470 Between Yesterday and Tomorrow (1914– )Universal jurisdiction also made a notable appearance in the human-
rights fi eld in 1984, when it was included in the Convention against Tor-
ture. Th is was especially signifi cant, as that convention was directed spe-
cifi cally against torture by government offi cials— placing those offi cials at
risk of prosecution in foreign courts. In addition, it was widely agreed that
the two major international off enses of genocide and crimes against human-
ity should qualify for universal jurisdiction. Th is was endorsed by the Eu ro-
pe an Court of Human Rights in 2007, regarding genocide.
Without too much imagination, universal jurisdiction could be argued to
apply to crimes against the peace as well (or aggression, in the later termi-
nology). Perhaps it could be taken further yet and applied to environment-
related crimes, race and sex discrimination, colonialism, and so forth. Ad-
vocacy groups of many stripes could press for the application of universal
jurisdiction in the ser vice of their favored causes. Not surprisingly, misgiv-
ings began to grow that matters could get out of hand. States all over the
world could appoint themselves as agents for the international community
and then proceed to place persons on trial for an ever- expanding list of al-
leged acts, without any need for a material connection to the prosecuting
state. But it was only around the 1990s that these dreams— or nightmares—
began to come true.
Th e leading role was taken by Belgium. In 1993, it enacted legislation giv-
ing its courts universal jurisdiction to hear cases of grave breaches of the
Geneva Conventions. In 1999, it added genocide and crimes against human-
ity. On the basis of this law, several proceedings were undertaken in Belgian
courts, in 2001– 4, relating to the Rwandan genocide of 1994. In addition,
the Belgian authorities issued an arrest warrant for the foreign minister of
the Congo in 2000, accusing him of committing various crimes against hu-
manity during the ferocious civil wars in that beleaguered country. On this
occasion, however, the Congo government reacted by fi ling suit against Bel-
gium in the World Court. One of its assertions was that international law
did not allow the exercise of universal jurisdiction in cases of this kind.
In the event, the Congo government declined to press the universal-
jurisdiction issue, so the Court did not rule on it one way or the other in its
Arrest Warrant judgment of 2002. But one of the judges, Gilbert Guillaume
from France, gave his views on the subject— and agreed with the Congo’s
assertion. Piracy, in his opinion, is the only true case to which universal
jurisdiction is applicable. Extending the principle to other crimes, he