Assembly/AU/ 14 (XI) Page 10 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 42. The concept of universal jurisdiction is yet to be substantively deliberated upon by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The involvement of the Assembly in international rule-making through multilateral conventions, which incorporate what has been referred to as treaty-based universal jurisdiction, under the auspices of the United Nations cannot be considered to be involvement in the development of the concept in international law. This is because the issue of jurisdiction has been ancillary in international conventions and the socalled treaty-based universal jurisdiction has been shown earlier in this report) to be contractual expansion of jurisdiction by the contracting States beyond territoriality and nationality to include the international law principle of aut dedere,aut judicare/punire (extradite or punish). 43. There is discernible practice of the General Assembly to expand jurisdiction of contracting States in international conventions to include the principle of aut dedere, aut judicare over certain international crimes. This practice is evident in the Genocide Convention adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948, Apartheid Convention adopted by General Assembly Resolution 3068 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973, Torture Convention adopted by General Assembly Resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984, Hostages Convention adopted by General Assembly Resolution 34/146 of 17 December 1979, Convention on Internationally Protected Persons adopted by General Assembly Resolution 3166 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, and the Convention on Suppression of Terrorism Financing which was adopted by General Assembly Resolution 54/109 of 9 December 1999. 44. In Resolution 95 (1) of 11 December 1946, the Assembly affirmed the Principles of International Law Recognised by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal. The Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal did not contain any provision ascribing universal jurisdiction to the Tribunal established under the Charter and neither did the proceedings under the Charter rely on universal jurisdiction. Based on this, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 95 (1) of 11 December 1946 cannot affirm what was not established under the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal. 45. It has been argued that the Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction and supporting materials “have been translated into five languages and distributed as a document of the General Assembly of the United Nations.” lxviii However, the Princeton Principles are merely guiding general principles compiled by some academics and jurists which, though may be relied upon by the General Assembly, did not originate from the General Assembly or indeed any body of the United Nations organisation. THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 46. The issue of universal jurisdiction has come before the International Court of Justice only once, in the Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (The Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium). lxix In that case, the Democratic Republic of Congo challenged the legality of an international arrest warrant issued by a Belgian court for the arrest of Mr Yerodia Ndombasi, the former Foreign Affairs Minister of the Republic of Congo, for crimes against humanity. Belgium had asserted universal jurisdiction based on a Law of 1993, as amended by the Law of 1999 ‘Concerning the Punishment of Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law’.