8
moral postulates, as it does here, does this show that humanity is not yet a moral/legal
community or does it indicate faulty institutional mechanisms?
In sum, the category of crimes against humanity is a codified legal response to the
atrocities of the Nazis. Crimes against humanity can be committed in wartime or in peace,
and they are part of a widespread or systematic attack on a population. The concept is not
defined by specific elements of the actions, but by the moral character of the crimes: crimes
against humanity are an immediate offense against humanity at large, and they are
qualitatively distinct from the sum of individual human rights violations they entail.
Universal Jurisdiction
The concept of crimes against humanity deals with the substantive issue of the crime.
But which courts are allowed to judge the crime; or, on which grounds do courts gain
jurisdiction for crimes against humanity? International law has different principles regulating
courts’ jurisdictions for crimes occurring anywhere in the world. Jurisdiction over an act
requires a specific connection between the act and the prosecuting state. The most common
connection is territorial jurisdiction: a state has the right to judge any act committed within its
territory. Second, the nationality principle (or active personality principle) allows states to
exercise jurisdictions over crimes committed by their citizens abroad. The protective principle
allows states to assert jurisdiction over acts abroad that are potentially harmful to important
national interests. These three principles, however, rarely apply to the prosecution of crimes
against humanity. Two further, more contentious, principles come into play. First, the passive
personality (or passive nationality) principle allows states to prosecute crimes against their own
citizens committed abroad by persons that are not their citizens. This principle, even though
Convention