Universal jurisdiction in the Asia-Pacific: international workshop on international justice and accountability concludes in Brisbane
Today saw the conclusion in Brisbane, Australia, of the international workshop “Prosecuting Asia-Pacific International Crimes in Domestic Courts”, organised by Griffith Law School and the Griffith Asia Institute, in collaboration with the Asia Justice Coalition and FIBGAR. The two-day event brought together academics, specialists, representatives of civil society organisations and legal professionals from various countries in the Asia-Pacific region and other parts of the world for two days to discuss the contemporary challenges of universal jurisdiction and the prosecution of international crimes. This allowed for a comparative and interregional perspective on the practical implementation of universal jurisdiction and other complementary mechanisms of international justice.
We at FIBGAR would like to express our deepest gratitude to Griffith Law School, the Griffith Asia Institute and the Asia Justice Coalition for involving us in the organisation of this important forum for reflection and for creating a platform for regional and international debate on the current challenges facing universal jurisdiction and the fight against impunity. The workshop represented a valuable opportunity to continue driving the debate on the Madrid–Buenos Aires Principles on Universal Jurisdiction and to advance the incorporation of new regional perspectives from the Asia-Pacific region.
Furthermore, the workshop provided an opportunity to reflect on the various legal strategies available to combat impunity beyond the traditional mechanisms of international criminal law. In this regard, discussions centred on the importance of exploring innovative approaches under the principle of universal jurisdiction, domestic proceedings with extraterritorial reach, and complementary mechanisms aimed at strengthening accountability in contexts where international or regional courts prove insufficient or inaccessible.
The various presentations highlighted that, despite existing normative progress in numerous countries, the effective application of universal jurisdiction continues to face significant practical limitations. Several participants pointed to the persistence of political obstacles, difficulties in inter-state cooperation and procedural restrictions which, in many cases, prevent the formal recognition of universal jurisdiction from being translated into concrete investigations and judicial proceedings.
In turn, experiences relating to Myanmar, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Nepal, among other contexts, were analysed, identifying both the progress made and the existing limitations regarding access to justice. In many of these cases, the importance of initiatives driven by victims’ organisations and transnational networks to promote investigations, the documentation of crimes and international advocacy processes was highlighted.
During the workshop’s final plenary session, discussions focused particularly on the objectives, scope and limitations of universal jurisdiction and other complementary accountability mechanisms. In this context, participants reflected on the role these processes play not only in the criminal prosecution of those responsible for international crimes, but also in the construction of memory, the recognition of victims and the strengthening of truth and reparation processes.
The plenary session also debated the difference between international justice and accountability, highlighting that justice is a broad and multidimensional concept that extends beyond the strictly judicial sphere. Speakers agreed that mechanisms linked to universal jurisdiction can contribute not only to investigation and criminal prosecution, but also to raising awareness of human rights violations, strengthening documentation processes and generating international pressure in contexts of prolonged impunity.
Another key theme addressed during the final plenary session was the preventive potential of universal jurisdiction. Several participants noted that such mechanisms help to challenge and delegitimise narratives that normalise violence and international crimes, particularly in contexts where certain practices are justified through political, cultural or national security discourses.
The concluding reflections also emphasised the importance of strengthening regional cooperation in the Asia-Pacific to advance international justice mechanisms that are closer to the affected communities. In this regard, several contributions underlined the need to reduce reliance on forms of ‘remote justice’ and move towards regional strategies capable of bringing accountability processes closer to the affected territories and populations.
Likewise, the central role played by victims, affected communities and civil society organisations in the processes of seeking justice and truth was highlighted. Several speakers agreed that accountability mechanisms should not be limited exclusively to the criminal dimension, but should also contribute to the recognition of victims, the preservation of historical memory and the creation of spaces for listening, solidarity and support.
In this context, Alessia Schiavon, Director of FIBGAR, presented the work currently being undertaken to update the Madrid–Buenos Aires Principles on Universal Jurisdiction, drafted between 2014 and 2015 following a series of international meetings organised by FIBGAR in different regions of the world.
In this regard, she emphasised that the current international context requires a review and update of contemporary interpretations and applications of universal jurisdiction, incorporating new regional perspectives, with interdisciplinary, gender and diversity-based approaches, and a focus on victims, as well as strengthening international cooperation and effective access to justice.
He also explained that the process of updating the Principles seeks to build a more inclusive, practical and global vision of universal jurisdiction, capable of responding to the contemporary challenges of international justice and the new geopolitical dynamics affecting accountability processes.
In this regard, reference was made to the international meetings recently promoted by FIBGAR as part of this updating process, including the event “Gender Justice and Universal Jurisdiction”, held in New York as part of CSW70, and the regional seminar “Universal Jurisdiction: Critical Perspectives from Latin America”, organised in Buenos Aires. Both meetings enabled the incorporation of contributions from different regional contexts and the consolidation of spaces for interregional dialogue on international justice, gender, cooperation and the fight against impunity.
FIBGAR’s participation in the Brisbane workshop marked a new stage in this global process of reflection and review of the Madrid–Buenos Aires Principles, enabling perspectives and experiences from the Asia-Pacific region to be incorporated into the international debate on universal jurisdiction and strengthening a more inclusive and global perspective on the contemporary application of this principle.
In an international context marked by growing challenges to mechanisms of international justice and accountability, meetings such as this highlight the importance of continuing to strengthen spaces for academic exchange, transnational cooperation and interregional coordination among organisations, specialists and actors committed to the defence of human rights. They also highlight the need to continue promoting, from a collective and global perspective, effective, inclusive and accessible mechanisms of international justice that enable progress in the fight against impunity for serious human rights violations and international crimes.
