Where does universal jurisdiction apply in refugee cases?

[Mia95]

I'm architecting a new mobile application and struggling to choose a state management solution. The app will have complex state needs: user authentication, real-time data updates, offline support, and complex UI state.

I've researched the main options:
1. **Redux** (with Redux Toolkit) - predictable but verbose
2. **React Context** - built-in but can cause performance issues
3. **MobX** - reactive but less predictable
4. **Zustand** - simpler but newer/less battle-tested

Here's what I'm trying to manage:
```javascript
// Example of complex state
const appState = {
user: {
isAuthenticated: false,
profile: null,
preferences: {},
},
data: {
items: [],
loading: false,
error: null,
lastUpdated: null,
},
ui: {
currentScreen: 'home',
modalOpen: false,
theme: 'light',
},
offline: {
queue: [],
isOnline: true,
syncInProgress: false,
}
};
```

My mobile app development help questions:
1. Which state management solution scales best with complex applications?
2. How do different solutions handle performance with frequent state updates?
3. What are the debugging experiences like for each option?
4. Which has the best developer tooling and community support in 2025?

I'm looking for practical experiences rather than theoretical comparisons. This is one of those software development questions where the "right" answer depends on specific needs and team experience.

If anyone has migrated between state management solutions or has experience maintaining large mobile apps with complex state, I'd love to hear about your experiences and any coding errors and fixes you encountered during implementation.

[Alexander.W]

I’ve been volunteering with a local group that supports refugees, and I keep hearing the term “universal jurisdiction” come up in our discussions about accountability for serious crimes. It sounds powerful in theory, but honestly, I’m wrestling with how it actually works in practice when political realities get in the way. Does anyone else feel caught between the ideal of justice and the messy way the world operates?

[Jack_R]

I hear you when you say universal jurisdiction sounds powerful, and the politics around it can make it feel distant from the people it is meant to help.

[Brian_M]

From a legal view universal jurisdiction is a tool that lets a state act for certain crimes even if they happened elsewhere, but its use depends on treaties and political appetite.

[Justin.T]

I used to think universal jurisdiction meant you could sue anyone for any crime anywhere, but in reality it covers grave offenses and requires political and judicial permission.

[Brian.R]

The idea of universal jurisdiction feels hollow when powerful actors shield allies or dodge scrutiny, so the promise outpaces the reality.

[NathanL]

Maybe the question is not only about charges but about building accountability cultures that survive power shifts, and universal jurisdiction becomes one tool in a broader effort.

[Aubrey27]

I worry about the victims who wait years, you know, the human cost meets the legal grind of universal jurisdiction.

[Zachary.J]

Do you think local groups can influence how universal jurisdiction is used or is it always a state led process?