This is a follow-up to my post on the new rules for bringing a prosecution for war crimes or crimes against humanity under the principle of universal jurisdiction. As I said there, some of those opposed to the recent legislation argued that it would jeopardize the principle of universal jurisdiction itself. One of the things they have failed to explain in making this claim is why in other legal systems in which that principle is recognized citizens do not have the same right to secure arrest warrants as people in this country did before the passing of the new legislation. The point is made in a letter to today's Guardian from Alexander Halban:
Michael Mansfield's article is more a diatribe against Israel than a genuine legal analysis of the recent change in the law, which now prevents private applications for arrest warrants in suspected war crimes cases without the consent of the director of public prosecutions. This change is not as major as Mansfield claims. The attorney-general's consent has always been needed to prosecute these crimes (International Criminal Court Act 2001, section 53(3)), unlike for normal criminal offences. It was anomalous that his consent was not required for the arrest warrant to be issued in the first place. There is a difference between the state's obligation to prosecute international crimes and the power for private citizens to bring such prosecutions or apply for arrest warrants. England is one of the few jurisdictions where private criminal prosecutions are permitted. They are rare in continental Europe and the US... [Italics added by me - NG]