Samar Batool Athar is one of six talented young Australians who will travel to the UN General Assembly in New York next week as part of the Global Voices project.

They take with them policy position papers on highly topical legal issues. Over the coming days we will get a glimpse into the ideas and ambitions of these remarkable young leaders.

-——————————————————————————————–

In the late 1990s, the UN General Assembly and its Sixth (Legal) Committee played a pivotal role in establishing the world’s first permanent international criminal court. In advocating for the court’s creation, then UN secretary-general Kofi Annan proclaimed:

“[I]n the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realisation. We will do our part to see it through till the end. We ask you, as lawyers and tribunes of justice, to do your utmost in our struggle to ensure that no ruler, no state, no junta, and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity….”

In September 2025, the UN General Assembly was addressed by a man subject to an active arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity – issued by the very same International Criminal Court that once promised “universal justice”. Although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vows to “finish the job” rang through a largely empty hall, his complete confidence in his security and impunity was evident.

Such is the state of international law today; an apparent toothlessness, despite endless potential.

And it seems to have been this way for quite a while now.

I was born and raised in Pakistan during the “war-on-terror” epoch following 9/11. Growing up with the privileges of an upper-middle class childhood, my cognisance of international law (or lack thereof) was peripheral. Nightly news reports of US-led drone strikes on my country were less a source of trauma than annoyance, as I attempted to wrest control of the TV remote from my father. The constancy of suicide bombings in mosques and terror attacks rendered such threats mundane. The assassination of Osama bin Laden? A great excuse to end a school day early!

It was not until I came to Australia, aged 11, that I began recognising the architecture of my childhood — composed of barricades, security guards, frisk searches and a tension redolent of continual conflict — as unusual. And it was not until I studied international law that I began to see the legal dimension of these experiences.

My academic and personal interest in international law, politics and policy has led me to join Global Voices’ Sir Ninian Stephen’s Law Delegation to the UN Sixth (Legal) Committee. With Global Voices, I’m developing an Australian federal policy proposal on one of the most pressing issues in international criminal law today: universal jurisdiction.

Universal jurisdiction is a principle of international law that enables states to assert their domestic criminal jurisdiction over perpetrators of the most serious crimes of international concern, regardless of the location of perpetration, or the nationality of the perpetrator or victims. In line with its treaty obligations under the _Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court_, Australia has incorporated this principle into the _Criminal Code Act 1995_ (Cth). This provides Australian authorities with the competence to investigate and prosecute instances of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture, irrespective of whether the alleged criminal conduct occurred in Australia or was by an Australian.

Despite having the requisite legislative framework and respective international law obligations, Australian authorities have frequently failed to utilise universal jurisdiction to investigate, prosecute or extradite alleged perpetrators of international crimes when they are present in Australia. These failures are wide-ranging: see, for example, the Australian Federal Police’s failure to investigate alleged perpetrators of the 1994 Rwandan genocide residing in Brisbane and Melbourne; the citation of “ administrative oversight" for failing to investigate former Sri Lankan general and alleged war criminal, Jagath Jayasuriya; an absence of investigation into Australians currently serving in the Israeli Defence Force and possibly implicated in war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide; and the attorney-general’s quashing of a private prosecution against Myanmar’s former leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, suspected of Rohingya genocide and crimes against humanity.

The attorney-general’s complete and unreviewable discretion on whether to initiate universal jurisdiction prosecutions serves as a strong political barrier. However, just as crucially, Australia appears to lack the institutional mechanisms necessary to conduct successful international criminal investigations. The above examples illustrate the Australian Federal Police’s dearth of expertise in tackling the challenges and complexities of international crime. The necessary policy is clear: I recommend that Australia urgently create a permanent federal unit specialising in investigating international crimes.

Countries such as the UK, the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Sweden already have independent, specialised international crimes units within their prosecutorial or law enforcement bodies that have led to successful universal jurisdiction prosecutions. And there are increasing calls by Australian policymakers, legal experts and civil society groups, such as the Australian Centre for International Justice, for Australia to follow suit. The recent creation of the Office of the Special Investigator, for investigating the Australian Defence Force’s alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, illustrates the importance of specialised institutional mechanisms in tackling international crimes.

It is important to clarify that universal jurisdiction is an extraordinary measure (and subject to more than a decade of rigorous debate in the UN’s Sixth Committee). Ordinarily, states with territorial links to the crime, and the competence and willingness to prosecute the crime, should be afforded primary jurisdiction. However, situations around the world increasingly illustrate impunity for international crimes, and an asymmetry in who is afforded justice.

I hold a critical faith in international law: I am buoyed by its promises of universality and justice, yet repeatedly disappointed by its failures. Through my policy proposal, I want to increase public engagement in international law-making and development. I want to achieve greater international criminal justice outcomes for victim-survivor communities in Australia. And I want the Australian Government to play a greater role in recognising and preventing violations of international law, whilst taking retaliatory and sanctioning measures against states which do not.

Kofi Annan’s “promise of universal justice” is not unachievable – but Australia needs to step up to make this hope a reality.

Global Voices is a youth-led Australian not-for-profit committed to developing the next generation of policy leaders by providing practical experience in policy-making, international relations and diplomacy. The fellowship involves pre-departure briefings in Canberra, travel to a high-level international summit and the publication of a Policy Paper that contributes a fresh perspective to Australian legislation.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.