A broad law in the 1990s, seen as ‘textbook example’ of absolute universal jurisdiction, which led to attempts to bring war crimes charges against high-profile foreign officials – like Ariel Sharon, George H.W. Bush – sparked diplomatic backlash, including U.S. threats to relocate NATO headquarters from Brussels. That led to 2003 amendments restricting universal jurisdiction to cases with Belgian links or treaty mandates. And the result was that only very few cases would go to court, except some Rwandan cases, or one on Guatemala.
Mathias Holvoet is Lecturer in International Criminal Law at the University of Amsterdam, and a former member of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office of Belgium. He describes the lack of specialized teams and policemen, the complexity of the cour d’assises, the lack of political will, like in cases against Israeli soldiers. Holvoet is “pessimistic that we will see more cases and see institutional change”. But there are a couple of better news, like Belgian efforts to address colonial crimes – that they qualified as crimes against humanity –, or a long-awaited Liberia trial.
This is part of a series on universal jurisdiction that also covered Argentina and France.
ASYMMETRICAL HAIRCUTS
This podcast has been published as part of a partnership between Justice Info and Asymmetrical Haircuts, a podcast on international justice produced from The Hague by journalists Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, who retain full control and independence over the contents of the podcast.
