Assembly/AU/ 14 (XI) Page 2 5. Jurisdiction is imperative for the protection of rights and interests. However, certain fundamental rights cannot be adequately secured by a few States or through a “framework of bilateral relations” alone. ix To ensure effective protection and enforcement of these international interests a mechanism that would involve the generality of the world community is sought to be achieved through universality. It has been argued that, “international law provides that certain offences may be punished by any State because the offenders are common enemies of all mankind and (as such) all nations have an equal interest in their apprehension and punishment”. x The concept of universal jurisdiction is based on functionality in view of the decentralised nature of the international system; a feature that makes it difficult for the system to enforce its fundamental laws. xi 6. The exercise of jurisdiction by States on grounds of universality of interest has been likened to the principle of actio popularis in Roman Law which gave every member of the public the right to take legal action in defence of public interest, whether or not one was affected. xii 7. Usual notions regarding the nature of universal jurisdiction is that it applies to acts which are so heinous that every State has a legal interest in the enforcement of these acts, largely because they violate obligations owed to the international community as a whole (obligations erga omnes). The term, ‘obligations erga omnes’, which is commonly used with regard to the concept of universal jurisdiction was introduced into mainstream international legal language by the International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain). xiii The Court stated that, “…an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the international community as a whole, and those arising visà-vis another State... By their very nature the former are the concern of all States. In view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection; they are obligations erga omnes.” 8. The Court further gave what it considered to be examples in contemporary international law of acts that attract this type of obligations, and they include acts of aggression, genocide, the basic rights of the human person, including protection from slavery and racial discrimination. xiv However, the fact that an act is in breach of an obligation erga omnes does not mean that universal jurisdiction extends to such an act. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY 9. The controversy surrounding the concept of universal jurisdiction is not whether the concept validly exists as a basis for jurisdiction in international law but rather the scope of its applicability. Universal jurisdiction does not apply to all international crimes, but rather to a very limited category of offences. xv Universal jurisdiction over acts of piracy is well established in international law. The fact that pirates were regarded as Stateless persons coupled with the fact that acts of piracy were committed on the high seas outside the territorial jurisdiction of States would have meant that pirates were completely outside the ambit of the law. That States would have not have had the right to exercise jurisdiction over pirates necessitated a means of asserting some sort of universal jurisdiction over them as common enemies of mankind. 10. .It seems common place in contemporary times and discourse to assume that international crimes like slavery, slave trade, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid, torture, terrorism and hijacking attract universal jurisdiction because of the moral