Assembly/AU/ 14 (XI) Page 8 34. The International Court of Justice clearly states that, “the writings of eminent jurists…important and stimulating as they may be, cannot of themselves and without reference to the other sources of international law, evidence the existence of a jurisdictional norm. The assertion that certain treaties and court decisions rely on universal jurisdiction, which in fact they do not, does not evidence an international practice recognized as custom…That there is no established practice in which States exercise universal jurisdiction, properly so called, is undeniable…Virtually all national legislation envisages links of some sort to the forum State; and no case law exists in which pure universal jurisdiction has formed the basis of jurisdiction.” liv EFFECTS 35. The categorisation of an act as an international crime, likewise the designation of a norm as peremptory in international law (jus cogens) lv does not mean that universal jurisdiction is applicable to such acts. Also the existence of an obligation erga omnes regarding the protection of international interest or standard does not mean that States can exercise universal jurisdiction. 36. The fact that universal jurisdiction may exist with regard to a crime does not mean that this disentitles State officials, including Heads of State, from the jurisdictional immunities obtainable in international law. The International Court of Justice sums up the matter by asserting as follows, “It should further be noted that the rules governing the jurisdiction of national courts must be carefully distinguished from those governing jurisdictional immunities: jurisdiction does not imply absence of immunity, while absence of immunity does not imply jurisdiction. Thus, although various international conventions on the prevention and punishment of certain serious crimes impose on States obligations of prosecution or extradition, thereby requiring them to extend their criminal jurisdiction, such extension of jurisdiction in no way affects immunities under customary international law, including those of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. These remain opposable before the courts of a foreign State, even where those courts exercise such a jurisdiction under these conventions.” lvi 37. Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal, in their Joint Separate Opinion in the ICJ decision in the Arrest Warrant Case, upon considerations of the various national legislations and case-law in the United Kingdom, lvii Australia, lviii Austria, lix France, lx Germany, lxi Netherlands lxii and the United States lxiii , observed that though there may have been efforts to adjudicate over extra-territorial crimes, especially war crimes, there has been no clear instance of an assertion of universal jurisdiction where there has been no other jurisdictional link, with the exception of Belgium, as evident in the instance before the Court that there cannot be said to be an established practice of the exercise of universal jurisdiction by States in international law. lxiv 38. Due to political pressure from the United States, the controversial universal jurisdiction legislation of Belgium has been amended. lxv This amendment was done in the aftermath of the International Court of Justice decision in the Arrest Warrant and is in line with the Rome