本文主要讲犯罪案例分析，在奥地利,普遍管辖权是实现当一个塞尔维亚人Duško Cvjetkovi在1995年被指控谋杀和也与种族灭绝的行为,他参加了波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那。当这个问题被提交到奥地利最高法院时，最高法院决定奥地利确实拥有管辖权。这是另一种情况，在这种情况下，普遍的管辖权和赋予一个国家给一个人定罪的权力- -即使他不是一个公民- -得到了更清楚的了解。本篇英国essay代写文章由英国论文人EducationRen教育网整理，供大家参考阅读。
In the case of Austria, the Universal jurisdiction was implemented when a Serbian man Duško Cvjetkovi in 1995 was charged with murder and was also linked with genocidal acts that he had participated in Bosnia and Herzegovina. When the issue was brought under the Austrian Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decided that Austria indeed had jurisdiction. This was yet another scenario where the Universal jurisdiction and the powers given to a state to convict a person even if he was not a citizen came to be understood more clearly.
A similar situation happened in Denmark in the case of Prosecution v. Refik Šari Danish High Court, Third Chamber. This was a case where the crime of imprisonment and torture of war prisoners was considered. A Bosnian Muslim was convicted here and once again the nature of the crime and the consequences of the crime were used to implement the Universal jurisdiction. The Bosnian Muslim was sentenced to eight years in prison. In another context, Denmark’s prime minister instructed the Minister of Justice for Denmark to understand provisions in universal jurisdiction that could enable the possible extradition of the head of state of Chile Danés analiza. Analiza similar to Pinchot was involved in crimes against humanity.
Universal Jurisdiction and provisions have been implemented in the case of Germany in at least six criminal prosecutions. The territory of what formerly used to be Yugoslavia where were this was applied. A Bosnian Serb was involved in genocidal crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the Prosecutor v. Duško Tadi, the Bundesgerichtshof (which is Germany’s Supreme Court) applied the universal; jurisdiction in order to prosecute the Bosnian individual. As the criminal proceedings progressed he was surrendered to a criminal tribunal that was specially created for the purpose, called the International Criminal Tribunal.
In cases such as Congo v. Rwanda, the rights of such states that might be involved in genocide have even been questioned when applying for Universal jurisdiction. The state and its position to commit genocide and then shield it from international scrutiny were questioned. Once again given “the nature of the crime, it is difficult to imagine how genocide could be committed without some form of state complicity or involvement” and in such cases Universal jurisdiction might not be considering an individual but a state and its state representatives.