جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « شورای امنیت سازمان ملل متحد » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Since the International Criminal Court was established, Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi was the first person prosecuted by the Court for crimes against cultural heritage. In his trial, the Court appears to have followed a practice influenced by human rights. Such human rights influence can also be observed in other international criminal courts, such as International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). One can argue that the change in the notion of cultural heritage and the increasing salience of cultural heritage in international public opinion from a human rights perspective count among the factors affecting the international criminal courts. Against this backdrop, the present article draws on a descriptive and analytical methodology to explain the practices adopted by the international criminal courts from a human rights perspective. It answers how international criminal courts approach cultural heritage by suggesting that human rights influence the international criminal courts in their approach to cultural heritage. This research discusses the shift in the notion of cultural heritage, the practice of international criminal courts, and the international community's approach to shared cultural heritage.

Cyber aggression is one of the crimes that has been discussed in the international legal regime due to the late progress of technology. This qualitative research was conducted in terms of purpose, practical and in terms of gathering information in a documentary way and through laws, international documents, the obtained information was analyzed in a descriptive-analytical form in order to answer this question: if the Jurisdiction of confirmation the cyber aggression by the Security Council is not exclusive, what is the function and influence of the United Nations Security Council on the development of jurisdiction of other authorities such as the International Criminal Court? The findings of the research show that Article 8 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court does not include the actions of private individuals, only if a cyber attack can be considered as an aggression if it is an "armed attack". Law 12 of the Tallinn guidelines is also clear in this regard. The competence of the Security Council in the matter of verifying cyber aggression has precedence and priority, this precedence does not constitute exclusive jurisdiction. The jurisdictional regime of the court in recognizing the crime of aggression in the case of government referrals and appropriate investigations can be applied only after approval or acceptance by each of two aggressor and the alleged victim member state. The Security Council can refer a situation to the International Criminal Court or suspend the prosecution and investigation of the Court temporarily, extendable and obliged for one years.

Two international organizations, the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council, due to their relationship with each other, have become the subject of discussions in international law. The first one has judicial duties and the second one has political ones. Although the coexistence of these two organizations is based on the provisions of ICC Statute (Articles 12 to 16), it has brought challenges as well. Despite the efforts to compile ICC Statute, and thedevelopments in international law, considering its connection with the Security Council, some international criminal law writers still view it as a political issue. Although the mere connection of the Security Council with the Court will not causes confrontation and politicization of the Court, in order to maintain its efficiency, legitimacy, and independence while remaining loyal to the Statute, in some cases (such as deferral prosecution or investigation), the court must obey the Security Council. What happens in the relationship between these two organizations has been studied in this research and the findings of the research indicate that the Security Council can use its tools to exert a political influence on the Court. But the important question is that in what way and based on what criteria is the Security Council able to exert political influence on the Court? It seem that the Security Council and the world's great powers at the head of it, considering their interests, can exert a political influence on this judicial organization in various ways, such as guiding the way of referrals and controlling the Court.

In referring the situation involving a Crime of Aggression by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), the Court must at the outset, satisfy itself that the UNSC has determined an act of Aggression committed by the given State. Subsequently, the OTP must provide all information and documents to the UNSC. The OTP’s assurance that the crime is determined by the UNSC will not impair the independence of the Court. However, that recognition by the UNSC can be based solely on political considerations. The use of veto power also gives the Permanent Members of the UNSC the right to commit an act of Aggression while in full immunity. However, if the Pre-Trial Chamber seizes the matter, the UNSC may suspend it for twelve months and renew it several times when the UNSC is unwilling to consider the matter in the Court. This is in contradiction with the main goal of the Court, which is the punishment of the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes. The present article, while examining the necessary conditions, has analyzed the situation in which the act of Aggression is committed by a Permanent Member of the UNSC.

The global justice and security of today's world challenges a variety of issues, such as terrorism, human rights and human rights violations, crimes against humanity, war crimes, violent repression of authoritarian governments, etc., all of which have a significant impact on global criminal justice and security. They need to be restored, confronted and confronted. In the meantime, international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council, which on the one hand are subject to universal consensus and have their views and ratifications, and on the other hand have the power and capacity to deal with issues that violate international security and criminal justice, Consider a suitable solution. In this descriptive and analytical study, we found that the Security Council used tools such as the theory of responsibility and support, as well as the capacity to refer specific cases to the International Criminal Court, as well as the right to resort to military force and assign it to the United Nations. It is a consensus of the countries of the world, acting against the threatening manifestations of international criminal justice and security, all of which are palpable in the cases of Rwanda, Yugoslavia and the like.

In the pre-JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) era, there were numerous actions brought in certain domestic courts relating to Iranian persons due to sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council on Iran. Among these, reference can be made to the judgements issued by the courts of Singapore, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. These actions provided opportunity to the courts to deal with the issues raised in connection with the restrictions and impediments imposed under the UN Security Council resolutions and the related domestic rules. These judgements suggest how to use the legal mechanism in the national courts in the benefit of the Iranian parties. These cases with no precise statistics regarding the number of the actions, have not been thoroughly considered by the Iranian legal community. The jurisprudence produced through these cases might be of assistance to the Iranian persons which are active in commercial and governmental sections in figuring out the approach taken by various States in dealing with the legal disputes relating to sanctions imposed on Iran, and then taking them into account in their future legal relationship with other States’ public and private sections.

International community has recently faced with some modern forms of challenges between application of national politics and respect to evolving rules of international law. In this situation many states, especially in the context of international human rights law choose to escape from international obligation in order to advance their national policy. North Korea's human rights record is among the worst in the world and has been widely condemned globally, especially by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the European Union and the United Nations. The recent declarations of the human rights council which clearly condemned the violation of human rights in North Korea and further repeated violations by this country could be proved the fact that still the human rights' values are as weak as being able to enforce the states to apply them.

 

Implementing international smart sanctions against Iran started afterreferring Iranian nuclear program to the Security Council by international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and subsequent corroboration of EuropeanUnion Council, upon which procurement of petroleum industry was sanctioned. Since legal analysis of sanctions on procurement is lacking, this article describes and analyzes the legal effects of the international targeted sanctions in the framework of Security Council resolutions on Iranian oil industry with emphasis on procurement during January 2006 throughout June 2014. Overall, comprehensive sanctions meaningfully restricted access to financial institutions and credit bureaus for signing and implementing oil contracts. In addition, implemented restrictions have potentially exposed procurement contracts with the principles of hardship and force majeure.

On numerous occasions over the past decades, the United Nations peacekeepers have been charged with various offences against the civilian populations they are commissioned to serve. To render criminal justice, exercising jurisdiction over the accused is a requirement. Agreements between States and the UN prescribe that the peacekeeping personnel shall exclusively be subject to jurisdiction of the home States. further, the contributing States shall retain exclusive jurisdiction over violation of International Humanitarian Law by peacekeeping forces. The present article examines the criminal jurisdiction of national courts and the obligation of home States to prosecute such offences, and it further attempts to discuss, inter alia, ICC role in this issue.