The universal jurisdiction. Principle perceived as it is a principle in the international criminal law, included criminal specialized owned by each state to trial the perpetrators of the international crimes. By that law each state pretended that it has jurisdiction of criminal juridical upon persons whom suspected that they perpetrators of specified crimes that known as international crimes, outside the borders of the pretended state, regardless of the basics of criminal jurisdiction which existed in the interior legislation for the states such as the nationality of the accused or his state residency For this principle number of justifications, it is integral for international criminal juridical systems for penalty the perpetrators of international crimes on the national level and it is one of the most important approaches to fight fleeing from punishment of international crimes with high risk that influence upon the whole international society The mention principle faced difficulties such as no existed of mechanisms for implemented it or national legislations that stipulated upon it, and the need of international equivalent and agreement about its existence because it is available in some legislation and nor in others. May be it is still elision or theoretical, because the shortage partially or collectively for its legislation in the countries which caused or hindered the judge to apply it. And it may be contradicted with some institutional principles such as the decided of amnesty and immunities for presidents and may be influenced by political considerations or pressers, so taking by the universal jurisdiction required fulfillment of means to carry out on the national level and the carrying out included both concepts, the wide and the narrow. So the narrow appears when applying the principle available for trial that mean the existence of the required legislations which allow to apply it and the wide one which doesn't need that and allow judgment in absentia, wherefrom new may concern to this principle by away to depended on it to apply as an international commitment without the need for national legislations requirements, because its commitment aimed to achieve international benefit basically emanated from the international law whether the customary or the contractual. So the customary law emphasized this principle and considered it as commitment upon the states to apply it to fight fleeting from punishment upon international crimes. Or from taking concern as a duty or a commitment to the legal harmony which means to work upon the agreement between the commitments that resulted by the international treaty and the interior legislations for the states are parties in it. Because entering in an international treaty resulted rights and commitments upon the states as parties allegiance and working for implementing it. So the commitment consider as universal jurisdiction as a result of harmony requirements. By stipulating the required legislations to implement that principle when
considering the penal international treaties we found that the included this commitment direct or indirect mane
"The Principle of Universal Jurisdiction in Light of The Harmonization between National Legislation and International Treaties,"
Jerash for Research and Studies Journal مجلة جرش للبحوث والدراسات: Vol. 13:
1, Article 2.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.aaru.edu.jo/jpu/vol13/iss1/2