A Realist Approach to Universal Jurisdiction: the Case of Spain

Abstract

Universal jurisdiction is a powerful tool to bring individual accountability for the commission of international crimes, and yet states seem to be reluctant to use it. This research aims at explaining this situation through the case of Spain. Having been a leading country in the use of this tool, Spain modified the law regulating universal jurisdiction in 2009 and 2014, which narrowed its scope to an extent that makes it unworkable. Originally based on a realist theoretical framework, this article argues that Spain’s decision to amend the law was shaped by the pressure exercised by China, the U.S, and Israel, and so an international level of analysis is used to analyze the role of these countries. The need to include additional levels of analysis extended this framework to address Spanish politics and the domestic motivations for the support of the reforms at the domestic level, and the role of judges at the individual level. This research concludes that China, the U.S., and Israel exercised pressure to have universal jurisdiction cases against their nationals in Spain dismissed, which shaped Spain’s decisions to amend the law on universal jurisdiction in a decisive way.