The past few years have witnessed a proliferation of universal jurisdiction proceedings in Europe, many of which concern asylum seekers suspected of committing international crimes in Syria and the wider region. Alongside the known practical challenges of such trials, these trials also raise a range of normative questions regarding inter alia the scope of universal jurisdiction and the applicable legal standards in such proceedings. This article unpacks several such questions through the lens of a recent Dutch case in which a former refugee, who was granted asylum in The Netherlands and later obtained Dutch citizenship, was tried and convicted by a local court in The Hague of war crimes committed in Ethiopia four decades ago. The judges used an amalgam of Dutch and (customary) international criminal law to convict the accused. They defined the charged war crimes in strict conformity with the standards established in international legislation and jurisprudence, relied exclusively on Dutch law to define one of the applied modes of criminal liability (co-perpetration), and synthesized Dutch and international law to define the other (command responsibility). To what extent does the notion of universal jurisdiction accommodate such choices of law, and how is the use of domestic criminal law on modes of liability in such proceedings compatible with the principle of legality?.

中文翻译：

---

荷兰对埃塞俄比亚战争罪的刑事司法

过去几年，欧洲普遍管辖权程序激增，其中许多涉及涉嫌在叙利亚和更广泛地区犯下国际罪行的寻求庇护者。除了此类审判已知的实际挑战外，这些审判还提出了一系列规范性问题，尤其涉及此类诉讼中普遍管辖权的范围和适用的法律标准。本文通过最近一起荷兰案件的镜头解开几个这样的问题，在该案件中，一名前难民在荷兰获得庇护，后来获得荷兰公民身份，被海牙当地法院审判并判定犯有在埃塞俄比亚犯下的战争罪。四年前。法官使用荷兰和（习惯）国际刑法的混合物来定罪被告。他们严格按照国际立法和判例确定的标准来定义被指控的战争罪，完全依靠荷兰法律来定义一种适用的刑事责任模式（共同犯罪），并综合荷兰法和国际法来定义另一种（指挥责任）。普遍管辖权的概念在多大程度上适应了此类法律选择，在此类诉讼中使用关于责任模式的国内刑法如何与合法性原则相一致？并综合荷兰和国际法来定义他者（指挥责任）。普遍管辖权的概念在多大程度上适应了此类法律选择，在此类诉讼中使用关于责任模式的国内刑法如何与合法性原则相一致？并综合荷兰和国际法来定义他者（指挥责任）。普遍管辖权的概念在多大程度上适应了此类法律选择，在此类诉讼中使用关于责任模式的国内刑法如何与合法性原则相一致？