جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « International Criminal Court » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

The decisions taken by the International Criminal Court in different steps of the proceedings may face the resistance who are mainly political, military or security officials or their suzerain states. Resistances can be divided into two types of severe (Backlash) and mild (Pushback) in essence. The first type of resistances can cause the breaking up or invalidation of decision of this institution. In contrast, mild resistances not only do not seek to break up court, but can cause reduction or elimination of possible defects of the Court’s proceedings. However, instances of these resistances may overlap each other in practice. Terminating the membership in the court or lacking of cooperation of some African governments with this institution is considered mild resistances as long as it does not lead to the breaking up of the court or serious disruption in its work. The establishment a new courts and judicial parallelism, such as the African Criminal Court for the trial of Hissene Habre, sanction of the court officials, such as the cancellation of the visas of the court’s prosecutor in the case of American crimes in Afghanistan by the US government, withdrawing jurisdiction of the court that took places by Libyan government in the case of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and finally, obstructing along the goals of the court, which has been the policy adopted by various American governments as a non-member state of the court, based on the scope of their impact on the court proceeding and continuation of the activity of this institution or lack of it, can lead to either mild or severe resistances.

Establishing peace and security and preventing international crimes in the world has been one of the great dreams of mankind, so many efforts have been made in pursuit of this thought. With the occurrence of terrible crimes during the Second World War, the idea of creating the International Criminal Court has been taken into consideration once again, and thus the International Criminal Court came into existence. But the question that arises is what role does the International Criminal Court play in preventing international crimes? which answers this question in a descriptive-analytical way that the establishment of the International Criminal Court as a permanent and universal court is an important step in the process of fighting impunity. The court tries to prevent international crimes by creating a link between international peace and security and criminal justice, which we will discuss in this article. The main finding is that although the ICC can contribute constructively to legal change towards accountability and change in international law, its prospects for direct and meaningful deterrence of future crimes are slim. As a result, the current method of relying on ICC as a crisis management tool will be illogical and unfair.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the possibility of using the capacity of international institutions and organizations in order to preserve the territorial integrity of Iran against the intervention of extra-regional powers in this field. Based on this, the main issue in the research is: How Iran can use the capacity of international institutions and organizations, such as the International Criminal Court, to deal with the possible aggression of the major powers that support the UAE. To use its territorial integrity? Using the structuralist analytical framework, the hypothetical answer of this research is that "the government of Iran has changed its positive attitude towards international organizations and active participation and membership in organizations such as the International Criminal Court and emphasized while winning the trust of the actors of the international community towards themselves, it will prevent the formation of consensus and finally encroachment on their own land". The results of the research indicate that the United Arab Emirates has been able to bring the big extra-regional powers (including 5 permanent members of the Security Council and the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council) with it in support of its demands during the last two decades. Iran should also try to deal with them by changing its attitude towards the issue. The research method in this article will be descriptive-analytical. Based on this, the method of data collection is based on the type of library research and the use of existing documents.

IRGCQuds assassination Force commander by the US didnt comply with any legitimate defense elements and is a international violation. the courts jurisdiction in the perpetrators criminal responsibility of this terror is important. According to the legal procedure of the ICJ, America's arguments regarding the assassination will be not accepted. America claims this action was done as legitimate defense.While the court has emphasized that legitimate defense is possible against armed attacks.Although Iran, Iraq and the USA arent members of the Statute of the ICC, the assassination of the IRGCQuds Force Commander and his companions was referred to the ICC by the Security Council and at the request of the IRI. the prosecutor of the ICC can request a hearing, and this path is smooth for the member states of the statute. the main responsibility in prosecuting crimes is the jurisdiction of the court with national courts, and in case of the unwillingness or inability of national courts or the absence of an independent and efficient judicial system, the ICC will exercise jurisdiction in this matter. courts jurisdiction is complementary to the national courts, but it cannot be considered their substitute .Therefore, the national courts have the main jurisdiction in this case

The forced migration of the Palestinian people has been part of a systematic policy to suppress and control the Palestinian people since the establishment of the Zionist regime in 1948. This hostile policy has been followed since the formation of this regime and reached its peak in 2007 with the siege of Gaza and the worsening of living conditions and the facing of the people of this region with all kinds of security, military, health and humanitarian threats. The purpose of these actions was to de-Palestinize the occupied territories, prevent the formation of resistance groups and the forced migration of the Palestinian people from their ancestral land by the Zionists, which is still being pursued by them. Forced displacement is a clear example of a crime against humanity in international law texts and human rights statements, and many resolutions have been created and condemned in various regional and international institutions and organizations regarding this phenomenon. In the most recent case of cruel forced migration of the Palestinian people by the Zionists, we can mention the Al-Aqsa storm. Operation "Al-Aqsa Storm" took place to condemn the years of oppression, suffering and displacement of the Palestinian people, a response to the disregard of the Palestinians' indisputable rights to their ancestral land, the lack of the right to self-determination and many legitimate and indisputable freedoms of the Palestinian people, which were violated by the Zionist regime with Cruelty, excessive and unjustifiable violence and the continuation of genocide and displacement of the Palestinian nation were answered. The current research aims to analyze the documents, agreements, articles and provisions in the texts and conventions related to international law and human rights, to deal with the issue of forced migration from the perspective of international and humanitarian law, and the degree of conformity of the findings to examine the rights of the current situation of the Palestinian nation.

The binding nature of the decisions of the International Criminal Court is one of the most important challenges that the court and the international community are facing. The purpose of the article is to analyze and examine the rules and binding nature of the court's decisions using the teachings of the schools of natural law and voluntary law. In the upcoming article, let's examine the schools of natural and voluntary law with a descriptive-analytical method and answer the question that according to these two legal schools, why are the decisions of the court binding on the governments, and what is the basis for the binding of the decisions of the court on the governments? The findings show that the school of natural law believes in rules that are permanent and beyond the will of humans and governments and must be implemented in any place and time. The Voluntary School of Law believes that the origin of international laws and rules originates from the will of the governments and arises with the consent of the governments. Therefore, according to the school of natural law, which considers crimes under the jurisdiction of the court to be contrary to natural rights, the decisions of the court are binding for all countries, and based on voluntary rights, the decisions of the court are binding on the contracting parties, in the form of the statute of the court and the United Nations charter.

The Rome Statute authorized the International Criminal Court to exercise jurisdiction over crimes of aggression. In the first Review Conference of the Rome Statute in 2010, the crime of aggression and its elements were delineated and identified with the goal of protecting world peace. The present study explored the Actus Reus of the crime of aggression based on the latest amendments to ICC's Statute. The gravity and broadness of the acts of aggression mean that committing such crimes occurs through special arrangements and conditions. The crime of aggression refers to a series of actions called war management. The aggressors are convicted of this crime when specific conditions are met. At first, there is planning and then military supplies and equipment are procured, which leads to a planned attack by the military leaders. Once the act of aggression and territorial occupation is completed, the last step is war management. The Actus Reus of the crime of aggression in ICC's Statute includes the planning, procurement, initiation, and execution of the act of aggression. These are undertaken by political and military leaders in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the action of a state The actions must be intended for an act of aggression and are deemed violations of the UN Charter given their nature, intensity, and extent.

In the process of UN peacekeeping operations and in the process of conducting peacekeeping missions in war and occupied territories; Crimes may be committed against women that require prosecution. On the other hand, it should be noted that women and children are exposed to victims, including sexual victims, due to their poor physical condition. According to numerous reports to the United Nations through female victims and sex victims, UN peacekeeping forces appear to be a new and serious threat to women and even to war. Children in areas of the host State are considered. Therefore, in this article and through the descriptive-analytical method, we seek to answer this key question: What challenges and obstacles does the prosecution and punishment of UN peacekeepers for committing crimes of sexual violence against women during peacekeeping operations face? The findings of this article show that according to Article 7 of the Rome Statute, the possibility of applying the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to the crime of sexual violence against women by UN peacekeepers faces major challenges and obstacles. In fact, the distinction of the present research compared to other related researches is the exploration, finding and detailed analysis of the current capacities of the international legal system for the prosecution and trial of the mentioned criminals.

The regulations and foundations of two prominent legal systems known as the common law and the statutory law constitute the principles and regulations of international criminal proceedings in general and the International Criminal Court prosecutor’s jurisdictions and authorities in particular. The transactional nature of the common law, the investigative nature of proceedings in the statutory law, and the simultaneous acceptance of both approaches in the International Court of Justice led to practical uncertainties and ambiguities regarding the International Court prosecutor’s jurisdictions and his/her interactions with tribunals, especially with pretrial branches. Nevertheless, this intrinsic contradiction appears to be largely consistent with the reality of international criminal proceedings, and the current legal principles are adequately efficient in reaching the International Criminal Court goals from a realistic perspective. This contradiction is highlighted when it is considered in judicial idealism. Hence, any ambiguities in authorities will cause injustice and violate the rights of victims or the human rights of defendants. As a result, there is still a substantial gap between the exertion of a prosecutor’s authorities and the principles of idealism.

One of the most important possible ways to achieve international criminal justice may be International Criminal Court, which has been investigating the crimes committed by US citizens in Afghanistan since 2016. In response, the United States sanctioned ICC judges and individuals in connection with ICC, which received various reactions from different states. This article, using a descriptive-analytical method, first examines the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with the issue, then the sanctioning of persons, especially judges, in international law, and finally the international obligations of the United States of America, and it comes to the conclusion that, on the one hand, the sanctioning of judges is the immunity of judges. violated the court, which is necessary for their judicial independence, and on the other hand, the United States of America, by sanctioning the judges of the International Criminal Court, violated its international obligations, including general obligations, the implementation of which is necessary to achieve criminal justice. Finally, the action of the United States of America was caused by the policy of that government and its own interests and cannot be justified based on the rules of international law.

Terrorist crimes are one of the most basic and fundamental challenges of the international system and the most terrible threat against the fundamental rights and freedoms of nations. The international community, which was faced with the phenomenon of terrorism in the second half of the 20th century, responded by accepting a set of international and even regional conventions for specific types of terrorist crimes and the commitment of governments. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, global efforts against terrorism increased. Of course, these incidents were committed in such a way that the international community plans to revise the legal, security and technical systems and mechanisms in the international and national arenas in relation to the identification and assessment of threats caused by contemporary terrorist crimes. Terrorist crimes are currently considered as a treaty crime, which can be prosecuted in any territory due to its international and transnational nature. Of course, this is due to the legal status of each territorial territory in terms of accepting international jurisdiction in dealing with terrorist crimes. In addition, this category of crimes, due to the characteristics of international crimes, has the possibility to be under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

The call for justice has often been at odds with formal efforts for peace. The purpose of transitional justice is based on guarantee of justice and peace at the same time, in some cases the avoidance of criminal prosecution or punishment in form of amnesty is necessary for peaceful transfer to take place. The purpose of this article is to investigate amnesty and impunity and its relationship with transitional justice using library method and filing tools. Amnesty is a paradoxical component of transitional justice mechanisms which some offenders are pardoned and not punished by the government. Amnesty violates the rights of victims to reparation and is inconsistent with the purposes of international law to punish perpetrators of serious human rights crimes. It creates perception that committing serious crimes can go unpunished. Perpetrators of human rights violations think they can escape punishment with amnesty. Amnesty for perpetrators may increase fear, instability and insecurity in society, so in order to counter impunity, human rights activists have condemned the use of amnesty as a tool for transitional justice.

The issue of referring the crimes of non-governmental groups to the International Criminal Court is a new and innovative issue and its dimensions have not been considered by the doctrine so far. In this article, with the aim of assessing the feasibility of referring the crimes of non-governmental groups to the International Criminal Court, relying on the crimes of the ISIL group, answer what is the jurisdiction of the court in referring the crimes of non-governmental groups to the International Criminal Court? In conclusion, it can be stated that ISIL's actions are based on existing international evidence, such as the Statute of the Court, as well as criminal law, a perfect example, and crimes against humanity and war crimes. According to the provisions of the Statute of the Court, it seems that this Court has a total of five methods of exercising jurisdiction over crimes: 1) Referral from the Security Council to the Court; 2) committing a violation in the relevant government domain; 3) acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court by countries that are not members of the Court in the case of specific crimes; 4) Accepting the membership of new countries in the International Criminal Court; 5) The commission of a crime by the nationals of the Member States while they themselves are non-member States.

The International Criminal Court has created a new structure for prosecuting perpetrators of major international crimes. How to start investigating and prosecuting crimes is an important issue in the Statute of the Court. According to the provisions of the Statute on the initiation of prosecution, the three aspects of "referral by member states", "referral by the Security Council" and "prosecutor's initiative" are established. In this regard, the court system has been designed in such a way that by eliminating the interrogation stage, the task of investigation has been assigned to the prosecutor along with the prosecution, who performs his duties under the supervision of the preliminary branch. In this regard, the prosecutor can collect information and evidence, review the documents, obtain the statements of witnesses and informants, investigate the accused and suspects and summon or arrest them. Member states are also required by law to cooperate with the prosecutor. It has jurisdiction over the supplementary court and exercises jurisdiction only in cases where no competent domestic court can or does not want to prosecute. In addition, the Security Council may, in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, request a moratorium on prosecutions and investigations.

Zionist settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories which have been maintained since the establishment of the fake Zionist regime are considered as one of the main aspects of gross violations of international criminal law. In this study, by invoking the Four Geneva Conventions(1949) and their additional protocols(1977), the provisions of statutes of International Criminal Court and international case law , the authors seek to determine what are the concrete cases of violations of international criminal law resulting from the Zionist settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. The result is that by crimes including the destruction of Palestinian houses and their prohibition from access to their natural recourses , severe deprivation of social and individual rights and the transfer of the civilian Zionist population into the occupied Palestinian territories , the Zionist Regime has committed war crimes under the article 8 of the statute of International Criminal Court. However, in exercising its jurisdiction ,International Criminal Court faces important challenges such as territorial jurisdiction, limiting the Court to exercise its jurisdiction following the 13 June 2014 and how to implement inspection

With the increase in committing terrorist crimes, governments in the international community have realized the importance of its global suppression. This is despite the fact that governments' support of terrorist groups in all phases of establishment or activity is the most fundamental component that has caused the deterioration of the effective international cooperation system in facing terrorist crimes. This is confirmed by the terrorist crimes of the ISIS group, whose threatening nature for international peace and security originates from the principle of terrorism as a threat to international peace and security. The United Nations, with its mechanisms, can play an effective role in the fight against terrorism. But, because of the non-cooperation of some member countries and the overt and hidden support of terrorist groups by a number of members, this organization has not achieved much success in fighting against terrorist groups. Therefore, although the terrorist crimes committed by ISIS are clearly stipulated in Articles 5 to 9 of the Rome Statute, but the International Criminal Court has not been able to deal with ISIS terrorist crimes due to the emergence of passive behavior at the global level. So, this issue should be addressed at the internal levels of the governments that involved in the armed battles of ISIS and in their territory by the subject of criminal proceedings.

Terrorism is a phenomenon that has long been a crisis for human societies. After many centuries, not only has it failed to be controlled and eliminated, but also the methods of human assassination to exert pressure on individuals, groups and governments have become more complex and ominous. Today, nations and governments are confronted with groups that use any potential tools to perform terrorist acts to attract the attention of governments and create fear and terror. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has always had doubts about its competence to investigate terrorist offenses. Therefore, the present study seeks to evaluate this issue though descriptive-analytic method and by using an organized library tool. It is tried to address the issue of “Competence of the International Criminal Court regarding Terrorism: Restrictions and Challenges" and to analyze some of its bold issues. Finally, a number of suggestions and strategies are offered to improve the status quo.

Dealing with international crime, preventing it, and achieving international criminal justice require the provision of the necessary powers to prosecute and investigate their perpetrators. The Prosecutor of the Court is responsible for prosecuting and investigating four international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. In this study, which has been written by descriptive-analytical method and using library resources, the results obtained are that the prosecutor of the court has a duty to consider the rights of victims and defendants, examining cases in accordance with the principle of admissibility of claims, to establish a reasonable basis. N. The prosecutor has the power, after conducting preliminary inquiries into the admissibility, interests of justice or the establishment of a reasonable basis for any prosecution or investigation by the Preliminary Branch of the Court, which has judicial oversight of the prosecution; Decide. The request of the prosecutor together with the necessary documents in order to start the prosecution or investigation of the defendants, despite the judicial independence of the prosecutor's office, will be subject to the approval of the preliminary branch. Once the request is approved, the prosecutor will have the power to conduct preliminary investigations such as gathering evidence, summoning or apprehending the accused, investigating victims, witnesses and informants.

Environmental crimes have destructive effects on nature and natural resources, which are categorized according to severity, the most important issue is the need to criminalize such crimes against the environment, according to which the relevant norms in These areas can be identified and investigated, in principle, environmental crimes can be definitively reduced when the effects of the importance of such crimes on the internationally perceived international documents point to their destructive nature and humanity. And to be prosecuted by international criminal authorities, which also requires the criminalization of these crimes in the section of major international crimes in the Statute of the only international criminal authority with universal jurisdiction, namely the International Criminal Court. In such circumstances, environmental crimes should be included in the list of identified crimes, such as crimes against humanity and war crimes, so that the Court can pursue them. The research findings are expressed by descriptive-analytical method indicate that the International Criminal Court can classify and prosecute most environmental crimes as war crimes, provided that they occurred during the war, followed by such crimes in the Criminal Court Internationally in accordance with the principle of universal Jurisdiction.

 Unlike ad hoc international criminal courts in which judges are guided to prescribe customary rules in proceedings, the International Criminal Court came into existence with distinctive features compared to previous courts, and in Article 21 of its statute, the rights He enumerated the performance and, in a way, created a hierarchy among them. However, contrary to the common practice, whenever we need to conceptualize the sources of international law, we automatically refer to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and international treaties and customs are introduced as the main sources in the Rome Statute. First of all, there is no news about the last-mentioned case. This matter, which was formed by the efforts of some countries and criminal lawyers and in support of and based on the principle of legality, sought to limit the powers of judges in a significant way, and the customary rules, despite all the prominent points, Due to the complexities of its identification and function, this article concluded by examining the provisions of the founding document of the International Criminal Court that despite the wishes of the drafters, these rules still play an important role in the proceedings of the International Criminal Court. Although not explicitly cited as a source.