جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « individual criminal responsibility » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

International crimes in the human fields have the nature of violating the international standards of human rights and humanitarian rights which the international community is unanimous about them. This violation by ignoring the international standards in the cyberspace will cause a threat to international cyber peace and security. The threat created in the mentioned areas with cyber war crime and cyber crime against humanity will be imaginable. This article, with an analytical-descriptive approach, aims to state that according to Article 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, in case of violation of humanitarian rights, crimes against humanity can be committed in cyber space. Also, according to Article 8 of the aforementioned reference statute, in case of violation of human rights, a war crime will appear in the cyber environment of countries and in the international arena. Finally, considering the existence of individual criminal responsibility inferred from Article 23 of the Statute of the Court, as well as the necessity of impunity for crimes committed in the international law system, it will be possible and possible to deal with crimes committed without any immunity in the International Criminal Court.

Contrary to the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which specify only the jurisdiction of those tribunals and the Applicable Law should be sought elsewhere, Article 21 of the Rome Statute sets out the applicable law by the International Criminal Court (ICC). A noteworthy point in Article 21 is that there is no explicit reference to Customary International Law as a legal source applicable by the International Criminal Court. Then some consider this silence to be an end to the role of Custom as a legal source in the ICC's setting and International Criminal Law in general.On the other hand, some still believe that the ICC can invoke Customary International Law as a substantive source of law. This article, after referring to the practices of other International Criminal Tribunals and expressing opposing and agreeing views in International Criminal Law, finally shows that in special cases, invoking custom is the only way to exercise criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes and establish Individual Criminal Responsibility within the framework of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The concept of fragmentation of international law entered legal literature about 150 years ago. It represents the interaction between the proponents of plurality and unity in international law. The establishment of various international courts and tribunals has led to the plurality of interpretations in the realm of norms (the normative aspect of fragmentation) as well as jurisdictions (the institutional aspect of fragmentation). It also reflects the concern over incoherence in the development and interpretation of international law. The consequences of international-law fragmentation have ensued in international human rights law too. This article attempts to compare identical norms on international criminal responsibility which have acquired different meanings under different regimes or mechanisms. It deals with changes to human rights treaty norms in the realm of international individual responsibility. The paper will also examine the effect of international-law fragmentation on the development of human rights standards.

One of the main examples of the use of chemical weapons during modern armed conflicts is the widespread use of these weapons against Iranian soldiers and civilians and even Iraqi citizens, by the Iraqi army in the imposed war resulting in thousands being martyred or injured. Meanwhile, due to the need to protect its citizens, the Islamic Republic of Iran, given the severity of the harm done to the Iranian victims of chemical attacks and their families, has the task of facilitating the litigation of these individuals from the perpetrators of the attacks. In this regard, the judiciary is also of a pivotal task for facilitating the domestic litigation of Iranian victims of chemical attacks through internal judicial mechanisms. In this framework, although the domestic courts have competence to proceed in this case, but with regard to the non-criminalization of international crimes in Iran's domestic laws, the criminal or civil litigation of Iranian chemical victims and their families from Iraqi authorities and also, the people who helped the Iraqi Ba'ath army to achieve chemical weapons are subjected to the exact criminalization of international crimes, including the use of chemical weapons as an example of war crimes. On the other hand, according to the principle of judicial immunity of states, only the international responsibility of the United States for helping the Iraqi army to be armed with chemical weapons is litigious before the domestic courts of Iran, within the framework of the principle of countermeasure.

Present study considers the concurrence of individual criminal responsibility and aggravated state responsibility for aggression. To describe this concurrence, both material element and psychological element of the aggression crime and different approaches towards this concurrence have been considered determining the concurrence of material element, is related to the definition on aggression on aggression crime in context of individual and state’s responsibility, as defined by the un general assembly resolution 3314 in 1974 and the adopted at kampala revising conference 2010. The material element of this crime, according to the definition is the plan, initiation and implementing the act of aggression which are four types of participation in a crime. Also, the psychological element in crime of aggression is conscious and known intent; namely, mentioned elements in this crime must be both knowingly and deliberately. Also, in this study, two different viewpoints on ascertaining specific intent of crime commitment have been studied. The goal of the research is to explain the concurrence of the international responsibility of individual and state in aggression to argue that the two items are not two separate categories and rather, they complete each other.

On September 22, 1980, Iraq launched an invasion against Iran. The Iraqi army, trained and influenced by Soviet advisors, had organic chemical warfare units and a wide variety of chemical materials and delivery systems. The continuous use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran during the war was indeed in violation of Iraq's obligations under 1952 Geneva Convention Protocol and also the principals of international humanitarian law. However taking a look at Iran-Iraq war demonstrates that two aspects of responsibility in this case could be distinguished. While the perpetrators of war crimes are responsible for the acts in their individual capacity, the State is also responsible for its international wrongful acts. In this article the different aspects of the case will be examined in theory and practice.