A carregar...
Publicação
O princípio da jurisdição universal : a sua previsão no ordenamento jurídico Alemão e a sua aplicação face à refugiados Sírios
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 687.29 KB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
O princípio da jurisdição universal, fundamental no direito internacional, permite a Estados processar certos crimes graves, como genocídio, crimes de guerra e crimes contra a humanidade, independentemente de onde foram cometidos, da nacionalidade dos perpetradores ou das vítimas. Este princípio evoluiu significativamente após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, marcado por casos emblemáticos como Eichmann e Pinochet, que demonstraram sua aplicação prática e desafiaram concepções tradicionais do direito internacional, como a soberania dos Estados e imunidade de altos funcionários.
O debate doutrinário sobre a jurisdição universal é complexo e multifacetado, envolvendo questões de complementaridade com o Tribunal Penal Internacional (TPI), a relação com princípios como non bis in idem (proibição de dupla penalização) e as implicações das imunidades diplomáticas. Este princípio, embora amplamente reconhecido, enfrenta críticas por sua potencial interferência nas relações internacionais. Além disso, questões como julgamentos em absentia e a concessão de amnistias a crimes internacionais
são aspectos controversos que demandam análise cuidadosa.
Nos últimos anos, a Alemanha emergiu como um protagonista na aplicação do princípio da jurisdição universal, especialmente em relação aos crimes cometidos na Síria.
Estes casos ilustram como jurisdições nacionais podem preencher lacunas de impunidade, especialmente quando outros mecanismos internacionais, como o TPI, encontram-se limitados por questões políticas, exemplificadas pelos vetos no Conselho de Segurança da ONU em relação à Síria ou a não adesão da Síria ao Estatuto de Roma, que deu origem ao Tribunal Penal Internacional.
O futuro da jurisdição universal permanece incerto, mas é inegável seu papel crucial como instrumento de justiça internacional. Apesar dos desafios, representa uma esperança na luta contra a impunidade e na promoção dos direitos humanos. Enquanto o cenário ideal seria a capacidade dos Estados diretamente afetados de julgar esses crimes, a jurisdição universal permanece um recurso valioso, especialmente em contextos onde a justiça local é inacessível ou ineficaz.
The principle of universal jurisdiction, fundamental in international law, allows States to prosecute certain grave crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, regardless of where they were committed, the nationality of the perpetrators, or the victims. This principle has significantly evolved after World War II, marked by emblematic cases like Eichmann and Pinochet, which demonstrated its practical application and challenged traditional concepts in international law, such as sovereignty and immunity of high officials. The doctrinal debate on universal jurisdiction is complex and multifaceted, involving issues of complementarity with the International Criminal Court (ICC), the relationship with principles like non bis in idem (prohibition of double jeopardy), and the implications of diplomatic immunities. This principle, although widely recognized, faces criticism for its potential interference in international relations. Moreover, issues such as trials in absentia and the granting of amnesties for international crimes are controversial aspects that demand careful analysis. In recent years, Germany has emerged as a protagonist in applying the principle of universal jurisdiction, particularly regarding crimes committed in Syria. These cases illustrate how national jurisdictions can fill impunity gaps, especially when other international mechanisms, like the ICC, are limited by political issues, exemplified by the vetoes in the UN Security Council regarding Syria or Syria's non-adherence to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court. The future of universal jurisdiction remains uncertain, but its crucial role as an instrument of international justice is undeniable. Despite the challenges, it represents hope in the fight against impunity and in promoting human rights. While the ideal scenario would be the ability of the directly affected States to judge these crimes, universal jurisdiction remains a valuable resource, especially in contexts where local justice is inaccessible or ineffective.
The principle of universal jurisdiction, fundamental in international law, allows States to prosecute certain grave crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, regardless of where they were committed, the nationality of the perpetrators, or the victims. This principle has significantly evolved after World War II, marked by emblematic cases like Eichmann and Pinochet, which demonstrated its practical application and challenged traditional concepts in international law, such as sovereignty and immunity of high officials. The doctrinal debate on universal jurisdiction is complex and multifaceted, involving issues of complementarity with the International Criminal Court (ICC), the relationship with principles like non bis in idem (prohibition of double jeopardy), and the implications of diplomatic immunities. This principle, although widely recognized, faces criticism for its potential interference in international relations. Moreover, issues such as trials in absentia and the granting of amnesties for international crimes are controversial aspects that demand careful analysis. In recent years, Germany has emerged as a protagonist in applying the principle of universal jurisdiction, particularly regarding crimes committed in Syria. These cases illustrate how national jurisdictions can fill impunity gaps, especially when other international mechanisms, like the ICC, are limited by political issues, exemplified by the vetoes in the UN Security Council regarding Syria or Syria's non-adherence to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court. The future of universal jurisdiction remains uncertain, but its crucial role as an instrument of international justice is undeniable. Despite the challenges, it represents hope in the fight against impunity and in promoting human rights. While the ideal scenario would be the ability of the directly affected States to judge these crimes, universal jurisdiction remains a valuable resource, especially in contexts where local justice is inaccessible or ineffective.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Direito internacional Jurisdição internacional Direitos humanos Justiça Refugiados Teses de mestrado - 2024 International law International jurisdiction Human rights Justice Refugees