Topic:
Country: Jordan
Delegate Name: Phaedon Papadopoulos
Universal jurisdiction is a topic in which nations convicted of heinous crimes are held accountable by foreign states and territories. Ever since the creation of organized nations, international conflict has played a factor in the deaths of millions of people across the planet, whether said conflict be war, genocide, terrorism, and so on. A commonly mentioned solution to combatting foreign conflict is universal jurisdiction, which taken at face value, would seem like an unquestionable answer. Unfortunately, many inhibiting factors contradict the apparent success of universal jurisdiction. Such factors include, but are not limited to increased conflict, attacks on national sovereignty, misuse or excessive abuse of universal jurisdiction, and an overall risk of doing the opposite of what was originally intended for foreign interference: bringing peace.
There are countless of examples where nations utilized universal jurisdiction as an attempt to deescalate conflicts. The most notable example of this is the entire existence of World War II, where nations like the United States, France, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain interfered with the German invasion of Poland, which would ultimately spread a wildfire of wars and battles across the planet. Millions of people would die following the war and some diplomatic relations would never be the same; however, it is also unclear what would have happened if these countries did not intervene with Germany’s plan. This shows that universal jurisdiction can essentially be summarized as a gamble; there can be only one outcome of a conflict, and that conflict depends on whether a nation chooses to interfere or not.
World War II is in the past; however, disputes such as the Israel-Palestine conflict or the Ukraine-Russia war are actively wreaking havoc on diplomatic relations between not just the countries involved, but countries with opposing stances on these conflicts and how they should go about solving them. The delegation of Jordan sees that jurisdiction must rest with nations initially involved in any sort of dispute, unless said nations are unable to do so. In this case, universal jurisdiction in any necessary amount must be utilized as an attempt to control further conflict that could lead to the causing of heinous crimes, humanitarian warfare, or involuntary foreign involvement. Collaboration, and especially communication, between allies and enemies alike must play a role in decreasing diplomatic feuds and holding hostile nations accountable. It is crucial to pinpoint common enemies in specific conflicts for further discussing what actions would be taken to ultimately bring peace and stability to every country involved.
