Accused war criminals are being tried in national courts under which legal concept?

The concept of Universal Jurisdiction is pivotal when it comes to prosecuting accused war criminals in national courts. This principle allows states to claim jurisdiction over serious crimes, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, regardless of where those crimes were committed and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators or victims.

Universal Jurisdiction is grounded in the belief that some offenses are so grave that they affect the international community as a whole, thus permitting any state to prosecute the individuals responsible, even if they have no direct connection to the crime. This is crucial for ensuring accountability and justice for victims of heinous acts, as it empowers national courts to act in the absence of effective jurisdiction from the state where the crime occurred.

In contrast, options like States Rights and National Priority pertain to domestic legal principles and do not give the same scope for international accountability as Universal Jurisdiction. Transnational Justice, while related, usually focuses on transitional justice mechanisms (like truth commissions and reparations) rather than the specific prosecutorial authority of national courts for war crimes. Thus, Universal Jurisdiction appropriately embodies the legal foundation under which accused war criminals are tried in national courts.