CYIL Vol. 4, 2013

UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: A TOOL AGAINST IMPUNITY for example, includes a prohibition on “methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment ” [emphasis added]. Nonetheless, the geographic spread of some harm caused to the environment might encourage impunity, as it may be quite unclear and difficult to identify who should be responsible for prosecutions. Most recently there has been speculation on whether disclosure and revelation of highly classified state documents that endanger the security of nations might constitute core international crimes. Examples of this could be the matters regarding WikiLeaks 51 and Edward Snowden, 52 which have received worldwide attention. Could these acts of illegal disclosure of highly confidential information, that might endanger and undermine national security and perhaps jeopardize lives of people around the world, be categorized as amounting to an act of terrorism? Or should it constitute a new, completely separate category of international crimes, like the crime of “intensive hacking attacks” that endanger national security or “ espionage and treason ”? 53 This is a very sensitive matter and finding a common solution on how the international community should respond to these instances might be rather difficult due to its highly political nature. The international community must act fast in a cooperative manner in order to address these newly emerging acts in a coherent and unambiguous way, because they might threaten the lives of many around the world and could even have disastrous consequences. A set of definitions of acts falling under the crime in question and guiding rules need to be clarified (for example, what would classify as an “intensive hacking attack”?), as well as identifying the perpetrator (for example, with respect to serious transboundary environmental cases where this might prove extremely difficult). These factors need to be clarified in order to enable prosecution on the basis of universal jurisdiction for the purpose of ending or at least reducing impunity. 2.3 Does Universal Jurisdiction imply a duty to punish the crimes concerned? Traditionally the principle of universal jurisdiction requires no action by states; it only allows them the option of prosecuting certain crimes. Nevertheless, one might assert that with respect to heinous offences and grave breaches of multilateral treaties (as described in chapter 2.2) the exercise of universal jurisdiction is permitted and indeed also obligatory . 54 It has been noted, that when multilateral treaties 51 WikiLeaks became internationally well known in 2010 when it began to publish U.S. military and diplomatic documents. See, for example, in theNewYorkTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/ world/08leak.html?_r=0, accessed 23 June 2013. 52 See, for example, in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden- nsa-whistleblower-surveillance, accessed 23 June 2013. 53 See, for example, Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/us-usa-security-permission- idUSBRE95N0LR20130624, accessed 24 June 2013. 54 Akehurst, Michael: Jurisdiction in International Law. British Year Book of International Law , Vol. 46, 1972-1973, p. 160.