This article surveys recent practice in the application of universal jurisdiction to seek the accountability for crimes committed in another jurisdiction, where the accused is present and the victims are not of the pursuing state's populace. While the principle of universal jurisdiction is well established in customary international law, its application is developing in a piecemeal fashion, with many judges unsure of the scope or power of the principle. Such patchy application and the fact that most seeking jurisdictions are in the 'global north' while the target accused are in the 'south' risks provoking political objections and claims that such actions are illegitimate. There is thus a need for rationalization of practice to avoid accusations of bias and illegitimacy.