Assembly/AU/11 (XIII) Annex II Page 7   I.2 Distinction with other bases of jurisdiction under international law 12. Customary international law permits states to exercise criminal jurisdiction on a variety of other bases. First and foremost, a state may prosecute persons of any nationality who commit crimes of any nature within its territory. This is known as the territoriality principle. A state may also prosecute crimes committed outside its territory in a range of circumstances. It may do so under the nationality (or active personality) principle when the perpetrator of the crime is a national of that state. Alternatively, under the passive personality principle, it may exercise criminal jurisdiction over extraterritorial acts by non-nationals when the victim of the crime is a national of that state, at least in respect of serious offences against the person. Additionally, under what is known as the protective principle, a state may exercise criminal jurisdiction over extraterritorial acts by non-nationals which threaten some vital interest of that state, e.g. counterfeiting the national currency. 13. Under customary international law, these bases of jurisdiction are, like universal jurisdiction, merely permissive: a state is not obliged to assert a jurisdiction granted to it by custom. But the various treaties mentioned above oblige states parties to empower their courts to exercise jurisdiction over the crimes in question on the above, and sometimes further, bases. I.3 No mandatory hierarchy of internationally permissible jurisdictions 14. Positive international law recognises no hierarchy among the various bases of jurisdiction that it permits. In other words, a state which enjoys universal jurisdiction over, for example, crimes against humanity is under no positive legal obligation to accord priority in respect of prosecution to the state within the territory of which the criminal acts occurred or to the state of nationality of the offender or victims. II. APPROACHES TO UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IN THE NATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE OF MEMBER STATES OF THE AU AND EU12 II.1 African Union: Outline of National Law and Practice of Member States regarding Universal Jurisdiction 15. A survey of legislative approaches to universal jurisdiction in the national legislation of Member States of the African Union shows that jurisdiction over serious crimes of international concern is exercised by virtue of customary international law (e.g. Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia and South Africa) and under treaties to which such states are parties (e.g. Botswana, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana and Malawi).                                                              12 The following survey is not intended, and should not be read, as a comprehensive account of the national law and practice of AU and EU Member States in relation to universal jurisdiction. Its purpose is to highlight commonly observed and notable features of this law and practice. It is based on publicly available documentation. Version 31 March 09(FINAL)