN.ORG (May 10, 2024), https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/79/universal_jurisdiction/us_e.pdf; 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (amending the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, notably expanding those that fall within the jurisdiction of the statute); U.S. Expands Potential for War Crimes Cases, Syria Just. & Accountability Ctr. (Jan. 18, 2023), https://syriaaccountability.org/u-s-expands-potential-for-war-crimes-cases/; Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 10; Karen Sokol, The First Prosecution Under the War Crimes Act: Overview and International Legal Context, CONGRESS.GOV (Dec. 22, 2023), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11091.
[18] Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: Questions and Answers, AI Index IOR 53/020/2001 (Dec. 2001), https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ior530202001en.pdf.
[19] Belgium, France, and Switzerland too sought his extradition for these crimes. Id.
[20] Id; Jonathan Kandell, Augusto Pinochet, Dictator Who Ruled by Terror in Chile, Dies at 91, New York Times (Dec. 11, 2006), https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/world/americas/augusto-pinochet-dictator-who-ruled-by-terror-in-chile-dies.html; The Pinochet Precedent How Victims Can Pursue Human Rights Criminals Abroad, Hum. Rts. Watch (Nov. 1, 1998), https://www.hrw.org/report/1998/11/01/pinochet-precedent/how-victims-can-pursue-human-rights-criminals-abroad.
[21] Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 58–59.
[22] This is the first such conviction relating to the Assad regime after Raslan was arrested in 2019 having successfully sought asylum in Germany. Jenny Hill, German Court Finds Syrian Colonel Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity, BBC (Jan. 13, 2022), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59949924; Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 58–59.
[23] The highest-ranking official ever tried under universal jurisdiction in Europe. Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 10, 91.
[24] Id. at 40. Crimes included murder, enslavement, rape, torture, and cannibalism.
[25] The Junglers were a death squad that answered directly to President Jammeh and served as one of the regime’s most brutal enforcement arms from 1994 to 2016. The UN special rapporteur on torture found they carried out Jammeh’s most repressive abuses, including arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearance, and extrajudicial killing. US Trial Against Gambian Accused of Torture, supra note 2; Former Jungler Sentenced to Over 67 Years for Torture, TRIAL International (Aug. 22, 2025), https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/former-jungler-sentenced-to-over-67-years-for-torture/.
[26] Prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 23240–2340A. In December 2023, Correa moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that Congress lacked authority to enact the Torture Act and that prosecuting a noncitizen for crimes committed abroad violated due process. Both motions were denied. Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 98; Press Release, U.S. Dep’t. of Just. Archives: Off. of Pub. Affs., Gambian Man Indicted on Torture Charges (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/gambian-man-indicted-torture-charges.
[27] See US Trial Against Gambian Accused of Torture, supra note 2. The 2008 prosecution of Chuckie Taylor, son of Liberian president Charles Taylor and a U.S. citizen, was the first use of the Torture Act. Correa’s case marks its first application to a foreign national with no U.S. ties beyond physical presence. Laura Richardson Brownlee, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in the United States: American Attitudes and Practices in the Prosecution of Charles “Chuckie” Taylor Jr., 9 Wash. U. Glob. Stud. L. Rev. 331, 332–33 (2010).
[28] Sentencing Hearing for Michael Correa Scheduled, CTR. FOR JUST. & ACCOUNTABILITY, https://cja.org/u-s-jury-finds-gambian-death-squad-member-guilty-of-torture-2-2/ (last visited Feb. 10, 2026).
[29] Sabreen Tuku, Former Jungler Sentenced for Torture, CTR. FOR JUST. & ACCOUNTABILITY (Aug. 22, 2025), https://cja.org/u-s-jury-finds-gambian-death-squad-member-guilty-of-torture-2-2-2/.
[30] See U.S. Trial Against Gambian Accused of Torture, supra note 2.
[31] Rose Mahdavieh, Beyond the Borders: The Rise of Judicial Corruption and Universal Jurisdiction, 14 U. Mia. Race & Soc. Just. L. Rev. 188, 221 (2024) (quoting Henry Kissinger, The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction, 80 Foreign Affs. 86, 86 (2001)).
[32] While active head of state immunity is accepted, the concern of judicial reprisal for officials after leaving office still poses a threat. Basic Facts on Universal Jurisdiction, supra note 1.
[33] A large majority of the prosecuting states are from Europe, namely France, Germany, Spain, and Belgium. Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 104–11; Melissa Hendrickse, A Chance for Africa to Counter the Pitfalls of International Criminal Justice?, AMNESTY INT’L (Apr. 22, 2024), https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/04/a-chance-for-africa-to-counter-the-pitfalls-of-international-criminal-justice/; Edmarverson A. Santos, The Evolution of Universal Jurisdiction in Human Rights Enforcement, Dipl. & L., https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/the-evolution-of-universal-jurisdiction-in-human-rights-enforcement?utm_source (last visited Feb. 22, 2026).
[34] Maximo Langer & Mackenzie Eason, The Quiet Expansion of Universal Jurisdiction, 30 Eur. J. Int’l. L. 1779, 812–813 (2019).
[35] Id. at 812.
[36] Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 104–11.
[37] Hendrickse, supra note 33; Q&A: The International Criminal Court and the United States, supra note 5.
[38] There was a thirty-two percent increase from the year prior. Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 10, 13.
[39] See Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review, supra note 4, at 10.
[40] Tuku, supra note 29.
[41] A past example is the Center for Constitutional Rights’ effort to have former President Bush tried in Canada and Switzerland for detainee abuses. Similarly, Russian President Vladimir Putin has avoided countries likely to enforce arrest warrants while traveling to meet President Trump in 2025. Q&A: The International Criminal Court and the United States, supra note 5.
[42] Factsheet: Universal Jurisdiction, supra note 6.
University of Baltimore Law Review 