This article addresses the relationships between the principles of universal jurisdiction and complementarity and the difficulties in their implementation. Even if the two principles are well known, there are still a number of obstacles – legal and non-legal – to proper and better implementation. Moreover, universality and complementarity are quite often to be applied in a difficult political environment, keeping in mind that these principles have to deal with international and national constraints. The number of obstacles is such that the two principles face many challenges. This article advocates that the principle of complementarity represents one aspect of the principle of universality and should rely on its general acceptance to further its efficiency and implementation. In conclusion, the article explores some possible ideas to be developed to reach this goal.

On 12 and 13 September 2005, Switzerland opened informal consultations on the holding of a diplomatic conference necessary for the adoption of a Third Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions on the Emblem in which all States party to the Geneva Conventions were invited to take part.

A. Legislation

Afghanistan

A. Legislation. Afghanistan. The Order of the Minister of National Defence on the Establishment of a Board of Curriculum on [the integration of] the International Law of Armed Conflict into the Educational and Training Institutions of the National Armed Forces, as well as National Army Units was adopted in July 2005. The Order nominates the members of the Board and defines a number of duties and actions to be undertaken for the training and education of national armed forces in the law of armed conflict. These activities include in particular the preparation of teaching materials, the appointment of instructors, and the proposed establishment of a legal department within the education and training institutions of the Ministry of Defence.

The Iraqi High Criminal Court established to prosecute Saddam Hussein and other leading Ba'athists is one of the most visible of the current efforts to establish criminal accountability for violations of international norms. Juxtaposed against other tribunals, the High Criminal Court has provoked worldwide debate over its processes and its prospects for returning societal stability founded on respect for human rights and the rule of law to Iraq. This article explores in detail the legal basis for the formation of the High Criminal Court under the law of occupation. It addresses the relationship between the Iraqi model of prosecuting crimes in domestic fora incorporating international law and the alternative model of transferring jurisdiction to an international forum. The controversial aspects of the Iraqi model are considered, such as the legitimacy of its creation, the revocation of official immunity, the procedural fairness of the Statute in the light of international norms, and the substantive coverage of what some have termed an internationalized domestic process. The author concludes that accountability for international crimes is one of the unifying themes that should bind humanity in common purpose with the Iraqi jurists as they pursue justice in accordance with international norms.