Universal Jurisdiction and the Dynamics of Empire in the Semi-Periphery

Abstract

In a recent article, Evan Criddle argues that states’ “authority to make extraterritorial law is narrower than the international law of prescriptive jurisdiction alone would suggest.”1 This is because “the right of peoples to self-determination … limits when states may resort to extraterritoriality.”2 Extraterritoriality, he contends, is intrinsically connected with imperial rule and must be resisted.3 In my previous work on this topic, I have shared Criddle’s concerns about how certain forms of extraterritorial prescriptive jurisdiction are normatively unwarranted, and should be abrogated.4 More recently, I have even defended a general presumption against extraterritoriality that can be overridden only by sufficiently strong considerations.5 In this piece, by contrast, I examine the intricate relationship between extraterritoriality and empire in the context of Argentina’s experience with universal jurisdiction for serious crimes under international law.