468 Between Yesterday and Tomorrow (1914– )states and holds them in its grasp.” He protested against the legalistic ap-
proach to world aff airs, as tending to degenerate into an excessive reverence
for rules of law as ends in themselves rather than— as they should be—
means toward the practical resolution of confl icts in the po liti cal arena.
It was therefore not surprising that re sis tance to international law began
to mount in several key walks of po liti cal life. Economic relations was one.
By the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty- fi rst centuries, it
was apparent that there was signifi cant opposition to economic globaliza-
tion. In 1999, when the states of the WTO met in Seattle for the launching of
a new round of trade negotiations, the opposition was in the streets, in force.
Th e rioting that ensued led to the chaotic and embarrassing breakdown of
the conference.
In several other areas, developments in international law have sparked
opposition to international law. Th ree in par tic u lar may be noted. One is in
the area of criminal law, where the concept of “universal jurisdiction” has
empowered state prosecutors to assume the role of global law enforcers. Sec-
ond is the employment of armed force by states in the cause of human
rights. Th e third area of concern has been the activities of international
criminal courts. A brief exploration of each of these is in order.
Universal Jurisdiction
Th e basic idea behind the concept of universal jurisdiction is simple: that
any state in the world is entitled to prosecute persons who are suspected of
having committed certain international off enses— without any regard to the
nationality of either the suspect or of the victims, or to the place where the
acts occurred. Universal jurisdiction is therefore, potentially, a very power-
ful weapon. It is intended to be. Its purpose is to maximize the scope for the
punishment of especially nefarious criminals, by, in eff ect, licensing all
states in the world to act as enforcement agents for international law.
One important point about universal jurisdiction should be carefully
noted. Th at is, that the prosecution in question takes place in the national
court of the state that is acting, under that state’s national law. Th e content of
that national law, however, derives from international law. Universal juris-
diction therefore does not involve trial before an international tribunal, in
the manner of the Nuremberg or Tokyo proceedings. Instead, it should be