Past Events

Speaker:  Charles M. Rutonesha, S.J.D. Candidate 

Supervisor:  Professor Shawn Boyne            

Thursday, 30 October 2014, 1:00-2:00 pm, Room 379

Free Refreshments

"Universal Jurisdiction: Challenges and Limits"– Charles M. Rutonesha

This paper suggests that while universal jurisdiction has experienced significant and positive development in recent years, it is still facing an uphill battle in getting general acceptance as a tool for cracking down and fighting serious human right violations. Indeed, from early prosecution of the pirates at high sea, states have evolved to the point they have reached a common understanding of the necessity and the obligations to prosecute or assist in prosecuting recent crimes under the Universal Jurisdiction. Although some countries have been aggressive in fulfilling their obligations by arresting and prosecuting suspects of serious crimes found within their borders or abroad, other countries have been reluctant or have resisted prosecuting some individuals who happen to reside within their borders or who live abroad and are suspected of committing serious crimes. As result, this situation has undercut the doctrine’s effectiveness. This failure is reflected by the lack of uniformity between states universal jurisdiction laws, particularly, the widespread disparity between the definition of crime and jurisdiction rules.

Another key reason behind UJ ineffectiveness is the lack of prosecution in some cases.  Thus, this paper will analyze a number of obstacles and impediments to UJ, as well as future challenges that will need to be tackled, if the UJ is to be an effective prosecutorial tool. Some of the future challenges are for instance, the duty of all states to prevent UJ crimes and in some instances, forcibly intervene unilaterally on the territory of another state to stop these crimes and to punish perpetrators when they occur. Nevertheless, at this point, these goals may be too ambitious, probably overreaching but necessary to effectively curb serious human right violations. In addition, the study will make concrete proposals as a way forward and as possible remedy to make the universal jurisdiction more efficient. However, the study is not meant to cover a wide range of possible issues undermining UJ effectiveness, but the study will focus only on the lack of prosecution as one of the major factors that hinder the universal jurisdiction’s effectiveness. 

At present, the International Criminal Courts and the Domestic Courts are two venues whereby serious human right violations can be prosecuted. However, both the ICC and the Domestic Courts work within their mandate to prosecute serious human rights violations. Nevertheless, neither the ICC nor UJ are effective prosecutorial tools, for both have flaws and limitations in term of executing their mandate. On the states side, there may not be a clear general consensus and a common position with respect to UJ issues within the country, as different players may be competing for more influence on who will shape the nation’s policy on the matter. This rivalry, coupled with the absence of a clear common identity of views, may undermine any concerted efforts to implement international Law. Furthermore, a state may not have enough resources to mount an effective and thorough investigations and prosecutions of serious crimes that may have taken place within or outside its borders. On the global level, while U.J is exercised unilaterally by states, the ICC has a single set of developed uniform standards for the application of its jurisdiction. In addition, the ICC does not have universal jurisdiction, but has only a limited jurisdiction carefully described in the Rome Statute. As result, it is very hard to put in place a strong and aggressive enforcement mechanism for both ICC and UJ, given these significant flaws. 

Therefore, the International Community might create a more formal and robust mechanism that is different from the one in place now, which would allow the Universal Jurisdiction to coexist with the ICC for a more aggressive and results oriented regime. This arrangement should also increase the level of complementarity between the ICC and UJ and would be made in a way that would strictly respect both the principle of state sovereignty and UJ.   

Charles M. Rutonesha’s Bio

•    Master of Laws (LL.M.), The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law, Columbus, Ohio, December 2011        •    Master in Business Administration (M.B.A.), Franklin University, Columbus, Ohio, August 1999   
•    Bachelor of Arts/Science In Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, December 1987                   •    Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.), Kinshasa University, Kinshasa, Congo, July 1987      
•    Graduate in Sociology, Social Science Institute, Lubumbashi, Congo, October 1984                                                                                                                   

Legal Experience

•    Intern, The Onyia Law Firm, Columbus, Ohio, April 2012-April 2013 
•    Intern, Neighborhood Services International, Ottawa, Canada, 2002-2009                                                                  
•    Legal Consultant, Ministry of Labor and Jobs Training, Kigali, Rwanda, 1987-1991                                                                               
•    Civil Servant, Rwanda Demobilization And Reintegration Program, Kigali, Rwanda, 1999-2002     
    Legal Consultant      
•    Conducted Extensive Legal Studies On The Issue Of Demobilization And Reintegration Of Ex-Combatants                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
•    Harmonized International Laws With National Laws Covering Issues Pertaining To The Demobilization And Reintegration Of Former Combatants                                                                                                                                                    
•    Provided Legal Assistance To Local Courts In Settling Property Litigations Between Former Combatants And The Rest Of The Community

Languages Spoken

•    English (Excellent) 
•    French (Excellent)
•    Kinyarwanda (Mother Tongue) 
•    Swahili (Good)