Civil society groups and survivors have turned to domestic courts in both countries, invoking the principle of universal jurisdiction to pursue accountability for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed under the leadership of Sr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing.

These initiatives suggest that courts, rather than diplomatic forums alone, may increasingly become the arenas for confronting grave human rights violations in the region.

Universal jurisdiction rests on a simple premise: certain crimes are so serious that they concern the international community as a whole. Because of this, any state may prosecute those responsible, regardless of where the crimes occurred or the nationality of those involved.

Unlike traditional criminal jurisdiction, which depends on borders or citizenship, universal jurisdiction allows domestic courts to pursue perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, torture and enforced disappearances, even when such crimes take place elsewhere.

In practice, the doctrine functions as a legal safety net. When the state where atrocities occur is unwilling or unable to investigate, often because the authorities themselves are the perpetrators, another country may step in. For victims of mass violence, this principle can provide one of the few remaining pathways to justice.

The doctrine’s legitimacy has been shaped by several landmark cases. The 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann in Israel, for example, affirmed that crimes against humanity are offenses against the world, allowing national courts to prosecute them.