dc.description.abstract | This research project or study takes cognisance of the fact that State sovereignty is a
central pillar of international law since States are the primary unit of political
organization. Ordinarily, each State makes its own criminal law, administers and
enforces it within its own territory under the doctrine of sovereignty. The study
acknowledges, however, that international criminal jurisdiction under the rubric of
universal jurisdiction has entered the national scene by way of judicial intervention
through international criminal tribunals or coutts in the name of protecting the human
rights of the people at national level when the international community reckons there are
compelling circumstances warranting such intervention. The study acknowledges that
the emergence of international criminal jurisdiction on the national scene has tended to be
perceived by States as an assault on their sovereignty.
The study has identified the emergence of a conceptual revolution. The revolution calls
into question the traditional perception of sovereignty of States as encompassing
inviolability of State territory whether or not given states inflict, or permit to be inflicted,
atrocities on their citizens. The conceptual revolution accords a higher premium to the
responsibility of States to be custodians of their citizens' welfare and to be protectors of
their citizens from dehumanising but avoidable catastrophes. In view of experience
gained down the ages about atrocities, including State-sponsored atrocities, committed by
humans upon fellow humans, it is a major finding of the study: (1) that States bear the
primary responsibility for safeguarding the well-being of their citizens; (2) that where the
States fail to discharge this responsibility, a duty arises on the part of the international
community collectively to intervene and protect the oppressed but helpless masses; and
(3) that such intervention may include intervention by way of the exercise of universal
jurisdiction through international criminal tribunals or courts as a back-stop to provide
alternative remedy when national criminal tribunals or courts fail to provide requisite
remedy. | en |