Eugene Kontorovich

An Empirical Examination of Universal Jurisdiction for Piracy

This essay presents a systematic study of the incidence of universal jurisdiction (UJ) prosecutions for the international crime of piracy. Using data on the number of piracies committed in a twelve-year period (1998-2009) obtained from international agencies and maritime industry groups, we determined the percentage of these cases where nations exercised universal jurisdiction. Studies of the worldwide use of UJ prosecutions for other crimes simply count how often universal jurisdiction has been exercised but do not attempt to determine the rate of prosecution. Simply counting cases does not allow one to appreciate the significance of universal jurisdiction in relation to the total problem. While the expressive or symbolic value of universal justice may be satisfied by a small number of isolated prosecutions, the deterrent effect depends on its incidence relative to the number of perpetrated crimes.

When gravity fails: Israeli settlements and admissibility at the ICC

In the wake of the UN General Assemblys recent recognition of Palestinian statehood, the Palestinian government has made clear its intention to challenge in the International Criminal Court (ICC or the Court) the legality of Israeli settlements. This article explores jurisdictional hurdles for such a case. To focus on the jurisdictional issues, the article assumes for the sake of argument the validity of the merits of the legal claims against the settlements. The ICC only takes situations of particular ‘gravity’. Yet settlements are not a ‘grave breach’ under the Rome Statute. No modern international criminal tribunal has ever prosecuted crimes that do not involve systematic violence and physical coercion. The ICCs gravity measure involves the number of persons killed; for settlements it would be zero. Indeed, the ICC Prosecutor triages situations by the numbers of victims; settlements do not appear to have direct individual victims. Finally, the ICC would at most have jurisdiction over settlement activity only from the date of Palestines acceptance of jurisdiction. Settlement activity in this time frame would not immediately cross the ICCs gravity threshold.

Why Judges Always Vote

This paper provides the first account of the practice of universal voting on the Supreme Court. Full participation among justices is explained using models of spatial competition, showing that two features particular to the Court encourage full participation. First, the doctrine of stare decisis makes the resolution of future cases in part dependent on the resolution of present ones. This raises the cost of abstention, particularly to risk-averse justices. Second, the so-called narrowest grounds or Marks doctrine enforces the logic of the median voter theorem in cases presenting more than two options. This makes voting by otherwise indifferent or alienated justices rational, where it otherwise would not be.