The prosecution of war crimes has increasingly transcended national borders, reflecting a growing interplay between domestic legal systems and international accountability mechanisms. Where states are perceived as unwilling or unable to address grave violations, foreign courts have invoked universal jurisdiction, extending legal scrutiny beyond territorial boundaries.

For Sri Lanka, this is not an abstract concern. Nearly 15 years after the end of its protracted conflict with the LTTE, questions of accountability, reconciliation and justice remain embedded in both domestic discourse and international engagement, particularly within forums such as the UN Human Rights Council. Incidents arising from the conflict period including allegations relating to mass graves, civilian casualties and developments in high profile criminal cases continue to shape perceptions regarding the credibility of domestic accountability processes.

Beyond formal legal questions, the lived realities of affected communities underscore the enduring human dimension of these issues. In the Northern and Eastern regions, many internally displaced persons continue to face challenges relating to resettlement, land and livelihoods. This includes communities affected by non-state actors, most notably the expulsion of Northern Muslims in 1990, an experience that remains insufficiently addressed in the broader post-conflict narrative. For many, the passage of time has not fully translated into a sense of closure, dignity or belonging.

In this context, accountability assumes a significance that extends beyond legal obligation. It becomes integral to coexistence, trust and the prevention of future discord. History demonstrates that where grievances remain unacknowledged and unaddressed, they risk deepening into frustration, alienation and ultimately renewed instability. Conversely, credible and inclusive processes of justice can serve as a foundation for durable peace.

Against this backdrop, Sri Lanka faces a critical challenge: how to construct an accountability framework that is both internationally credible and firmly grounded in national sovereignty. This article examines how such a balance may be achieved, drawing lessons from the post-genocide experience of Rwanda and the ongoing accountability efforts in Ukraine, to propose a sovereignty-conscious approach rooted in credibility, inclusivity and legal coherence.

The legal framework of universal jurisdiction

Universal jurisdiction represents one of the most expansive and contested bases of criminal jurisdiction in international law. Unlike territorial or nationality based jurisdictions, which are anchored in sovereign boundaries or personal links, universal jurisdiction permits a state to prosecute certain grave offences irrespective of where they were committed, the nationality of the perpetrator or the nationality of the victim. It is premised on the understanding that certain crimes by their very nature constitute offences against the international community as a whole and therefore engage a collective interest in their suppression.

The legal foundations of universal jurisdiction are derived from both customary international law and treaty obligations. Notably, the Geneva Conventions impose obligations on states to search for and prosecute or extradite individuals suspected of committing grave breaches, regardless of nationality. This obligation is encapsulated in the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, either extradite or prosecute, which reinforces the idea that impunity for serious international crimes is not legally tolerable. Similarly, instruments such as the Convention against Torture further embed obligations on states to exercise jurisdiction over certain offences, even in the absence of a direct territorial or national nexus.

Contemporary developments indicate that universal jurisdiction is no longer an exceptional or dormant doctrine, but an evolving and, in some contexts, normalized enforcement mechanism[1]. The growing documentation of atrocities in ongoing conflicts, including those arising from the war in Ukraine, has further accelerated calls for accountability across multiple jurisdictions. National prosecutors, international investigative bodies and hybrid mechanisms are increasingly operating in parallel, sharing evidence and coordinating efforts. This has contributed to what may be described as a decentralization of international criminal enforcement, where domestic courts play a more prominent role alongside international institutions.

However, the doctrine remains deeply contested. Critics point to its susceptibility to selective or politically motivated application; particularly where prosecutions disproportionately target individuals from less powerful states while others remain beyond reach, the best example for this would be the complexities surrounding the Gaza humanitarian crisis. Concerns also arise regarding evidentiary limitations, the practical challenges of investigating crimes committed in distant conflict zones and the potential for jurisdictional overreach to infringe upon state sovereignty. In response, many states have adopted calibrated approaches, introducing procedural safeguards such as prosecutorial discretion, or requirements to balance accountability with sovereign interests.

For post-conflict states, this evolving landscape carries significant strategic implications. The increasing willingness of foreign courts to exercise jurisdiction underscores the importance of credible, transparent and functional domestic accountability mechanisms. Where such mechanisms are absent or perceived to be inadequate, the likelihood of external jurisdictional assertions correspondingly increases. This dynamic is particularly salient in the context of Sri Lanka, where post-conflict accountability remains closely scrutinized within international forums and continues to shape the country’s legal and diplomatic engagement.

Sri Lanka’s legal and institutional context

More than a decade after the end of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka, questions of accountability continue to evolve within a complex post-conflict landscape shaped by legal, institutional, and socio-political factors. While the end of hostilities in 2009 marked a decisive military conclusion, the broader process of justice and reconciliation remains ongoing.

Post-conflict accountability in Sri Lanka cannot be understood solely through the lens of criminal prosecution. It must also be situated within a wider framework of justice, redress and reintegration, which collectively influence the perceived legitimacy of legal institutions. In this regard, the experiences of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) remain a significant dimension. Although substantial resettlement efforts have been undertaken, persistent challenges relating to land, livelihoods and long term reintegration continue to affect sections of the population.

A particularly important, yet often under emphasized, aspect of this narrative is the displacement of Northern Muslim communities following their expulsion by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 1990[2]. For many within these communities, return has not fully translated into meaningful reintegration, raising broader questions about inclusivity in post-conflict recovery processes.

These issues, while not strictly within the domain of international criminal prosecution, play a critical role in shaping perceptions of justice and institutional credibility. In post-conflict settings, the effectiveness of formal accountability mechanisms is often assessed not only by prosecutions but by the extent to which broader grievances are acknowledged and addressed.

Alongside these considerations, the issue of accountability for alleged violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law remains central. Various incidents arising from the conflict period and its aftermath, including allegations relating to mass graves[3], civilian casualties[4], and developments in high-profile criminal cases[5] have continued to attract both domestic and international attention. While such matters remain complex and, in certain instances, legally contested, their broader significance lies in the perceptions they generate regarding the adequacy and credibility of domestic investigative and judicial processes.

From a legal and institutional perspective, these dynamics reveal certain structural limitations. These include challenges relating to investigative capacity, delays in legal proceedings, and the absence of specialized mechanisms for addressing complex international crimes. While Sri Lanka has undertaken various initiatives in this regard, including engagement with international processes such as the UN Human Rights Council, a gap often persists between formal commitments and their practical implementation.

Rwanda and Ukraine

Comparative experiences from other post-conflict and conflict-affected states demonstrate that accountability for international crimes need not follow a single institutional model. Rather, states have adopted diverse approaches shaped by political context, institutional capacity and the scale of violations. The experiences of Rwanda and Ukraine illustrate two distinct yet instructive trajectories in the pursuit of accountability, one rooted in post-conflict reconstruction and the other in real-time conflict response.

In the aftermath of the Rwandan Genocide, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 800,000 people within a span of approximately 100 days, Rwanda confronted an unprecedented challenge: how to deliver justice at scale in the face of institutional collapse. The response was a multi-tiered accountability framework combining international, domestic and community-based mechanisms[6].

At the international level, the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) marked a significant development in international criminal justice, prosecuting senior political and military leaders responsible for orchestrating the genocide. However, the ICTR’s limited capacity and distance from affected communities necessitated complementary domestic responses.

Rwanda’s national courts undertook a substantial number of prosecutions, but the most distinctive feature of its approach was the establishment of the Gacaca court system[7], a community-based mechanism designed to process the vast number of genocide-related cases. Between 2005 and 2012, Gacaca courts adjudicated approximately 1.9 million cases, significantly accelerating the pace of accountability.

While the Gacaca system has been subject to criticism, particularly in relation to due process guarantees, legal representation and potential community pressures, it nevertheless represents a pragmatic response to the realities of mass atrocity. It combined elements of restorative and retributive justice, emphasizing truth-telling, community participation and reconciliation.

Rwanda demonstrates that a hybrid model integrating international support with domestic ownership can enhance both legitimacy and operational effectiveness even where conventional judicial mechanisms are insufficient

In contrast to Rwanda’s post-conflict model, the approach adopted by Ukraine in response to the ongoing conflict following the 2022 invasion represents a contemporary and dynamic accountability framework operating in real time. From the outset, Ukraine has pursued a strategy characterized by the simultaneous activation of domestic prosecutions and international cooperation.

Ukrainian authorities have initiated thousands of war crimes investigations and prosecutions within their domestic legal system, even amidst active hostilities. These efforts have been supported by specialized war crimes units, prosecutorial coordination and legislative adaptations to incorporate international crimes into domestic law. At the same time, Ukraine has actively engaged with international mechanisms, including cooperation with the International Criminal Court and joint investigative teams involving multiple states.

A notable feature of Ukraine’s approach is the integration of evidence collection, documentation, and preservation processes from an early stage. Digital evidence, satellite imagery, and open-source intelligence have been systematically utilized, often in collaboration with international partners. This has enabled the creation of a robust evidentiary foundation capable of supporting both domestic and foreign prosecutions[8].

Ukraine illustrates that proactive, credible domestic action combined with strategic international cooperation can strengthen accountability while reducing reliance on external jurisdictional intervention.

Comparative lessons and strategic implications

Taken together, the experiences of Rwanda and Ukraine reveal that effective accountability frameworks are not defined by rigid institutional forms but by their ability to balance three core elements: credibility, capacity and control.

Rwanda’s model emphasizes domestic ownership and scale, albeit with trade-offs in procedural rigor, while Ukraine’s approach underscores speed, transparency and international integration in an ongoing conflict setting. Both approaches, despite their differences, share a common feature: the prioritization of visible and functioning accountability processes within the domestic sphere.

For Sri Lanka, the comparative lesson is clear. The most effective means of navigating the risks associated with universal jurisdiction is not through resistance to external mechanisms but through the development of credible domestic processes that command both internal and external confidence. Where such processes exist and are demonstrably functional, the justification for external jurisdiction correspondingly diminishes.

At a broader level, these case studies reinforce a central proposition of this research: accountability and sovereignty are not inherently contradictory but can be mutually reinforcing when institutional design is both context-sensitive and aligned with international legal standards.

Designing a Sri Lanka–specific accountability framework

This analysis demonstrates that the most effective safeguard against external jurisdictional intervention lies in the development of credible and functional domestic accountability mechanisms. For Sri Lanka, the challenge is not merely to replicate external models but to design a context-sensitive framework that reflects domestic realities while aligning with international legal standards. Such a framework must balance three core imperatives: credibility, capacity and sovereignty.

Establishment of specialized war crimes mechanisms

A central reform priority is the creation of specialized institutional mechanisms dedicated to the investigation and prosecution of international crimes. This may take the form of designated units within the Attorney General’s Department, supported by trained investigators, forensic experts and legal officers with expertise in international humanitarian law and international criminal law[9].

Specialization is critical given the complexity of such cases, which often involve large scale evidence, command responsibility structures and cross-border elements. Comparative experience, particularly from jurisdictions such as Ukraine, underscores the value of early institutional preparedness and focused prosecutorial capacity. The establishment of such mechanisms would signal both domestic commitment and institutional seriousness in addressing accountability.

Strengthening legal frameworks and incorporation of international crimes

A key structural gap lies in the limited incorporation of core international crimes such as crimes against humanity and certain categories of war crimes into domestic legislation with sufficient clarity and precision. Addressing this requires targeted legislative reform to ensure that such offences are explicitly defined in accordance with international standards, enabling effective domestic prosecution.

This process should be accompanied by the development of procedural guidelines that address evidentiary standards, modes of liability (including command responsibility) and victim participation. Aligning domestic law with international norms not only facilitates prosecution but also enhances the credibility of the legal system in the eyes of both domestic and international stakeholders.

Enhancing investigative capacity and evidence preservation

Effective accountability is contingent upon the ability to collect, preserve and analyze evidence in a manner that meets both domestic and international standards. In this regard, Sri Lanka would benefit from strengthening its investigative infrastructure through the establishment of specialized evidence gathering units, improved forensic capabilities and the integration of digital and open source intelligence methodologies.

Lessons from contemporary contexts such as Ukraine highlight the importance of early and systematic documentation of alleged violations. The development of centralized evidence repositories and standardized protocols can significantly enhance prosecutorial effectiveness while reducing reliance on external investigative bodies.

Ensuring procedural fairness and due process

While efficiency and responsiveness are essential, the long term legitimacy of any accountability framework depends on adherence to due process and fair trial guarantees. Mechanisms must ensure judicial independence, the right to legal representation, protection against self-incrimination and meaningful opportunities for defence.

The experience of Rwanda, particularly in relation to the Gacaca system, illustrates both the benefits and risks of prioritizing speed and scale over procedural safeguards. For Sri Lanka, maintaining a balance between efficiency and fairness will be essential to ensuring that accountability processes are not only effective but also just and sustainable.

Inclusive and victim-centered approach

A credible accountability framework must be inclusive, recognizing the diverse experiences of all affected communities. This includes not only those directly impacted by state actions but also victims of non-state actors such as the LTTE, including displaced populations such as Northern Muslim communities.

Incorporating victim perspectives through consultation, participation and reparative measures can contribute to a more holistic understanding of justice. Addressing issues such as land restitution, livelihood restoration and social reintegration alongside formal accountability processes can enhance both legitimacy and reconciliation outcomes.

Calibrated international engagement

Engagement with international mechanisms, including bodies such as the UN Human Rights Council, should be approached in a calibrated and strategic manner. Rather than viewing international involvement as inherently adversarial, Sri Lanka can adopt a model of selective cooperation that leverages technical assistance, capacity building and best practices while retaining decision making authority over domestic processes.

This approach reflects the experience of states like Ukraine, where international cooperation has complemented rather than displaced domestic accountability efforts. Such engagement can enhance transparency, build confidence and mitigate external pressures, including the risk of universal jurisdiction being exercised by foreign courts.

Credibility as a shield

Ultimately, the effectiveness of any accountability framework will depend not only on its formal structure but on its perceived credibility. Visible, consistent and impartial implementation is essential to bridging the gap between legal commitments and practical outcomes.

In this regard, the development of a robust domestic system serves a dual function: it advances justice and reconciliation within Sri Lanka while simultaneously reducing the justification for external jurisdictional intervention. The most sustainable defence against universal jurisdiction is not resistance but credibility grounded in action.

The evolving landscape of international criminal law, particularly the increasing invocation of universal jurisdiction, underscores a fundamental reality: in the absence of credible domestic accountability, the space for external intervention inevitably expands. The experiences of Rwanda and Ukraine illustrate that accountability and sovereignty are not mutually exclusive but can be mutually reinforcing when supported by institutional credibility, legal coherence and sustained political will.

For Sri Lanka, the path forward lies not in resisting international legal scrutiny in the abstract but in addressing, with clarity and confidence, the underlying factors that give rise to it. This requires the development of a domestic accountability framework that is not only legally sound but also visibly functional, inclusive and capable of commanding public trust.

At its core, accountability in a post-conflict society is not solely a matter of legal obligation but one of moral responsibility. The grievances of all affected communities, whether arising from displacement, loss or alleged violations must be acknowledged within a framework that affirms their equal stake in the nation’s future. Ensuring that no community feels marginalized, unheard or alienated is essential not only for reconciliation but for the long term stability and unity of the state. In this regard, justice must be understood not as a concession to external pressure but as an expression of internal strength and constitutional commitment.

At the same time, the preservation of national sovereignty and institutional integrity remains paramount. External mechanisms, while relevant in certain contexts, should not supplant the responsibility of domestic institutions to administer justice. Nor should the accountability discourse be allowed to become a vehicle for renewed division or geopolitical contestation. A balanced approach grounded in law, guided by principle and responsive to lived realities is therefore essential.

Ultimately, the most effective safeguard against both impunity and external overreach lies in the credibility of domestic action. A system that is transparent, impartial and inclusive not only advances justice within Sri Lanka but also reinforces its standing within the international community. In this sense, the pursuit of accountability is not a challenge to sovereignty but a means of strengthening it, ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done by Sri Lanka for all Sri Lankans.

[1] R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) [2000] 1 AC 147 (HL).

[2] Amnesty International, Sri Lanka: Expulsion of Muslims from the North (1990, subsequent reports).

[3] US Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Sri Lanka (1999–2000).

[4] UNICEF, ‘Statement on the Killing of Schoolgirls in Mullaitivu’ (2006).

[5] International Commission of Jurists, ‘Sri Lanka: Concerns on Presidential Pardons and Rule of Law’(2020)

[6] UN, Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda.

[7] Phil Clark, The Gacaca Courts, Post-Genocide Justice and Reconciliation in Rwanda (CUP 2010).

[8] UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, ‘Reports on Violations’ (2022–present).

[9] M Cherif Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law (2nd edn, Brill 2013).