Balancing Universal Jurisdiction and State Sovereignty under the Rome Statute: An Analysis of Legal Conflicts and Coordination Mechanisms

The issue of universal jurisdiction continues to be one of the most disputed doctrines in international criminal law, and to be sure, this is mostly based on its clash with the sovereignty principle of states. On the one hand, this jurisdiction aims at no impunity for serious international crimes; on the other, one of the problems it faces is the overreach of jurisdiction. The research looks into where and to what extent the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is able to reconcile universal jurisdiction and state sovereignty. By means of three principal conflict dimensions (jurisdictional, legislative, and practical issues), the paper examines the degree to which these tensions are revealed both in theoretical approaches and the real world. Through an analysis of legal doctrine and key case studies, the study concludes that the Rome Statute does not technically introduce universal jurisdiction. It produces, however, an almost equivalent functional effect via the complementarity mechanism, granting the ICC power to act only when national courts are not prepared or competent to execute authentic prosecutions. This mechanism is implemented through the admissibility assessments in Articles 17–19, which determine the genuineness and consequently the meaning of the domestic trials, and also the Pre-Trial Chamber oversight that ensures the respect of state authority in the prosecutorial decisions. Furthermore, the complementarity is supported by procedural safeguards. All the safeguards demonstrate that the ICC operates as a cooperative partner rather than a opposition to the national courts. However, the existence of enforcement gaps, inconsistent state cooperation, and political interference continues to hinder the process.