Since the 1980s, the idea that piracy is the “original” and “paradigmatic” universal jurisdiction crime in customary international law has been increasingly supported by weighty scholarship. In the wake of the unprecedented surge in Somali piracy, this view is gaining ground among various powerful actors in international law. Yet, remarkably little empirically grounded scholarship exists in support of universal jurisdiction. This Article provides the first comprehensive empirical analysis of state practice in response to Somali piracy in a ten-year period since 2006. Additionally, the data on Somali piracy are compared with the empirical findings of state practice regarding international crimes, which are more “heinous” than piracy, since the end of World War II to 2016. In so doing, this Article brings new insight and the first thorough critique of what virtually most scholars, governments, the UN and even the International Court of Justice have said on universal jurisdiction, its purpose and the basis for it in international law. In view of inter-state tensions and conflict caused by universal jurisdiction and a move towards law codification, there is now a pressing need for a paradigm shift in the concept of universal jurisdiction for both piracy and international crimes, a step away from conventional scholarly accounts, and the grand narratives from which they proceed, to a position that has a solid basis in the actual practice of states. Empirically and historically informed, it is proposed that “universal jurisdiction” for both categories of crime provides a basis in international law permitting the exercise national criminal jurisdiction over offences involving foreign nationals abroad that have a close nexus between the case over which jurisdiction is asserted and the state asserting jurisdiction. Common and traditionally held assumptions that universal jurisdiction is based solely on the grave nature of crimes and is applied by states absent any nexus to offences and in the interest of the international community are unfounded.

中文翻译：

---

应对索马里海盗的“普遍管辖权”的出现：对国际法“范式”普遍管辖权犯罪的实证批判

自 1980 年代以来，海盗是习惯国际法中“原始”和“范式”普遍管辖权犯罪的观点越来越多地得到有分量的学术支持。在索马里海盗活动空前激增之后，这种观点在国际法的各个强大行为者中越来越受欢迎。然而，支持普遍管辖权的以经验为基础的学术研究非常少。本文首次对 2006 年以来十年间应对索马里海盗行为的国家实践进行全面实证分析。此外，将索马里海盗行为的数据与国家实践对国际犯罪的实证结果进行比较，后者更加“令人发指”。 ” 而不是盗版，从二战结束到 2016 年。这样做，这篇文章对几乎大多数学者、政府、联合国甚至国际法院关于普遍管辖权、其目的及其在国际法中的基础的言论提出了新的见解和第一次彻底的批评。鉴于普遍管辖权引起的国家间紧张局势和冲突以及走向法律编纂的趋势，现在迫切需要对海盗和国际犯罪的普遍管辖权概念进行范式转变，这与传统的学术解释相去甚远。 ，以及它们所源自的宏大叙事，以达到在国家实际实践中具有坚实基础的立场。根据经验和历史信息，建议对这两类犯罪的"普遍管辖权"提供国际法基础，允许对涉及在国外的外国国民的犯罪行使国家刑事管辖权，这些犯罪在主张管辖权的案件与主张管辖权的国家之间有密切联系。普遍和传统上认为普遍管辖权完全基于罪行的严重性质并由与犯罪没有任何联系的国家适用并符合国际社会利益的假设是没有根据的。