Permanent Mission of India
New York
--

80^th UNGA Sixth Committee on Agenda 85 “The scope and Application of the principle of Universal Jurisdiction

Statement by Ms. R. Mythili, Counsellor & Legal Advisor
21 October 2025

Thank you Mr. Chair,

1. India maintains the principled position that those who commit crimes must be brought to justice and punished. A criminal should not go unpunished because of procedural technicalities, including lack of jurisdiction.

2. A State invoking universal jurisdiction claims to exercise jurisdiction over any offender, irrespective of his or her nationality, place of commission of offense, or any link between that State and the offender. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. It allows a State to investigate and prosecute a national of any State within their borders who is alleged to have committed certain serious crimes.

3. Under general international law, piracy in the high seas is the only crime over which claim of universal jurisdiction is undisputed. The principle of universal jurisdiction in relation to piracy was codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.

Mr. Chair,

4. Certain international treaties have provided basis for the exercise of universal jurisdiction in treaties for crimes like genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture. They include among others the Geneva Convention of 1949, Genocide Convention, and the Apartheid Convention.

5. The question that arises is whether the jurisdiction provided for specific international crimes in certain treaties could be converted into a commonly exercisable jurisdiction, irrespective of whether the States are a Party to those treaties.

6. Principle of extradite or prosecute (aut dedere, aut judicare) provided in various treaties should not be inferred as universal jurisdiction. The treaty-based jurisdiction is conceptualized and legally distinct from universal jurisdiction.

7. Thus, the principle of universal jurisdiction, in view of lack of conceptual and legal clarity, should not be considered as complementary to the jurisdiction of national courts. Further, it may be invoked only as a last resort when all other options for prosecution have been either exhausted or unavailable. The need to ensure avoidance of misuse of the principle of universal jurisdiction (in both criminal and civil matters) is pertinent.

8. Any application of the principle of universal jurisdiction should be consistent with the principles of international law including sovereignty of States, non-interference in internal affairs and the established principles of sovereign and diplomatic immunity.

I Thank you, Mr. Chair.