Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Study of the Legitimacy of Jurisdiction Based on Universal Interests
- 1 Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing, China
Abstract
Although the trial of Adolf Eichmann by the Israeli court has been more than half a century, the case has been widely discussed by the academic community during the trial and for a considerable period of time thereafter, especially about the issue of the jurisdiction of the Israeli court which is still worthy of study now. On the issue of Eichmann’s trial jurisdiction, from a legal point of view, the “Eichmann case” has neither the nationality of the victim nor the national interest relationship between the “Eichmann case” and the State of Israel. Israeli Court adopts Negative Personality Doctrine to “Localize” Eichmann’s Crimes and makes the crime become a crime against Jews only, and because of this, the court believes that it judges crimes on behalf of all human beings and not its own nationals, thus ignoring the nature of the Holocaust crime against all human beings. The exercise of universal jurisdiction over international crimes is justified only because the crimes against humanity as a whole. Therefore, we need the objectivity of historical events and the moral judgment of human beings, and the use of universal jurisdiction in the trial of international crimes should only focus on justice and not be influenced by external politics.
- Arendt, H. (2003). Eichmann in Jerusalem: Dilemma of Modern Ethics (p. 23). Jilin People’s Publishing House.
- Arendt, H. (2017). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report of the Banality of Evil (pp. 46-65). Yilin Press.
- Cao, M. Z. (2015). The Executioner’s Justice and the Construction of World Order: Revisiting the Eichmann Trial on the 70th Anniversary of the Victory of the Anti-Fascist War. Social Science Forum, No. 9, 182-194.
- Gao, M. X., & Wang, X. M. (2001). The Characteristics of Universal Jurisdiction and Localization Thinking. Law and Social Development, No. 6, 17-24.
- He, Z. P. (2006). The Relationship between the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and Universal Jurisdiction. Gansu Agriculture, No. 3, 198.
- Jia, Y., & Shu, H. S. (2018). Research on International Terrorist Crimes. China University of Political Science and Law Press.
- Jiang, G. Q. (1989). On the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction in International Law and Its Development Trend. Wuhan University Journal (Philosophy & Social Science), No. 5, 111-114.
- Liao, X. X. (2020). “Obligations to the International Community as a Whole” and the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice—Take the Gambia v. Myanmar for Violations of “The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” as an Entry Point. Chinese Review of International Law, No. 6, 26-42.
- Liu, T. (2021). The Great Trial. Shanghai People’s Publishing House.
- Lv, Y. F., & Li, H. Y. (2004). A Reflection on the “Appropriate Law” of International Criminal Jurisdiction Conflicts: References from Private International Law. Contemporary Law Review, No. 4, 3-12.
- Perry, A., Gao, F. J., & Yang, X. L. (2017). New and Old World. Shanghai People’s Publishing House.
- Qi, R. G. (2005). The Principle of Universal Jurisdiction: Obstacles and Their Overcoming. MA Thesis, Jilin University.
- Song, J. (2015). Postwar War Criminal Trials and Universal Jurisdiction: Practices, Developments and Issues. Wuhan University Journal (Philosophy & Social Science), 68, 91-98.
- Song, J. (2018). Research on Judicial Interference in International Law. China University of Political Science and Law Press.
- Song, J., & Yang, Y. (2019). The Practice and Development of Universal Jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention—Based on the Jokic Case. Wuhan University International Law Review, No. 1, 127-143.