Question 1: Explain and elaborate on the principle of universal jurisdiction. A.

GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION The principle of universal jurisdiction is defined as a legal principle allowing or requiring a state to bring criminal proceedings in respect of certain crimes irrespective of the location of the crime and the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim.1 It is said to derogate from the ordinary rules of criminal jurisdiction requiring a territorial or personal link with the crime, the perpetrator or the victim.2 The Princeton Principles of Universal Jurisdiction is the leading authority and progressive restatement of international law on the subject of Universal Jurisdiction3. Scholars and jurists who represented a diversity of view on the legal systems, united on one ground, to promote greater legal accountability for those who committed serious crimes that against the international law. 4 The 14 principles laid out by the Princeton Project committee are intended to be useful to legislators seeking to ensure that national laws conform to international law, upon interpretation, applying and exercising it to certain extend.5 The list of crimes which are subjected to universal jurisdiction is stated in Principle 2 under Paragraph 1.6 Principle 3 states that Universal Jurisdiction is a tool

Kenneth C. Randall, Universal jurisdiction under international law, Texas Law Review, No. 66 (1988), pp. 7858; International Law Association Committee on International Human Rights Law and Practice, Final Report on the Exercise of universal jurisdiction in respect of gross human rights offences, 2000, p. 2. 2 Philippe, X. (2006). Definitions of The Principles of Universal Jurisdiction and Complementarity . The Principles of Universal Jurisdiction and Complementarity: How Do The Two Principles Intermesh? , 377-379.
3

Commentary on the Princeton Project. (2001). The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction , 39-41. 4 Ibid
5 6

Ibid Principle 2 Serious Crimes Under International Law

for states to reliance when there is lacunae in their national legislation for crimes that was committed under Principle 2 of the Princeton Project. Principle 4 states that the international obligation to prosecute or convict a person or persons that committed crime that was fundamental to the international relation. Principle 5 to 7 strictly states on immunities, statutes of limitation and amnesties. These principles help to elaborate the usage of Universal Jurisdiction on the accused. Principle 8 is on the resolution if any of the National Jurisdiction contradicts with the Universal Jurisdiction. This is also when there is more than one state that tried to convict a person for the same crime that he did. The resolutions are being state in Paragraph (a) to (i).7 Double Jeopardy or in Latin it is called Non Bis In Idem is the 9th Principle. In this principle, it was stated that an accused person cant be convicted under multiple prosecutions. This is to ensure justice is preserve.

1. For purposes of these Principles, serious crimes under international law include: (1) piracy; (2) slavery; (3) war crimes; (4) crimes against peace; (5) crimes against humanity; (6) genocide; and (7) torture. 7 Principle 8 Resolution of Competing National Jurisdictions Where more than one state has or may assert jurisdiction over a person and where the state that has custody of the person has no basis for jurisdiction other than the principle of universality, that state or its judicial organs shall, in deciding whether to prosecute or extradite, base their decision on an aggregate balance of the following criteria: (a) multilateral or bilateral treaty obligations; (b) the place of commission of the crime; (c) the nationality connection of the alleged perpetrator to the requesting state; (d) the nationality connection of the victim to the requesting state; (e) any other connection between the requesting state and the alleged perpetrator, the crime, or the victim; (f) the likelihood, good faith, and effectiveness of the prosecution in the requesting state; (g) the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings in the requesting state; (h) convenience to the parties and witnesses, as well as the availability of evidence in the requesting state; and (i) The interests of justice.

The 10th Principle in the Princeton Project is the grounds of refusal of extradition. If the accused in a certain case was been held punish by death, he can seek or request for extradition based on Universal Jurisdiction. The adoption of National Legislation and inclusion of Universal Jurisdiction in future treaties were mention in Principle 11 and 12 respectively. This is to ensure the full and complete usage and application of Universal Jurisdiction by every state in the world. The 13th Principle is strengthening accountability and Universal Jurisdiction. In this principle, it stated that National Judicial organs shall construct or enact law (national law) in a manner that is consistent with the Principles. It also states that this Principle is not to limit the rights and obligations of a state to prevent or punish anything committed against International law and also shall not be construed as limiting the development of Universal Jurisdiction in International Law. The last principle, Principle 14 is on settlement of disputes. States should settle their disputes arising out of the exercise of Universal Jurisdiction by all means, consistent with the International Law and the Charter of the United Nations. A state which seeks to exercise Universal Jurisdiction shall not detain the accused person nor seek to have that person detained by another state, unless it can cause more harm. B. DEBATE OVER UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION Universal Jurisdiction itself is a controversial doctrine. The debates in the UNGA since 2009 on universal jurisdiction reveal great confusion on its concept, scope and application. To date there is a theoretical basis and standing treaty obligations to facilitate a real treatment of this issue although with considerable
3

dissent. International treaties developed to facilitate Universal Jurisdiction are Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and others. A distinguished Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Henry Kissinger has written a refutation of the current equilibrium of the case for Universal Jurisdiction. Kissinger argues that the trajectory of United Nations Conventions does not support Universal Jurisdiction. His focal point is the case ex parte: Pinochet.8 His argument elaborates a common ground concept with Universalists that heinous acts should be prosecuted. This consolidation of law and instinct to punish must however be connected to a democratic political structure, a system of checks and balances, and other elements conducive to the survival of democracy. Kissinger further argues that a dangerous precedent is set by the interpretation of political history that is not favourable to ones own in this case the European Left. His position is best left to his own words (Kissinger 2001): The unprecedented and sweeping interpretation of international law in Ex parte: Pinochet would arm any magistrate anywhere in the world with the power to demand extradition, substituting the magistrate's own judgment for the reconciliation procedures of even incontestably democratic societies where alleged violations of human rights may have occurred. It would also subject the accused to the criminal procedures of the magistrate's country, with a legal system that may be unfamiliar to

[1999] 2 ALL ER 97 (HL).

the defendant and that would force the defendant to bring evidence and witnesses from long distances. Kenneth Roth is the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch who has directly rebutted Kissingers paper. Roths position emphasis is that Tyrants commit atrocities as genocide to calculate creating a culture of impunity of which domestic courts uphold. Roth states that international courts are emerging from this pattern. Roth rebuts Kissinger with mostly abstraction and follows with particular instances (Roth 2001): In "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction" (July/August 2001), former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger catalogues a list of grievances against the juridical concept that people who commit the most severe human rights crimes can be tried wherever they are found. But his objections are misplaced, and the alternative he proposes is little better than a return to impunity. Both debaters argue only modern positive documents regarding Universal Jurisdiction. Kissinger posits that he does not believe that the signatories of early treaties as the Geneva Conventions of 1949 require each participating state to "search for" persons who have committed grave breaches of the conventions and to "bring such persons, regardless of nationality, before its own courts." (Roth 2001). Roth cites that Kissinger bases his critique on two points: the soon-to-beformed International Criminal Court and the exercise of universal jurisdiction by national courts. Kissingers claim that the ICC treaty are vague and susceptible to political application. Roth counters that the ICCs definition of war crimes resembles the Pentagons and is derived from the Genocide Convention of 1948 ratified by 131 countries and the United States.
5

The principle of universal jurisdiction has been and continues to be, an important tool and essential means for achieving justice for international crimes. Unfortunately, has also become a political device employed for far more cynical means and far less noble purposes. Given these concerns, we would wise to adhere to the caveat of Henry Kissinger : Historically the dictatorship of the virtuous had often led to inquisitions and also witch-hunt,9 and therefore, any universal system should contain procedures not only to punish the wicked but also to constrain the righteous. It must not allow legal principles to be used as weapons to settle political scores. C. POSITION OF SOME COUNTRIES CONCERNING UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION The United Kingdom (UK) The United Kingdom (UK) has universal jurisdiction over a number of serious offences such as terrorism10, war crimes and torture. It means that a person accused of committing these crimes in another country can be brought to justice in the UK courts. Under UK law, anyone can apply to the courts for an arrest warrant to ensure those guilty of these crimes abroad face justice here. However, the UK Parliament on 15 September 2011 approved the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, making it more difficult for ordinary citizens to obtain arrest warrants for suspected war criminals present in the UK. It removes the exclusive power of granting arrest warrants from local magistrates, requiring that all such warrants receive approval from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The amendment is seen as a move by the UK government to improve relations with

Kissinger, H. (2001). The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction.Retrieved December 2, 2012 from http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2001/07kiss.htm. 10 s.59, 62-63 of the Terrorism Act 2000

foreign countries such as China and Israel, after several government officials were forced to cancel trips to the UK out of fears of being arrested. The Bill states: Where a person who is not a public prosecutor lays an information before a justice of the peace in respect of an offense to which this subsection applies, no warrant shall be issued under this section without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. ... The change of law will ensure that the system is no longer open to abuse by people seeking warrants for grave crimes on the basis of scant evidence to make a political statement or to cause embarrassment. The United States The United States has been reluctant to grant its courts universal jurisdiction over international crimes. For example, US courts have jurisdiction over genocide only where the crime is committed on US territory or by a US national11. US courts have no jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, because the crime as such is not covered by the US criminal code. They do have universal jurisdiction over torture, but this is because the United States was obligated as a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to grant its courts universal jurisdiction over the crime12. Most significantly, US courts do not have universal jurisdiction over war crime. For them to have universal jurisdiction, either the victim or the perpetrator must be a US national 13 . This limited approach to war crimes, it should be noted, is incompatible with the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the Law of Armed Conflict, which designate certain grave breaches of the conventions as universal and extraditable offences within the criminal jurisdiction of each state party and require states parties
11 12

See 18 USC s.1091(d) (2000) See 18 USC s.2340 (2000) 13 See 18 USC s.5441 (b) (2000)

to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grace breaches defined therein 14. However the Alien Tort Claim Act provides US courts with jurisdiction to seek civil damages for specific crimes, such as human rights violations, committed anywhere in the world. Malaysia In a statement by the representative of Malaysia on the scope and the application of the principles of universal jurisdiction 15 , it was stated that we in Malaysia take that the most common definitional approach to the concept of universal jurisdiction is according to what crimes it applies to. It is generally accepted that the crimes covered by universal jurisdiction are crimes that affects international safety and security, and especially those of heinous nature. These crimes are namely genocide, torture, war crimes and piracy. The statement also touched on the issue of whether the basis for the wider application of universal jurisdiction is already founded in existing treaties or also under customary international law. In this regard, Malaysia reiterates that it is misleading to proclaim that universal jurisdiction is established by treaty without express language thereon except in a few cases. These cases are as the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Convention against Genocide, the Convention against Torture and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In cases such as drug trafficking, where the stand of States differ from one another it impossible to fully absorb the offence as one where universal jurisdiction applies to. It may only fall under the scope of universal jurisdiction is if first, states adopt an additional protocol
14

See, e.g., Art. 49 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the field, Aug. 12, 1949, TIAS No. 3362 15 Farhani Aahmad Tajuddin. (2011, OCTOBER).Agenda item 84: The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. Statement delivered at the sixth committee of the 66th session of the united nations general assembly, New York, NY.

to the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances which clearly establishing universal jurisdiction for drug trafficking and thereby filling jurisdictional gaps in existing treaty law and second, states, and the United States in particular, amend their municipal legislation on drug trafficking to reflect an acceptance of universal jurisdiction. These two actions, if undertaken by a sufficient number of states, will create universal jurisdiction over drug trafficking as a matter of customary international law.16 Malaysia also stands by the clear differentiation of the principle of aut dedere aut judicare with the principles of Universal Jurisdiction.17 The principle of aut dedere aut judicare under the relevant international criminal treaties operates as a treaty obligation for State Parties that necessitates a State Party where an offender is found to either prosecute or extradite him.18This,thus, flows from the earlier obligation in the said treaty for the State Party to criminalize the treaty offences and the establishment of such jurisdiction over it originates from said treatys prescription. Malaysias stand on the principle of aut dedere aut judicare is that it does not personally establish universal jurisdiction for a particular treaty-based offence nor does it include theprovisionfor domestic extradition legislation or bilateral extradition treaties.19 However, despite careful approach towards the principle of universal jurisdiction by Malaysia, as clearly seen above, there have been applications of the principle, although not governmentally, through Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC), a Malaysian organisation established in 2007 by Mahathir Mohamadaimed to investigate war crimes. The KLWCC was initiated as an
16

Geraghty, A. H. (2003). Universal jurisdiction and drug trafficking: A tool for fighting one of the world's most pervasive problems. bePress Legal Series, (55), Retrieved from http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=expresso 17 Ibid at 1 18 Enache-Brown, C., & Fried, A. (1998). Universal crime, jurisdiction and duty: The obligation of autdedereautjudicare in international law. McGill law journal, 43, 622. Retrieved from http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/documents/43.BrownFried.pdf 19 Ibid at 1.

alternative to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which has been accused of biasness in the cases it chooses to handle 20 and holding perpetrators of war crimes account to their actions where relevant international judicial organs fail to do so.21 The tribunal, however, has been under fire due to its lack of legality. Among the most prominent voice in this comes from Param Cumaraswamy, a former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers who claimed that tribunal carries no legal authority, is not backed by any government and has limited ability to gather evidence or compel accused persons to appear and questioned how the tribunal would apply fair trial principles if accused war criminals did not appear before it.22 D. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION The International Criminal Court (abbreviated as ICC) is a tribunal set up in 2002 to trial any individuals who have committed international criminal offence. Its founding treaty, namely the Rome Statute was signed by 137 parties and 121 countries have ratified it 23 . In order to study the relationship between ICC and universal jurisdiction, we must first examine the provisions in the Rome Statute. Article 4 for the Rome Statute, which outlines the powers and legal status of the court, says that,

20 21

Swanson, D. (2011, OCT 21). Bush and blair to be tried for war crimes. The Philosophers Stone UK http://criminalisewar.org/the-foundation/aim-of-the-tribunal/ 22 Mahathir's war crimes tribunal under fire.(2011, FEB 13).AFP. Retrieved from http://www.brussellstribunal.org/KL.htm 23 United Nations Treaty Collection. (2012). Retrieved December 2, 2012, from http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII10&chapter=18&lang=en

10

The Court may exercise its functions and powers as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State. This clearly shows that the Rome Statute, of the jurisdiction of ICC is only binding on States which are party to the Statute and no others. Special agreement is required to exercise its jurisdiction on non-party State. This stand is emphasized again in Article 12, saying that one of the pre-conditions to exercise its jurisdiction is that the State must be a party to the Statute and has accepted ICCs jurisdiction. From here, we can observe that the ICCs power is more limited compared to that of a domestic court in the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, as a state needs to subject itself first to ICC before a case can be brought to such platform. While ICC is based on multilateral action of an international institution by which authority has been delegated by States to enforce international law, universal jurisdiction allows the domestic court to trial offences unilaterally. Article 5 of Rome Statute listed out the type of crimes which can be heard in ICC, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. It is obvious that as compared to universal jurisdiction, the ICC is also limited in aspect of crimes that can be prosecuted by it. It does not cover other major international offences such as piracy and manifestation to terrorism, which are exclusively subject to universal jurisdiction24. Moreover, under universal jurisdiction, the four types of crimes listed above can also be trial in domestic court, which means that both systems jurisdiction is overlapping to certain extent.
24

Bottini, G. (2004). Universal Jurisdiction after the Creation of International Criminal Court. In International Law and Politics, vol 36, p503 p562.

11

Therefore, debate has been raised on whether ICC and universal jurisdiction can coexist in a harmonious way to administer justice on international plane. One of the views suggested that the international community should eliminate universal jurisdiction in favour of the ICC25. It is alleged that ICC is a better platform to hear international criminal cases than universal jurisdiction, as ICC possesses a single and uniform standards of rule for the application of jurisdiction26. This strikes at the weakness of universal jurisdiction which has no uniformity among states in terms of crimes and circumstances to exercise their jurisdiction. Moreover, ICC is an independent body which is free from any political interest or considerations. 27 ICC is also considered to be more specialized in dealing with international crimes due to its resources, expertise and international support. Article 17 (1) (a) of Rome Statute forbids ICC from hearing a case which is being investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it. Thus, the continuing recognition of universal jurisdiction may obstruct the normal functioning of ICC, as some states, perhaps in bad faith, is free to invoke jurisdiction over the case and make it inadmissible to ICC. By then, the function of ICC will be jeopardized. Another school of thought proposed that universal jurisdiction and ICC are complementary to each other and therefore can co-exist harmoniously 28 . The creation of ICC does not eliminate the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. Practically, it will be impossible or inefficient to depend solely on ICC to prosecute international crimes, not only because such crimes are happening at a high frequency, but also because their commission were participated by a large number of individuals
25 26

supra note 2, p545. Khojasteh, A. (2007). Questions and Answers on the ICC and Universal Jurisdiction. Retrieved December 2, 2012, from http://www.amicc.org/docs/Universal%20Jurisdiction%20Q&A.pdf 27 ibid, p3. 28 Strapatsas, N. (2002). Universal Jurisdiction and the International Criminal Court. In Manitoba Law Journal, 1. p28 - p31.

12

resulting in multiplicity of victims. 29 This is when domestic courts and universal jurisdiction plays their role. Ultimately, ICC may be seen as a motivation to all the domestic courts around the world by encouraging or pressuring them to prosecute international criminals. For example, Libya has been placed under pressure to conduct a bona fide prosecution on Lockerbie bombing30. Therefore, there is still a need for universal jurisdiction although ICC has been established.

29 30

Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Eight Session. (1996). p29. Charney, J.I. (2001). International Criminal Law and the Role of Domestic Courts. In The American Journal of International Law, 95(1). p120-124.

13

Question 2: Justify whether acts that directly insult another religion) should or should not qualify as a universal crime. In doing so, use current issues / world events.

The American video Innocence of Muslims, publication of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad or indeed any other acts of insult and provocation have already raised the attention among the leaders of the world especially in Muslim countries. Leaders from Muslim countries are condemning such actions which create an insult against the faith of over 1.5 billion Muslims.

However, should the insults of religion be taken a universal crime so that every country will have universal jurisdiction to take action? Some may argue that it is inappropriate to do so because religious insult is a crime which its nature is totally different from other existing universal crime. Genocide, slavery, war crimes, torture and other universal crime involve bodily injury or damage in property so grave and severe that they can be viewed as hostis humani generis (enemy to all mankind). On the other hand, religious insults are at most a violation of freedom of speech and expression. It is yet to qualify itself to be at the same level of damage done by existing universal crime. Some also argued that religious insults can be very trivial and it will be ridiculous to put them under the list of universal crime. The act of throwing a pigs head in local mosque will be actionable by foreign court such as the English Court!

However, we are of the opinion that religious insults should be included as a universal crime if they have caused serious harm to the international society. A run through the major written laws concerning the areas of universal jurisdiction reveals that religious insults are indeed given serious consideration, but only when they fall
14

within the well-established heinous crime liable under the jurisdiction31. In Article VI of the Nuremberg Charter, the courts have jurisdiction over ...persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. The Hague Convention 1907 also provided that persons may be prosecuted for seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works or art and science. It is true that in the Princeton Principle of Universal Jurisdiction under 2 nd principle where the serious crime does not include crimes related to religious insults. 32 Nevertheless, we do not think that it justifies the exclusion of religious insults from universal crimes. We have to acknowledge that the right to freedom of religion is perhaps the oldest human right recognized internationally. 33 So to emphasize its importance, UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief in its preamble Declaration states that religion or belief for everyone who professes either, is one of the fundamental elements in his conception of life and that freedom of religion or belief should be fully respected and guaranteed.
34

Nevertheless, religious insult, discrimination and intolerance have been seen since the beginning of human existence.35 Especially in this era of globalization, such act can wreak havoc across a countrys border and ignite anger among the believers
31 32

http://pchrgaza.org/files/Reports/English/pdf_spec/PCHR-UJ-BOOK.pdf The Princeton Principles. (2001). The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction , 28-36.

33

Karatnycky, A. (1998, May). Religious Freedom and Democracy as Fundamental Human Rights . Retrieved December 2012, from International Coalition fo Religious Freedom: http://www.religiousfreedom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=324&Itemid=57
34

Yamali, N. (n.d.). Religious Intolerance and The Incitement of Hatred. 10-12.

35

K. Boyle, Religious Intolerance and the Incitement of Hatred in S. Coliver, Striking a Balance: Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-discrimination, (Article 19, International Center Against Censorship, Human Rights center, University of Essex 1992) 61

15

from all over the world. To treat religious insults as a universal crime is a recognition of the importance of religious believe in humanity and any harm towards it shall be actionable under universal jurisdiction to curb the growing trending of such cases all around the world. Besides, religious insult should not be underestimated just because it will not cause direct and grave harm to human life like the other existing universal crime. Take for example Quran Burning controversy 2010 in United States. Terry Jones, pastor of a church in Florida held a "trial of the Quran" and subsequently finding the scriptures guilty of "crimes against humanity," he burned it in the church sanctuary. 36 Protesters in the northern Afghanistan city of Mazar-i-Sharif and elsewhere attacked the United Nations Assistance Mission, killing at least 30 people, including at least seven United Nations workers, and injuring at least 150 people37. Jones disclaimed any responsibility. Norwegian, Swedish, Nepalese and Romanian nationals were among the UN workers killed. Another incident touching on the triviality vs grave consequence of religious insult is the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy which are some 12 editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship. Muslim groups in Denmark complained and the
36

Gainesville's Dove World Outreach Center denied it is responsible for violence in Afghanistan over its burning of the Quran, Gainesville.com (2011, APRIL 11). Retrieved from http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110401/ARTICLES/110409944/1169?Title=Dove-World-denies-its-responsible-for-violence-over-Quran-burning on 18 December 2012
37

'Hold islam accountable': U.S. pastor defiant after his koran-burning publicity stunt led to two un staff being beheaded and five others murdered. (2011, APRIL 12). Daily Mail UK. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372442/Pastor-Terry-Jones-defiant-Koran-burning-led-2-UNstaff-beheaded.html on 18 December 2012

16

issue eventually led to protests in many countries around the world, including some violent demonstrations and riots in some Islamic countries resulting in a total of more than 200 reported deaths, attacks on a number of Danish and other European diplomatic missions, attacks on churches and Christians, and a major international boycott.38 All the examples and past cases of religious insults proved that it can incite further violence and are capable of inflicting damage as severe as any other universal crime. Due to its sensitivity and the failure to settle the issue in a rational way, religious insults can lead to a complete chaos in the international plane. By subjecting it under universal jurisdiction, a warning will be created against potential future offenders and thereby lower their tendency to make such publications. As for the concern that including religious insult to the list of universal crime may allow trivial matters to be actionable worldwide, we think that it is only an imaginary scenario and have only little significance in reality. Every country has limited source of judiciary, and no court will be happy to waste their time in hearing a trivial case on religious insult happening in another country faraway. Therefore legislation or common law decision may be made to prevent such meaningless suit and is not a major concern. Therefore, we strongly agree that religious insult should be included as a universal crime and be subjected to universal jurisdiction. BIBLIOGRAPHY

38

Henkel, Heiko (September 2010)."Fundamentally Danish?The Muhammad Cartoon Crisis as Transitional Drama". HUMAN ARCHITECTURE: JOURNAL OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF SELFKNOWLEDGE. 2 VIII. Retrieved from http://www.okcir.com/Articles%20VIII%202/Henkel-FM.pdf on 19 December 2012.

17

'Hold islam accountable': U.S. pastor defiant after his koran-burning publicity stunt led to two un staff being beheaded and five others murdered. (2011, APRIL 12). Daily Mail UK. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1372442/Pastor-Terry-Jones-defiant-Koran-burning-led-2-UN-staffbeheaded.html on 18 December 2012 Bottini, G. (2004). Universal Jurisdiction after the Creation of International Criminal Court. In International Law and Politics, vol 36, p503 p562. Charney, J.I. (2001). International Criminal Law and the Role of Domestic Courts. In The American Journal of International Law, 95(1). p120-124. Commentary on the Princeton Project. (2001). The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction. pp 39-41. Enache-Brown, C., & Fried, A. (1998). Universal Crime, Jurisdiction and Duty: The Obligation of aut dedere aut judicare In International Law. In McGill law journal, vol 43, pg 622. Geraghty, A. H. (2003). Universal jurisdiction and drug trafficking: A tool for fighting one of the world's most pervasive problems. bePress Legal Series. pp 55. Farhani Aahmad Tajuddin. (2011, OCTOBER). Agenda item 84: The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. Statement delivered at the sixth committee of the 66th session of the united nations general assembly, New York, NY. Gainesville's Dove World Outreach Center denied it is responsible for violence in Afghanistan over its burning of the Quran, Gainesville.com (2011, APRIL 11). Retrieved from http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110401/ARTICLES/110409944/1169?Titl

18

e=Dove-World-denies-it-s-responsible-for-violence-over-Quran-burning on 18 December 2012 Henkel, Heiko (2010)."Fundamentally Danish?The Muhammad Cartoon Crisis as Transitional Drama". HUMAN ARCHITECTURE: JOURNAL OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE. 2 VIII. International Law Association Committee on International Human Rights Law and Practice. (2000). Final Report on the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction In Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences. pp 2. K. Boyle, Religious Intolerance and the Incitement of Hatred in S. Coliver, Striking a Balance: Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-discrimination, (Article 19, International Center Against Censorship, Human Rights center, University of Essex 1992) 61 Karatnycky, A. (1998, May). Religious Freedom and Democracy as Fundamental Human Rights. Retrieved December 2012, from International Coalition fo Religious Freedom. Kenneth C. Randall. (1988). Universal Jurisdiction Under International Law. In Texas Law Review, No. 66, pp. 785788 Khojasteh, A. (2007). Questions and Answers on the ICC and Universal Jurisdiction. Retrieved December 2, 2012, from http://www.amicc.org/docs/Universal%20Jurisdiction%20Q&A.pdf

Kissinger, H. (2001). The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction. Retrieved December 2, 2012 from http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2001/07kiss.htm. Mahathir's war crimes tribunal under fire.(2011, FEB 13).AFP. Retrieved from http://www.brussellstribunal.org/KL.htm

19

Philippe, X. (2006). Definitions of The Principles of Universal Jurisdiction and Complementarity. The Principles of Universal Jurisdiction and Complementarity: How Do The Two Principles Intermesh? , pp 377-379. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Eight Session. (1996). p29. Strapatsas, N. (2002). Universal Jurisdiction and the International Criminal Court. In Manitoba Law Journal, 1. p28 - p31. Swanson, D. Bush and blair to be tried for war crimes. The Philosophers Stone UK. The Princeton Principles. (2001). The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction , 28-36. Yamali, N. (n.d.). Religious Intolerance and The Incitement of Hatred. pp 10-12.

20