DOCSLIB.ORG

Universal Jurisdiction in Europe the State of the Art

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Universal Jurisdiction in Europe the State of the Art June 2006 Volume 18, No. 5(D) Universal Jurisdiction in Europe The State of the Art I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 II. Challenges and Responses—Making Universal Jurisdiction a Reality............................. 5 A. Notification and Complaint Mechanisms ................................................................ 5 B. Developing Expertise in Prosecuting International Crimes................................ 10 III. Continuing Obstacles to Universal Jurisdiction ..............................................................24 A. Absence of Implementing Legislation.................................................................... 24 B. Amnesties and Immunities ....................................................................................... 25 C. Presence Requirement and the Possibility of Investigation ................................ 28 D. Prosecutorial Discretion............................................................................................ 30 E. Subsidiarity.................................................................................................................. 32 IV. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................34 V. Recommendations .................................................................................................................35 Country Case Studies..................................................................................................................37 VI. Belgium ..................................................................................................................................37 A. Jurisdictional Challenges ........................................................................................... 38 B. Practical Arrangements for the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Belgium................................................................................................................... 40 C. Cooperation ................................................................................................................ 43 D. Role and Rights of Victims and Witnesses ............................................................ 44 E. Fair Investigation and Trial ...................................................................................... 45 VII. Denmark ..............................................................................................................................46 A. Jurisdictional Challenges ........................................................................................... 46 B. Practical Arrangements for the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Denmark................................................................................................................. 48 C. Cooperation ................................................................................................................ 52 D. Role and Rights of Victims and Witnesses ............................................................ 53 E. Fair Investigation and Trial ...................................................................................... 54 VIII. France..................................................................................................................................55 A. Jurisdictional Challenges ........................................................................................... 56 B. Practical Arrangements for the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in France ..................................................................................................................... 59 C. Cooperation ................................................................................................................ 61 D. Role and Rights of Victims and Witnesses ............................................................ 61 E. Fair Investigation and Trial ...................................................................................... 62 IX. Germany ................................................................................................................................63 A. Jurisdictional Challenges ........................................................................................... 63 B. Practical Arrangements for the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Germany................................................................................................................. 66 C. Cooperation ................................................................................................................ 68 D. Role and Rights of Victims....................................................................................... 69 E. Fair Investigation and Trial ...................................................................................... 69 X. Netherlands.............................................................................................................................71 A. Jurisdictional Challenges ........................................................................................... 72 B. Practical Arrangements for the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in the Netherlands..................................................................................................... 73 C. Cooperation ................................................................................................................ 76 D. Role and Rights of Victims and Witnesses ............................................................ 77 E. Fair Investigation and Trial ...................................................................................... 78 XI. Norway...................................................................................................................................80 A. Jurisdictional Challenges ........................................................................................... 81 B. Practical Arrangements for the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Norway................................................................................................................... 82 C. Cooperation ................................................................................................................ 83 D. Role and Rights of Victims and Witnesses ............................................................ 84 E. Fair Investigation and Trial ...................................................................................... 84 XII. Spain .....................................................................................................................................86 A. Jurisdictional Challenges ........................................................................................... 87 B. Practical Arrangements for the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Spain........................................................................................................................88 C. Cooperation ................................................................................................................ 90 D. Role and Rights of Victims and Witnesses ............................................................ 91 E. Fair Investigation and Trial ...................................................................................... 92 XIII. United Kingdom (England and Wales) .........................................................................93 A. Jurisdictional Challenges ........................................................................................... 94 B. Practical Arrangements for the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in the England and Wales ........................................................................................ 95 C. Cooperation ................................................................................................................ 98 D. Role and Rights of Victims and Witnesses ............................................................ 99 E. Fair Investigation and Trial ....................................................................................100 XIV. Acknowledgments...........................................................................................................101 I. Introduction “Universal jurisdiction” is an idea that is as much acclaimed as denounced.1 Much debated as a principle, the legal concept has attracted global attention since the dramatic 1998 arrest in London of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet on charges of torture. But the Pinochet case itself developed in a significantly changed international legal environment. The last two decades have seen a revolution in forms of accountability for grave human rights violations, with the international community demonstrating a considerable interest in ensuring that certain international crimes are prosecuted.2 Yet despite the creation of ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court (ICC), vast gaps persist in the ability to bring to justice persons accused of the gravest international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture. With finite resources, international courts and mixed “internationalized” tribunals can try only a relatively small number of perpetrators, and the courts’ mandates are generally limited to crimes committed in specific territories and conflicts. Even with the advent of a permanent
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Principle of Universal Jurisdiction Is Classically Defined As 'A Legal
    THE SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: THE REPORT OF THE SIXTH COMMITTEE A/64/452-RES 64/117 COMMENTS FROM KENYA The principle of universal jurisdiction is classically defined as 'a legal principle allowing or requiring a state to bring criminal proceedings in respect of certain crimes irrespective of the location of the crime and the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim';' The rationale behind it is based on the notion that 'certain crimes are so harmful to international interests that states are obliged to bring proceedings against the perpetrator, regardless of the location of the crime and the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim'. Universal jurisdiction allows for the trial of international crimes committed by anybody, anywhere in the world. '2 There are aspects of the principle of universal jurisdiction- such as the compatibility of the ICC statute with constitutional provisions to the immunity of Heads of State and amnesty laws - that have been considered recently. Buttressed by the aut dedere aut judicare principle, States have increasingly implemented the principles of universal jurisdiction and complementarity in a more systematic and concrete manner through their national legislation. The preamble to the ICC Statute contains the universal jurisdiction principle: (aut dedere aut judicare principle) which provides: 'Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation' (para. 4); (universal jurisdiction) 'Recalling that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes' (para.
    [Show full text]
  • A) Universal Jurisdiction
    PGA commentary to the selected provisions of the Bill on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on the Implementation of the International Criminal and Humanitarian Law no. 2689 09 March 2021 A) Universal Jurisdiction 1. Does universal jurisdiction enshrined in criminal laws of a certain State, such as the State extending its domestic criminal law on the crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression irrespective of the place where they were committed, constitute interference in the sovereignty of foreign countries? No, it doesn’t. According to the classical doctrine relating to ordinary crimes, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction is regarded as an ‘aspect’ or ‘manifestation’ of the sovereignty of a State1. This stems from practical and logical consequences of territorial control, as it is the territorial State where the crime occurred that has primary responsibility for investigations and prosecutions in the exercise of its sovereign powers, as such State is usually best placed to gather evidence, secure witnesses and ensure that justice is given to those most affected. However, if the territorial State is unable or unwilling to exercise jurisdiction, there needs to be a complementary tool to ensure that an accused person does not escape criminal accountability for the crimes that he or she may have committed in a given territory. A fortiori, the same logic applies to the most serious crimes of international concern. These crimes are labelled as “international crimes” or, to be more precise, “crimes under International Law” or “crimes against International Law” (delicta juris gentium). Given their extreme gravity, they do not affect the sovereignty of an individual State, but they affect the sovereignty of all States, rendering their suppression a joint concern of all members of the international community.
    [Show full text]
  • Peace Between Israel and the Palestinians Appears to Be As Elusive As Ever. Following the Most Recent Collapse of American-Broke
    38 REVIVING THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESS: HISTORICAL LES- SONS FOR THE MARCH 2015 ISRAELI ELECTIONS Elijah Jatovsky Lessons derived from the successes that led to the signing of the 1993 Declaration of Principles between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization highlight modern criteria by which a debilitated Israeli-Palestinian peace process can be revitalized. Writ- ten in the run-up to the March 2015 Israeli elections, this article examines a scenario for the emergence of a security-credentialed leadership of the Israeli Center-Left. Such leadership did not in fact emerge in this election cycle. However, should this occur in the future, this paper proposes a Plan A, whereby Israel submits a generous two-state deal to the Palestinians based roughly on that of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer in 2008. Should Palestinians find this offer unacceptable whether due to reservations on borders, Jerusalem or refugees, this paper proposes a Plan B by which Israel would conduct a staged, unilateral withdrawal from large areas of the West Bank to preserve the viability of a two-state solution. INTRODUCTION Peace between Israel and the Palestinians appears to be as elusive as ever. Following the most recent collapse of American-brokered negotiations in April 2014, Palestinians announced they would revert to pursuing statehood through the United Nations (UN), a move Israel vehemently opposes. A UN Security Council (UNSC) vote on some form of a proposal calling for an end to “Israeli occupation in the West Bank” by 2016 is expected later this month.1 In July 2014, a two-month war between Hamas-controlled Gaza and Israel broke out, claiming the lives of over 2,100 Gazans (this number encompassing both combatants and civilians), 66 Israeli soldiers and seven Israeli civilians—the low number of Israeli civilians credited to Israel’s sophisti- cated anti-missile Iron Dome system.
    [Show full text]
  • German Court Exercises Universal Jurisdiction: Implications for Corporate Criminal Liability Under International Law
    German court exercises universal jurisdiction: Implications for corporate criminal liability under international law 26 February 2021 On 24 February 2021, the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Koblenz sentenced a former Syrian secret police officer to a prison term of four and a half years for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity (judgment of 24 February 2021, case No 1 StE 3/21). The court found that the accused had committed acts of torture and deprivation of liberty when he arrested and transported protesters to an interrogation centre with a known record of torture. While the defendant, a Syrian national, was arrested in the German city of Koblenz after he had been granted asylum in Germany, the crimes were committed in Syria and all victims and co-perpetrators are Syrian nationals. This notwithstanding, based on the principle of universal jurisdiction, the German court exercised jurisdiction over the case. The decision of the German court is the first judgment worldwide finding that the acts of the Syrian government constitute crimes against humanity. It serves as a reminder that gross violations of international law may trigger severe sanctions irrespective of where such violations are committed. Given the increasing tendency to expand criminal liability to corporations, this may equally affect companies that fail to ensure compliance of their worldwide business activities with international law. Universal jurisdiction The German court's decision is noteworthy beyond the facts of the individual case, as it is based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. This widely acknowledged legal concept is followed by numerous states worldwide. It means that a state may investigate and prosecute certain crimes, irrespective of where the crimes were committed and irrespective of the nationality of the accused and victims.
    [Show full text]
  • The Guatemala Genocide Cases: Universal Jurisdiction and Its Limits
    © The Guatemala Genocide Cases: Universal Jurisdiction and Its Limits by Paul “Woody” Scott* INTRODUCTION Systematic murder, genocide, torture, terror and cruelty – all are words used to describe the campaigns of Guatemalan leaders, including President Jose Efrain Rios Montt, directed toward the indigenous Mayans in the Guatemalan campo. The United Nations-backed Truth Commission concludes that the state carried out deliberate acts of genocide against the Mayan indigenous populations.1 Since Julio Cesar Mendez Montenegro took Guatemalan presidential office in 1966, Guatemala was involved in a bloody civil war between the army and guerrilla groups located in the Guatemalan countryside. The bloodshed escalated as Montt, a fundamentalist Christian minister, rose to power in 1982 after taking part in a coup d’état and becoming the de facto president of Guatemala. He was in power for just sixteen months, considered by many to be the bloodiest period of Guatemala’s history.2 Under his sixteen-month rule, more than 200,000 people were victims of homicide or forced kidnappings, 83% of whom were of indigenous Mayan origin. Indigenous Mayans were targeted, killed, tortured, raped, and * Paul “Woody” Scott is an associate attorney with Jeri Flynn & Associates in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. His practice is primarily immigration law and criminal defense, specializing in defending immigrants charged with criminal offenses, and deportation defense. He was born in San Pedro Sula, Honduras and moved to the United States at a very early age. He is fluent in both English and Spanish. 1 United Nations Office for Project Services [UNOPS], Commission for Historical Clarification [CEH], Conclusions and Recommendations, GUATEMALA, MEMORIA DEL SILENCIO [hereinafter, GUATEMALA, MEMORY OF SILENCE], Volume V, ¶ 26 (1999).
    [Show full text]
  • The Gatekeepers: Geopolitics and the Limits of Power
    March 2013 THE GATEKEEPERS: GEOPOLITICS AND THE LIMITS OF POWER By Amos N. Guiora Amos Guiora is a Professor of Law, SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah. He is the author of numerous books and articles addressing national security issues, including Legitimate Target: A Criteria-Based Approach to Targeted Killing (Oxford University Press, forthcoming April 2013). Guiora served for 19 years in the Israel Defense Forces, Lt. Col. (retired); from 1994-1999 he was directly involved in the implementation of the Oslo Peace Process. He will be speaking under FPRI auspices in New York City (October 28, 2013) and Philadelphia (October 29, 2013). The Israeli movie The Gatekeepers, nominated for an Oscar award earlier this year, serves as extraordinary background for a discussion of critical issues -- and not just with respect to the Israel- Palestine conflict. What makes the movie compelling is the direct, unapologetic and reflective manner in which the limits of power is addressed. What makes the movie even more compelling is that six retired heads of the Israeli intelligence agency, the Shin Bet, address the subject. Speaking frankly, without pathos and devoid of undue emotion, the six look directly into the camera to say there is a limit to the effectiveness of power. Their frankness is particularly noteworthy because all six authorized the use of force against suspected Palestinian terrorists. The second part of their message is that Israel must negotiate directly with the Palestinians – that the conflict can be resolved only through the pen, not the sword. The Gatekeepers is particularly relevant to America on two distinct levels: American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and the recently released Department of Justice White Paper articulating drone policy, including against US citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Film 'The Gatekeepers' (April 2013). (Posted on The
    Review of the film ‘The Gatekeepers’ (April 2013). (Posted on the Yachad website) By the time 'The Gatekeepers' (Dror Moreh, 2012) reaches London it will already have been seen in Israel, for months, and in the US, where its Director was nominated for the best documentary feature at the Oscars. It has also of course created much fuss. That means that a reviewer has to stand on the shoulders, or in the shadow, of many reviews which have preceded it. The reviews have mostly just expressed their astonishment at the frankness of former heads of Israel’s intelligence and security apparatus who, with Meir Dagan, the recently retired head of Mossad, have become the psychological leaders of Israel’s opposition. The film consists of material from lengthy interviews with six former heads of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security apparatus mainly charged with preventing terrorist attacks. That in itself is remarkable in a country where security is exceeded only by falafel in the hierarchy of obsessions. More remarkable still is the extent to which the interviews give solace to what is broadly called ‘the left’ in Israel – ‘left’ denoting a vast range of attitudes which are more or less in favour of the ‘two-state solution’ and peace negotiations with Palestinian representatives. (Even George W. Bush would count.) One after another the interviewees say that their experience as heads of what they readily admit is a ruthless and cold-blooded organization leads them to believe that ‘it cannot go on like this’, that ‘one must speak to everyone’ and – in two cases at least – that the Occupation and the settlement movement are eroding, or have already irreversibly damaged, Israel’s democratic ethos.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Jurisdiction
    MFK-Mendip Job ID: 10390BK-0187-8 7 - 735 Rev: 05-08-2004 PAGE: 1 TIME: 07:22 SIZE: 61,08 Area: JNLS OP: MF Universal Jurisdiction Clarifying the Basic Concept Roger O’Keefe* Abstract Academic analysis of the Arrest Warrant case in the International Court of Justice has tended to focus to date on the Court’s judgment on immunity. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the question of universal jurisdiction, as discussed in detail in most of the separate and dissenting opinions and declarations. The following article focuses less on the various judges’ conclusions as to the international lawfulness of universal jurisdiction than on their treatment of the basic concept. The article argues that this treatment is open to question, reflecting, as it does, both a conceptual conflation of states’ jurisdiction to prescribe their criminal law with the manner of that law’s enforcement and an inattention to crucial temporal considerations. As well as fostering dubious terminology, these factors lead some judges to an unsatisfying conclusion regarding the permissibility of the enforcement in absentia of universal jurisdiction, and cause others to underestimate the degree of state practice in favour of universal jurisdiction over crimes under general inter- national law. 1. Introduction The separate and dissenting opinions and declarations of the judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Arrest Warrant1 invite discussion of what is meant by ‘universal jurisdiction’. This article suggests that the respective judges’ understanding of the concept is debatable, since underlying it is a tendency, when dealing with states’ criminal jurisdiction, to elide prescription and enforcement, as * University Lecturer and Deputy Director, Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge; Fellow, Magdalene College, Cambridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidentiary Challenges in Universal Jurisdiction Cases
    Evidentiary challenges in universal jurisdiction cases Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review 2019 #UJAR 1 Photo credit: UN Photo/Yutaka Nagata This publication benefted from the generous support of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, the Oak Foundation and the City of Geneva. TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 METHODOLOGY AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 7 FOREWORD 8 BUILDING ON SHIFTING SANDS: EVIDENTIARY CHALLENGES IN UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION CASES 11 KEY FINDINGS 12 CASES OF 2018 Argentina 13 VICTIMS DEMAND THE TRUTH ABOUT THE FRANCO DICTATORSHIP 15 ARGENTINIAN PROSECUTORS CONSIDER CHARGES AGAINST CROWN PRINCE Austria 16 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS JUDGMENT FOR WAR CRIMES IN SYRIA 17 INVESTIGATION OPENS AGAINST OFFICIALS FROM THE AL-ASSAD REGIME Belgium 18 FIVE RWANDANS TO STAND TRIAL FOR GENOCIDE 19 AUTHORITIES ISSUE THEIR FIRST INDICTMENT ON THE 1989 LIBERIAN WAR Finland 20 WAR CRIMES TRIAL RAISES TECHNICAL CHALLENGES 22 FORMER IRAQI SOLDIER SENTENCED FOR WAR CRIMES France ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS ON SYRIA 23 THREE INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANTS TARGET HIGH-RANKING AL-ASSAD REGIME OFFICIALS 24 SYRIAN ARMY BOMBARDMENT TARGETING JOURNALISTS IN HOMS 25 STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION BASED ON INSIDER PHOTOS 26 FIRST IN FRANCE: COMPANY INDICTED FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY 28 FRANCE REVOKES REFUGEE STATUS OF MASS MASSACRE SUSPECT 29 SAUDI CROWN PRINCE UNDER INVESTIGATION 30 INVESTIGATION OPENS ON BENGAZHY SIEGE 3 31 A EUROPEAN COLLABORATION: SWISS NGO SEEKS A WARLORD’S PROSECUTION IN FRANCE 32 IS SELLING SPYING DEVICE TO AL-ASSAD’S REGIME COMPLICITY IN TORTURE? RWANDAN TRIALS IN
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Jurisdiction Over Operation of a Pirate Ship: the Legality of the Evolving Piracy Definition in Regional Prosecutions
    NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Volume 38 Number 2 Article 3 Winter 2013 Universal Jurisdiction over Operation of a Pirate Ship: The Legality of the Evolving Piracy Definition in Regional Prosecutions Samuel Shnider Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj Recommended Citation Samuel Shnider, Universal Jurisdiction over Operation of a Pirate Ship: The Legality of the Evolving Piracy Definition in Regional Prosecutions, 38 N.C. J. INT'L L. 473 (2012). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol38/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Universal Jurisdiction over Operation of a Pirate Ship: The Legality of the Evolving Piracy Definition in Regional Prosecutions Cover Page Footnote International Law; Commercial Law; Law This article is available in North Carolina Journal of International Law: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol38/ iss2/3 Universal Jurisdiction Over "Operation of a Pirate Ship": The Legality of the Evolving Piracy Definition in Regional Prosecutions By Samuel Shniderf I. Introduction: "Operation of a Pirate Ship" and the Proposal of "Equipment Articles" for the Successful Prosecution of Somali Pirates............... ..... 474 II. Universal Jurisdiction Over Piracy and its Limits.............482 A. The Universal Condemnation of the Crime of Piracy . ............................ ..... 485 B. Other Explanations For Universal Jurisdiction Over Piracy ............................. 489 C. Historic Sources on State Practice of Universal Jurisdiction Over Piracy....................492 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's Religious Right and the Question Of
    ISRAEL’S RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND THE QUESTION OF SETTLEMENTS Middle East Report N°89 – 20 July 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... i I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. NATIONAL-RELIGIOUS FRAGMENTATION AND RADICALISATION............ 3 III. THE TIME OF THE ULTRA-ORTHODOX............................................................... 12 IV. JEWISH ACTIVIST TOOLS ........................................................................................ 17 A. RHETORIC OR REALITY? ............................................................................................................17 B. INSTITUTIONAL LEVERAGE ........................................................................................................17 1. Political representation...............................................................................................................17 2. The military................................................................................................................................20 3. Education ...................................................................................................................................24 C. A PARALLEL SYSTEM ................................................................................................................25 V. FROM CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE TO VIOLENCE ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Positive Theory of Universal Jurisdiction
    George Mason University SCHOOL of LAW A POSITIVE THEORY OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION Eugene Kontorovich 04-25 Forthcoming 80 NOTRE DAME LAW REVIEW___ (November 2004) LAW AND ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER SERIES This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract_id= DRAFT Forthcoming, 80 NOTRE DAME LAW REVIEW___ (Nov. 2004) A POSITIVE THEORY OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION By Eugene Kontorovich∗ ABSTRACT Discussions of universal jurisdiction (“UJ”) have been mostly normative, focusing on what UJ “should” be in an ideal world. This Article analyzes UJ from a positive perspective. It explains UJ in a way that is consistent with its historic origins, major cases, and with the incentives of rational, self-interested states. This provides a better understanding of what UJ has been in the past, as well as its limits and potential for the future.. Piracy was for centuries the only UJ offense. This Article begins by isolating the characteristics of piracy that made it uniquely suitable for UJ. While these characteristics show why UJ over piracy would cause fewer problems than UJ over other crimes, they do not explain why nations would actually exercise UJ. Rational choice models of state behavior suggest nations would have no interest in exercising UJ. All that UJ adds to conventional categories of international jurisdiction is the ability of unaffected nations to prosecute. Given that prosecution is costly, rational, self-interested states would not expend scarce resources to punish crimes that did not directly harm them. Nations using UJ would bear all of the costs of enforcement while receiving none or little of the benefits.
    [Show full text]