This article analyses the Dutch practice on the prosecution of international crimes with a view to determining whether this practice has been inspired by or has informed developments at the international level and more generally to analyzing how Dutch practice interrelates with international developments. The article singles out three episodes. First, a prelude of frustration in which the extradition of the German Kaiser was refused (1918-1920). Subsequently, two periods of engagement, which were to some extent inspired by international proceedings (1946-1951 and 1994-today). In these periods, Dutch courts demonstrated their commitment to the project of international criminal justice and they have produced insightful judgments which have even served as a source of law and a source of inspiration to contemporary international criminal law adjudication. The article has been written on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Netherlands Society of International Law.

In the early 1990s, two former members of the Afghan secret service applied for a residence permit in the Netherlands. Their request was denied on the basis of the exclusion clause of Article 1F(a) of the Vienna Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. There were serious reasons for suspecting that the men had committed war crimes during the Afghan civil war of 1979–92. In 2000, the immigration authorities transmitted the files of the two men to the public prosecution office, which initiated prosecutions in 2003. At the trial, defence counsel raised various preliminary challenges. They argued that the case should be declared inadmissible since relying on the immigration files would violate the nemo tenetur principle and the right against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the court had no universal jurisdiction over violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions since there was no international rule mandating a right to universal jurisdiction over war crimes committed in non-international armed conflicts. The Hague District Court dismissed the defence challenges and eventually convicted the Afghan nationals to 9 and 12 years' imprisonment. The Hague Appeal Court endorsed most of the findings of the District Court and confirmed the convictions and sentences. The reasoning underlying the decisions, both at first instance and at appeal, raise questions particularly with regard to universal jurisdiction. In this article the defence arguments are explored and the reasoning of the courts is analysed.