Universal jurisdiction maintains that states can claim criminal jurisdiction over a perpetrator, regardless of where the crime was committed, the accused’s nationality or where they reside (1994:261). The Israeli court compared crimes against humanity to the crime of piracy to justify their universal juristic claim over Eichmann (1994:261). Using the terminology of international law, Eichmann was categorized as a hostis humani generis, meaning ‘enemy of mankind’ (1994:261). The Israeli court asserted that some crimes present such a grave threat to humanity that any state could prosecute the perpetrator. Therefore, Israel had the right to prosecute Eichmann.
Arendt stresses the difference between the crimes committed by Eichmann and the crime of piracy. Piracy constitutes crimes committed at sea, where the perpetrator holds no ties to a flag or organized community (1994:261). During the war, Eichmann was under German authority, where he held ties (1994:262). He did not commit crimes in the name of himself, but rather in the name of Germany and Hitler. A person charged with the crime of piracy commits crimes for their own self-interest. Eichmann held no hatred towards the Jews, therefore he was not acting out of self-interest when he sent…show more content… The Jewish people do not represent the universal world. I think they are describing a cultural relativist claim . This would not be accepted either, because during the war, the Jewish people did not share the same cultural values and customs. Eichmann did not commit crimes in a specifically Jewish community as they were dispersed throughout Europe. Arendt would argued against this relativist idea, saying there does not need to be a geographical Jewish territory, but rather that the idea of territory has an extended definition. I will discuss my counter argument to this theory later
