Universal Jurisdiction and the Principle of Sovereign Equality of States: Modern Contradictions

The article examines the relationship between universal jurisdiction and the principle of sovereign equality of states in contemporary international law. Increased attention to this issue is connected to the expanding practice of holding individuals accountable for international crimes outside the scope of territorial and personal jurisdiction, which inevitably affects the foundations of interstate interaction. The author argues that universal jurisdiction should not be viewed solely as an exception to the general regime of competence distribution among states. On the contrary, it reflects the development of a more complex model of legal regulation in which the protection of fundamental values of the international community is combined with the necessity of respecting sovereign rights of states. In this context, the problems of selectivity in the application of universal jurisdiction, its institutional heterogeneity, and the impact of this institution on the principle of sovereign equality are analyzed. The research methodology is based on a combination of general scientific and specialized legal methods. Analysis, synthesis, induction, and deduction, as well as systemic and dialectical approaches, are employed. Formal-legal and comparative-legal methods are applied, along with an analysis of law enforcement practices, revealing contradictions between universal jurisdiction and the principle of sovereign equality of states. The scientific novelty of the study lies in rethinking universal jurisdiction not as an isolated legal institution but as a dynamic mechanism formed at the intersection of the principle of sovereign equality of states and the concept of international responsibility. Unlike traditional approaches, the emphasis is placed on analyzing law enforcement practices, which allowed for the identification of hidden contradictions—extraterritoriality, selectivity, uncertainty of application criteria, and the risk of abuse of rights. It is concluded that universal jurisdiction serves as a compensatory tool in the face of ineffective national justice systems; however, its expansive application can undermine the balance of interstate relations. It is substantiated that its legitimacy directly depends on adherence to the principles of consent, subsidiarity, and good faith. It is shown that without the development of unified criteria and the strengthening of international coordination, this institution retains a high potential for legal uncertainty and conflict.