5cjxburmr

In the past, neutral States generally did not exercise jurisdiction with respect to allegedlaw of war violations between belligerents. 294 For example, States have declined to exercisejurisdiction with respect to offenses committed by enemy nationals before those States becameinvolved in an armed conflict with that State. 295Some have argued that States may exercise purely universal jurisdiction over war crimes,i.e., jurisdiction to define and prescribe punishment based simply on the character of the offenseas a war crime. 296 Until the 1990s, no such attempts were made by States to exercise jurisdictionon this basis. 297 Congress declined to authorize prosecutions for war crimes based on this294 La Amistad De Rues, 18 U.S. 385, 390 (1820) (“consider[ing] it no part of the duty of a neutral nation tointerpose, upon the mere footing of the law of nations, to settle all the rights and wrongs which may grow out of acapture between belligerents” and noting that alleged law of war violations between belligerents “have never beenheld within the cognizance of the prize tribunals of neutral nations.”); Juando v. Taylor, 13 F. Cas. 1179, 1189(S.D.N.Y. 1818) (No. 7558) (explaining that “no suit or proceeding of any sort can be maintained in the courts of aneutral nation, by the subjects of one belligerent against the subjects of the other, for acts growing out of the war”).295 See James Brown Scott and Robert Lansing, Memorandum of Reservations Presented by the Representatives ofthe United States to the Report of the Commission on Responsibilities, Annex II to the Report Presented to thePreliminary Peace Conference, Mar. 29, 1919, by the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the Warand on Enforcement of Penalties, reprinted in 14 AJIL 95, 147 (1920) (“It seemed elementary to the Americanrepresentatives that a country could not take part in the trial and punishment of a violation of the laws and customsof war committed by Germany and her Allies before the particular country in question had become a party to thewar against Germany and her Allies; that consequently the United States could not institute a military tribunal withinits own jurisdiction to pass upon violations of the laws and customs of war, unless such violations were committedupon American persons or American property, and that the United States could not properly take part in the trial andpunishment of persons accused of violations of the laws and customs of war committed by the military or civilauthorities of Bulgaria or Turkey.”). Cf. United States, et al. v. Göring, et al., Judgment, I TRIAL OF THE MAJORWAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE IMT 254 (“To constitute Crimes against Humanity, the acts relied on before theoutbreak of war must have been in execution of, or in connection with, any crime within the jurisdiction of theTribunal. The Tribunal is of the opinion that revolting and horrible as many of these crimes were, it has not beensatisfactorily proved that they were done in execution of, or in connection with, any such crime. The Tribunaltherefore cannot make a general declaration that the acts before 1939 were Crimes against Humanity within themeaning of the Charter, but from the beginning of the war in 1939 War Crimes were committed on a vast scale,which were also Crimes against Humanity; and insofar as the inhumane acts charged in the Indictment, andcommitted after the beginning of the war, did not constitute War Crimes, they were all committed in execution of, orin connection with, the aggressive war, and therefore constituted Crimes against Humanity.”).296 I RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES 254 (§404, Reporters’ Note 1)(1987) (“A state has jurisdiction to define and prescribe punishment for certain offenses recognized by thecommunity of nations as of universal concern, such as piracy, slave trade, attacks on or hijacking of aircraft,genocide, war crimes, and perhaps certain acts of terrorism, even where none of the bases of jurisdiction indicated in§ 402 is present.”); but see I RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES 257-58(§404, Reporters’ Note 3) (1987) (“The previous Restatement cited only piracy as an offense subject to universaljurisdiction. See § 34. Reporters’ Note 2 of that section listed other crimes of universal interest but indicated theywere not yet subject to universal jurisdiction as a matter of international law.”).297 I RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES 256 (1987) (“apparently no statehas exercised such jurisdiction [over war crimes and genocide] in circumstances where no other basis forjurisdiction under § 402 was present.”); Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives Report No. 104-698,8 (Jul. 24, 1996) (“The Committee has been informed that there has never been a single case of a signatory countryto the Geneva conventions exercising its own criminal jurisdiction over an alleged war criminal on the basis ofuniversal jurisdiction.”).1115