ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on the distinction between the more procedural law of universal adjudicative jurisdiction and the more substantive law of universal prescriptive jurisdiction. It talks about the customary character of universal jurisdiction, observes the difference between a treaty-based or "conventional" version of universal jurisdiction, which necessarily confines itself to the states party to the convention that generates such jurisdiction, and the customary law of universal jurisdiction. The chapter deals with the question of enforcement against a court's illegitimate definitional expansion of a universal crime upon which the court purports to base its jurisdiction. It explains that the international legal limits of universal jurisdiction are indeed enforceable against such courts, and that the enforcers are those states with concurrent jurisdiction over the alleged crimes—that is, states with territorial or national jurisdiction. Although universal adjudicative jurisdiction depends upon the substance of universal prescriptive jurisdiction, the customary rules of universal adjudicative and prescriptive jurisdiction are nonetheless distinct in their character and development.
