Assembly/AU/ 14 (XI) Page 5 146 of the first, xxxi second, xxxii third xxxiii and fourth xxxiv of The Geneva Conventions 1949, provide that, “Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed...grave breaches and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.” 19. It is easily assumed that there is universal jurisdiction for war crimes. A leading expert on war crimes and international criminal law writes that there are no specific provisions within the Conventions for universal jurisdiction, but that it is implicit in the penal duty to enforce the grave breaches of the Convention that Parties exercise universal jurisdiction under their national laws. xxxv He posits that universal jurisdiction over war crimes is fuelled by the writings of academics and experts, rather than the Conventions. The Conventions require States to pass domestic legislation to facilitate jurisdiction, but unfortunately many States are yet to do this. The Conventions hold pride of place as multilateral international agreements because of the near universality of participation of States who have ratified the Conventions. Universality in the scope of Conventions does not automatically mean that the Convention provides for universal jurisdiction, however if the near universal ratification of the Conventions is backed by the enactment of national legislations in States as required, then it becomes difficult to argue against universal jurisdiction for war crimes. 20. With regards to hijacking of aircrafts, the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft 1963 is clear in its provisions. The Convention does not provide for universal jurisdiction but rather it provides for jurisdiction on grounds of registration of the aircraft. In the absence of registration jurisdiction can then be founded on effects in territory, nationality or residence of affected persons, violation of security of the State or violation of its laws and obligations under any multilateral international agreement.xxxvi Both the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft 1970 and the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 extend the grounds of jurisdiction contained within the Conventions and provide that, “The Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.” xxxvii 21. The provisions of the Montreal and Hague Conventions seem to embody universal jurisdiction, however Judge Higgins strongly refutes this arguing that, “..[I]t is still not really universal jurisdiction stricto sensu, because in any given case only a small number of contracting States would be able to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of Articles 2, 4, and 7. All that is ‘universal’ is the requirement that all States parties do whatever is necessary to be able to exercise jurisdiction should the relatively limited bases of jurisdiction arise in the circumstances. Contrary to the views sometimes expressed elsewhere, this is not treaty-based universal jurisdiction (and so the question of such treaty basis ‘passing into’ general international law does not arise.” xxxviii