Australia

This chapter explores the evolution of Australia's legal framework for addressing international crimes, set against the backdrop of its dualist legal system and strong emphasis on national sovereignty. A key aspect of this framework is the principle, affirmed by the High Court in 1995, that international treaties do not automatically become part of Australian law unless incorporated through domestic legislation. This chapter demonstrates how this principle has influenced Australia's approach to international criminal justice, resulting in a complex relationship with universal jurisdiction. While Australia supports mechanisms such as the ICC and enacted legislation in 2002 to enable domestic courts to prosecute international crimes committed extraterritorially, its record of investigating and prosecuting such crimes remains inconsistent. The chapter first examines how the Criminal Code allows Australia to assert universal jurisdiction over international crimes, albeit limited by the Attorney-General's consent requirement. It provides an analysis of the relevant legislative instruments, demonstrating that while Australia's contemporary legislation is largely compatible with international law, there are significant jurisdictional gaps for international crimes committed prior to 2002. The chapter then shifts to a case study of Australia's only civilian war crimes prosecution: the 1993 trial of Ivan Polyukhovich, accused of Second World War-era crimes in Ukraine. The chapter examines both the High Court's constitutional ruling on the War Crimes Act and the criminal trial itself, analysing their impact on Australia's universal jurisdiction legacy.