Introduction and background
The Uyghurs, an ethnic minority residing in northwestern China’s Xinjiang region, have long been subjected to oppression and persecution from the Chinese government. This Muslim Turkic ethnic group comprises around 11 million people, making up 45 percent of the region’s population. Notably, since the United States launched the so-called Global War on Terror, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has taken this justification as a reason to counter alleged separatism, extremism, and terrorism by Muslim minorities in the region (Waller & Albornoz, 2021). These so-called anti-terrorism campaigns by the PRC’s government include the mass internment of people in so-called “vocational education and training centers” aimed at deradicalization and education and claimed to be necessary for preventing violence and maintaining stability. However, human rights organizations and international observers have raised serious concerns about human rights abuses ranging from forced labor to torture and forced sterilization (Kainth, 2023; Raza, 2019).
Furthermore, since Beijing escalated the situation in 2017, leading to the detainment of millions of Uyghurs, there is indication for the fulfillment of criteria qualifying as crimes against humanity or even genocide. Moreover, since the Chinese government considers this an internal issue, the international community is largely kept in the dark regarding this large-scale repression and cultural erasure. This situation makes it even more challenging to obtain information about what is happening in Xinjiang, as Beijing restricts access for visitors and journalists while spreading propaganda that is difficult to distinguish from reliable, verified evidence (Çiçek, 2022).
Moreover, international accountability avenues are quite restricted, and the apprehension of economic and political retaliation from China—stemming from its transnational influence—acts as the primary barrier to a more obvious reaction from the international community. Such a response is urgently necessary to avert further escalation of these atrocities (Stern, 2021).
Nonetheless, the concept of universal jurisdiction could provide a means to hold the perpetrators of these human rights violations accountable. This article will explore potential paths to justice for the Uyghur community, particularly by examining the option of universal jurisdiction, previous attempts of this form of justice in this context, and the political and legal challenges that may arise.
The Uyghur case under international law
2.1 Legal avenues to justice
Credible legal avenues to hold perpetrators in China accountable under domestic law are non-existent due to the fact that this issue is not recognized by the Chinese government, which is itself part of the systematic persecution of Uyghurs. There is also a lack of judicial independence and an immense risk for lawyers and even human rights NGOs to face detention when attempting to file a case. Therefore, international law is the next and only option to achieve justice. However, while legal domestic remedies must usually be fully exhausted before victims can seek justice under international law, in this case, the remedies are clearly inaccessible and pave the way to acquire international law.
The first, most obvious option to hold perpetrators accountable would seem to be the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was established to examine and, when appropriate, prosecute individuals accused of the most serious human rights violations that concern the international community. It is governed by an international treaty known as the Rome Statute, to which countries need to be members in order to grant the ICC jurisdiction over their territory (ICC, 2025). But, since the PRC is not a party to the Rome Statute, to proceed with cases filed against Chinese individuals, like in the case of the Uyghurs, it would need a referral from the United Nations Security Council, which is continuously blocked by the veto of China. While there has been a prior attempt to explore this option in 2019, it failed due to the mentioned lack of jurisdiction over the territory (ICC, 2020).
The International Court of Justice, which could potentially serve as another option for addressing this issue at a state-to-state level, as evidenced by Gambia v. Myanmar regarding the Rohingya genocide, would require China to accept the court’s jurisdiction, which seems highly unlikely. The prospect of another state invoking a case under the Genocide Convention would entail a lengthy and politically contentious process, making it improbable given the significant political leverage that poses a major barrier to legally pursuing these atrocities, as this article will explore later (Waller & Albornoz, 2021).
Additionally, several UN mechanisms have been attempted, including the 2022 resolution, which proposed debating the report by the OHCHR that acknowledged possible crimes against humanity, which did not pass. Moreover, the Chinese influence and alliances in the UN Human Rights Council mainly prevent stronger resolutions, showing that even if crimes are recognized on the UN level, they do not necessarily translate into justice.
Lastly, while various states have sanctioned Chinese individuals and publicly condemned atrocities in the Xinjiang region, they do not replace criminal justice or accountability efforts but signal an international commitment, at least on a political level (Kanat, 2022).
Given the failure of both domestic and international legal bodies to address the crimes against the Uyghur population, universal jurisdiction stands out as one of the last available legal frameworks for seeking accountability, despite facing its own considerable challenges.
2.2 Universal jurisdiction: the way to move forward?
The concept of universal jurisdiction refers to the legal principle in international law that allows nations to prosecute individuals for the most serious crimes, regardless of where those crimes were committed and without regard to the victim’s or perpetrator’s nationality. This principle was initially established to prosecute piracy, gaining greater prominence and widespread application after WWII with the Nuremberg Trials and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, setting the stage for the modern understanding as it is practiced today (Macedo, 2006). While international law recognizes universal jurisdiction, this concept depends on the legislation of the implementing country (UN Secretary General, 2026). However, many countries have already integrated the concept into their domestic laws, empowering national courts to investigate and prosecute crimes that international law cannot cover, as seen in the case of the Uyghurs, due to China’s lack of participation in necessary memberships of courts like the ICC.
As outlined above, other legal ways to hold perpetrators of the crimes committed against Uyghurs in Xinjiang accountable are not feasible, making the concept of universal jurisdiction a promising way forward, as it has already been tried in recent years.
2.3 Past attempts
In 2022, two Uyghur human rights organizations filed a complaint alleging crimes against humanity against the Uyghur community in Argentina under the universal jurisdiction provision as set out in the Argentinian constitution. The complaint was addressed to the Chinese government, accusing it of implementing restrictive and abusive policies like surveillance, movement restrictions, and cultural obliteration that may amount to crimes against humanity, as already acknowledged by the OHCHR.
Initially, the public prosecutor’s office requested the dismissal of the proceeding due to similar criminal processes in Turkey and France, which was first approved, leading to the investigation being closed, but was later overturned by the federal Court of Cassation. Since then, the case has been closed and reopened multiple times. As of November 2024, the Court of Cassation has reopened the case for additional submissions (UHRP, 2024). Nonetheless, the potential of universal jurisdiction, which allowed this issue to be brought forward to a court, also shows its precariousness, highlighting the challenges of achieving international justice despite strong prima facie evidence of international crimes.
Legal and political challenges to justice
3.1 Political barriers
One of the most significant political challenges to justice is China’s claim of sovereignty and its non-cooperation. China’s refusal to cooperate with international investigations and its control of access to the region, evidence, and potential perpetrators constitute a fundamental political barrier. The PRC is an economic superpower on the world stage, which secures economic leverage and retaliation when it comes to engaging critically with any action connected to it. Hence, many states are hesitant to take a clear stance in this matter, which also includes pursuing universal jurisdiction, because they fear economic retaliation, trade disputes, or diplomatic repercussions from Beijing (Waller & Albornoz, 2021).
As a consequence of China’s global economic influence, the PRC also holds substantial influence over international bodies, like the UN, using this to downplay and block actions or ongoing discussions related to the Uyghur human rights situation.
Additionally, and most likely another repercussion of China’s economic power leverage is the lack of political will by the international community. Despite mounting evidence and official announcements from UN bodies like the OHCHR, most governments lack the strong political will to initiate complex, politically sensitive universal jurisdiction cases against Chinese officials, instead preferring to prioritize diplomatic or economic ties (HRW et al., 2021).
Nonetheless, even when the case is brought under universal jurisdiction, a significant challenge persists: obtaining physical custody of the alleged perpetrators, who are unlikely to be surrendered by China. This necessitates their travel to a nation willing to enforce an arrest warrant, which is doubtful due to the aforementioned political barriers.
3.2 Legal challenges
The most noteworthy legal flaws in achieving justice for the Uyghur minority are the gaps and inadequacies in domestic legislation that explicitly define universal jurisdiction. There is no binding legal definition of universal jurisdiction. Still, the concept is rather a form of customary law, as well as mentioned as a required concept in some treaties like the Geneva Convention (1949) or the Convention against Torture (1984) that call for universal jurisdiction if they are breached. Furthermore, even if universal jurisdiction is included in domestic legislation, the crimes may still be subject to statutes of limitations. Additionally, the legal recognition of foreign amnesties and the assertion of official immunities can pose obstacles. While international law is developing to limit immunities for international crimes, its application at the national level can be contentious and open to differing interpretations (Hovell, 2018).
As also evident in the case of Argentina, evidentiary challenges arise when remote investigations are conducted where access to the site of the abuses is difficult, especially when the country involved is not cooperating, like the PRC. This situation complicates the collection of admissible evidence. It encourages the use of leaked documents or academic reports, which may encounter challenges regarding authenticity, chain of custody, and reliability in a national court, and a challenge to meet the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” common in criminal law (Nnawulezi, 2022).
Closely related to China’s global influence, mentioned in the section about political barriers, is the fear of victims and witnesses. These people often live outside the prosecuting state in diaspora communities or even within the state where the crimes were committed. They may be afraid of potential retaliation against themselves or family members still in China, which makes them hesitant to testify or share details. Safeguarding and assisting them presents a considerable legal and logistical challenge (Radan, 2020).
Another challenge lies in the “presence requirement,” meaning that most states demand that the perpetrator be on their soil, which would fundamentally limit the avenues for justice in the case of the Uyghurs. However, Argentina is one of the few states that applies “pure” universal jurisdiction, enabling investigation without the physical presence of the alleged perpetrator, hence making Argentina a rare opportunity to use universal jurisdiction successfully.
Conclusion
Despite missing global public attention, the situation in Xinjiang is dire. The alleged atrocities, which include forced labor, mass internment, and cultural genocide, call for an urgent need for accountability. However, a profound impunity gap remains, reinforced by China’s influence over established international justice systems and unwillingness to cooperate, leaving victims with few avenues to achieve justice.
Consequently, universal jurisdiction, regardless of its complexities, stands out as the only viable legal pathway to achieving justice for the crimes committed against the Uyghur minority that cannot be left with impunity, especially since this is precisely what the concept of universal jurisdiction is meant for: ensuring accountability for the most serious international crimes, no matter where they occur or who is involved.
The concept of universal jurisdiction still faces persistent challenges, including China’s economic and political leverage, non-cooperation, and the resulting lack of political will from other states, which fundamentally impede universal jurisdiction efforts. Moreover, legal challenges include complexities arising from varied domestic universal jurisdiction laws (e.g., the presence requirement in most states vs. Argentina’s “pure” approach), the challenges of remote evidence collection, and the protective measures required for victims and witnesses.
More states should adopt “pure” universal jurisdiction clauses to strengthen universal jurisdiction. It is crucial to establish international collaboration in evidence gathering and witness protection while enhancing political will among states to pursue these cases despite diplomatic pressure. Allocating dedicated resources and expertise that are also aligned within national judicial systems would make universal jurisdiction more effective and would help Uyghurs achieve justice.
The continuation of the case in Argentina would be symbolic and precedent-setting, even if immediate arrests or convictions are unlikely. It would also provide victims with a platform to be heard and to seek justice. It could draw international attention to the issue, showing that regardless of the power and influence of states, they cannot be treated with double standards when it comes to severe breaches of international law and human rights. The cases of universal jurisdiction, despite their lengthy nature, convey an important message: the international community will not remain passive, and accountability, regardless of the obstacles, is an enduring pursuit for both the Uyghur people and justice itself.
Ultimately, the atrocities committed against the Uyghur people constitute not just a humanitarian crisis but also a challenge to the very foundation of international law and human dignity. Considering the systematic nature of these crimes and the Chinese government’s intentional hindrance of conventional accountability processes, the moral and legal obligation to pursue justice is undeniable.
Bibliography:
Brown, R. C. (2023). The EU-China CAI and the Uyghur challenge in the context of China’s domestic law barriers to international labor and human rights standards. American University Business Law Review, 12(2), Article 1. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aublr/vol12/iss2/1
Çiçek, A. (2022). „Political Re-education Camps” in Xinjiang as a part of panopticon-like Society: Clashing Discourses of Western and Chinese Media. Wschodnioznawstwo, (16), 269-298.
Fotopoulou, A. (2021). Exploring avenues for the accountability of China for its treatment of the Uyghurs (Master’s dissertation). National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Law School.
Hovell, D. (2018). The authority of universal jurisdiction. European Journal of International Law, 29(2), 427-456.
Human Rights Watch, & Stanford Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic. (2021, April 19). “Break Their Lineage, Break Their Roots”: China’s crimes against humanity targeting Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims (Report). https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas-crimes-against-humanity-targeting
International Criminal Court. (2020). Report on preliminary examination activities 2020 [Press release]. The Hague: Office of the Prosecutor. Retrieved June 16, 2025, from https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/report-preliminary-examination-activities-2020
International Criminal Court. (n.d.). International Criminal Court – official website. Retrieved June 16, 2025, from https://www.icc-cpi.int/
Kainth, J. (2023). The Global Impact of War on Terror”: The Case of the People’s Republic of China and Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (Doctoral dissertation, Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa).
Kanat, O. (2022). The Uyghur Genocide and International Policy Response. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 28, 1-15.
Macedo, S. (Ed.). (2006). Universal jurisdiction: national courts and the prosecution of serious crimes under international law. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Nnawulezi, U., Nwaechefu, H., & Magashi, S. B. (2022). Addressing the Principle and Challenges of Enforcement and Prosecution under Universal Jurisdiction: Charting New Pathways for International Justice. Indonesian J. Int’l L., 20, 263.
Raza, Z. (2019). China’s ‘political re-education’camps of Xinjiang’s Uyghur Muslims. Asian Affairs, 50(4), 488-501.
Stern, J. (2021). Genocide in China: Uighur re-education camps and international response. Immigration and Human Rights Law Review, 3(1), 1-33.
United Nations Secretary‑General. (2016). The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction (Report A/71/111). United Nations General Assembly. Retrieved June 17, 2025, from https://docs.un.org/en/A/71/111
Uyghur Human Rights Project. (2024, July 12). Landmark decision: Argentina Court of Cassation reverses judge’s decision not to open Uyghur case for crimes against humanity and genocide [Press release].
Waller, J., & Albornoz, M. S. (2021). Crime and no punishment? China’s abuses against the Uyghurs. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 22(1), 100-111.
Wan, C. (2020). The Persecution of the Uyghurs and Potential International Crimes in China. Just Security.
