جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « صلاحیت جهانی » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Regardless of the amount of punishment, the impiementation of the punishment that iead to the prevention of crimes, and this is an accepted ruie in criminal law. Not only in principle is prevalent, and the doinesit arena, but also in the international arena, this the inability of the perpetrators of international crimes is always a key factor in increasing the amount of crime. “Universal jurisdictionprinciple” As an important has intered into solution to cunter the criminals of international crimes, it internationalcriminal law literature, to this way, international crimes can be coping and preveted from occurrence. “Aut dedere Aut judicare” is One of the basic topics in a large number of preforming Universal jurisdiction principle. That is processed in  international douments and preforming somehow guarantees the Universal jurisdiction principle.Because of the necessity of executing . “Aut dedere Aut judicare” onal judicial We see its diversity and flexibility in international doumentsandinternationalprocedures, So that in each casa, Various opinions have been  issued based on the above mentioned principle and ultimately this has led to serious developments in the judicial gating and procedure and even international douments. Present study by investi analyzing judicialprocedures regarding this principle and, as well as, the conventions. encompassed, developments in “Aut dedere Aut judicare” has been referred.

The principle of universal jurisdiction is a powerful tool in the service of international criminal justice. The principle of universal jurisdiction, under which states have the right and sometimes the obligation to prosecute and punish perpetrators of international crimes regardless of the place of commission, nationality of the perpetrators and their victims, has undergone a profound transformation in various dimensions. With the emergence of transnational crimes, the need for revision on the basis of territorial and personal jurisdiction has emerged. The concept of the principle of universal criminal jurisdiction, according to which the national courts of a country can prosecute a crime that has not occurred within the territory of that country, is not the subject of an accused or a defendant, and has not committed a crime against the interests of that country, has evolved in different dimensions. Crimes such as slavery and slave trade, piracy, racism, hostage-taking and air raids have been among the universal jurisdictional norms referred to in the article of the Islamic Republic of Iran

The pinciple of universal jurisdiction, applied in international criminal law for many years, can complement international justice as an important mechanism. In addition to complementing the jurisdiction of international criminal courts, universal jurisdiction guarantees the widest jurisdiction for national courts to deal with important international crimes including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, on the premiss that these crimes harm international public order. Three essential steps are needed to implement this principle: the existence of a specific context for universal jurisdiction, a clear definition of crime and its elements, and national law-enforcement procedures that allow national judicial authorities to exercise jurisdiction over these crimes. Therefore, national courts can exercise universal jurisdiction only when the government has enacted legislation which authorizes its application. The main question in the present study is how can Iranian courts exercise universal jurisdiction, and what kind of universal jurisdiction does Iran believe in? The answer can be found in both general (Articles 3 and 9 of the Penal Code) and special laws (such as the Bill on International Crimes). The current study applies a descriptive-analytical approach to investigate the principle of universal jurisdiction, the Islamic Penal Code, and other relevant laws to clarify the universal jurisdiction of the Iranian courts regarding international criminal law.

The principle of universal jurisdiction of criminal laws is one of the most important principles in determining the jurisdiction of countries and criminal laws. According to this principle, any country can, without any traditional relationship with the crime of preventing the citizenship of the criminal or the defendant against the place of the crime or the interests of the country, be harmed, in order to keep the criminal unpunished, pursue and punish him. Although most countries in the world today have not recognized this principle, but very few of them have actually taken action to implement it, and this is important due to international conventions and treaties that in the event of a crime, despite the fact that the perpetrator is not a citizen of that country's "territorial jurisdiction" or "personal jurisdiction" or that the crimes are not represented by the criminal laws of the country of detention

whereas many cases of terrorist crimes and terrorist financing have international dimensions, the serious and effective fight against these crimes faces two challenges: on the one hand exercising jurisdiction and choosing a qualified court on the other. It is not possible to deal with these dangerous crimes without resolving the issue of contradiction of criminal jurisdiction of countries, as well as qualification of domestic or international courts to deal with these crimes. The present article has been written by descriptive-analytical method and based on written documents and sources and its information has been collected through library study. Based on this research, it seems that for the counter-terrorism campaign and it’s financing to be more effective, accepting the principle of universal jurisdiction is necessary, and it can be a way to prevent criminals escaping, although there is no prohibition on governments using other principles of jurisdiction. In addition, resolving the issue of the qualified court for investigating these crimes is possible by relying on the existing domestic and international juridical literature. This is because, in addition to being able to take advantage of the capacity of domestic courts, governments can use the capacity of the International Criminal Court or case and regional courts to prosecute offenders and to provide global justice and security through Collaboration and under special circumstances, especially when the crime of terrorism or its financing is transnational or international.

One of the new concepts in international relations is the decline of government sovereignty, the main principles of which are emphasizing the role of international organizations and new social movements and trying to establish peace, ending the conflict between nations, and establishing new combinations. The decline of sovereignty seeks to limit powers and weaken political borders and national sovereignty. The goal of global governance is under one law in a unified manner. The type and number of actors have evolved in such a way that, in addition to international great powers, regional actors also play a role, along with governments, international civil organizations, international non-governmental organizations, international intergovernmental organizations, informal multilateral organizations, parties, media, ethnic groups, syndicates, multinational companies, individuals and international public opinion have also played a role, which has led to the multilateralization of the international system, thus, according to the changing nature and process of the international system and the interconnectedness of actors and the increasing complexity of their interactions, it is still not an established order. It has not been formed, and the international system is still in a transitional and fluid state. Globalization or the decline of the central state is a thought and idea that takes place in contemporary thinking and policies and arose from the developments of the world, the thoughts of various nations and cultures. Its purpose is to reduce the centrality of state sovereignty and emphasize the role of international organizations and new movements. It has gone through a gradual and evolutionary process and is still progressing.

Cyber- malicious activities in international aviation industry is a combination of two crimes: hijacking and cyber terrorism, which transnational and international nature can damage not only public order of the state, but it can also infringe upon international public order. Universal jurisdiction due to its loose connection to the state where the crime is committed and the state claiming  jurisdiction, allows the states  to seek protection of their credibility and security,  and regardless of the state hosting the criminal(s)or the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim of the crime, allows them to prepare themselves for punishing perpetrator(s) and to identify and  to hold malicious actors and their hosting countries accountable for cyber attacks against the aviation industry. Therefore, in this descriptive-analytical study, we seek to answer the question of what role and effects the exercise of universal jurisdiction has in the fight against cyber crimes related to aviation. And by studying the relevant documents and sources, we came to the conclusion that the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction as a deterrent mechanism will guarantee the fight against cyber security crimes in the field of aviation and the impunity of the perpetrators of this crime.

Undoubtedly, one of the crimes that threatens the peace and internal security of countries and the international community in a mysterious and widespread way is the crime of terrorism, which has caused deep concern for almost all the nations and states of the world, and dealing with it as a Erga Omnes obligation Inclusion is demanded from all countries and because some Countries do not have the experience of threats and terrorist attacks, they have no desire and inclination to cooperate with the international community to eliminate the crime of terrorism And this seemingly simple issue has caused the continuation of terrorist attacks in the world. In this research, we will deal with the obstacles of applying the principle of universal jurisdiction in the fight against terrorism and we will provide guidelines for its acceptance and application. The research method in this article is descriptive and comparative, and the findings of the research show that the governments act completely monopolistically in the field of jurisdiction of the domestic courts, and it does not go too far to exercise global jurisdiction.

Universal Jurisdiction is a Powerful Tool at Service of International Justice. This Principle, which under this,States have the Option – and Sometimes the Obligation – to Prosecute Criminals, Regardless of Where the Crimes may have been Committed or of the Nationality of Perpetrators and the Victims, has evolved in Various Aspects. although the the Concept of Universal Jurisdiction Arose because of the Protect of International Trade, ths has now become anInevitable Necessity to Support Human Values. although legal Systems View of this Jurisdiction is different, but for Reasons Like, the Necessity for Protecting Common Interests, Protecting Human Values and the Victims Access to Justice Which has been expressed in the Justification of its Justification have brought it Closer to Universal Accepance. Thus, in this Paper, it has been Tried to Investigate the Source and Legitimacy for the application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction in the National Courts to Prosecution of International Crimes.

"Obligation to extradition or prosecute" is one of the legal mechanisms to deal with international crimes such as genocide (genocide), war crimes and torture, as well as to combat the bribery of perpetrators of these acts internationally and not only to criminal justice but also as a means The deterrent implies ensuring non-repetition of these crimes in the future.In 2012, the International Court of Justice issued its ruling on the issue of prosecution or extradition in the Belgian case against Senegal. The Court reviewed the various aspects of this matter, including the customary status of an obligation to extradite or trial, to link this commitment to global jurisdiction and universal obligations. The Court refused to confirm the status of a customary obligation to extradite or prosecute, and considered universal jurisdiction a condition for the fulfillment of this obligation. Moreover, it stated that this commitment was a collective commitment of the group, and the Belgian government, not as a failed state, but as a non-government, has the right to invoke the responsibility of the Senegalese government. This research seeks to examine some of the important sections of the Court's judgment and its criticisms.

A series of ongoing violence against Muslims in Myanmar has followed the innumerable international crimes. In the age of the accountability for the international crimes, this paper aims to answer this question which world community tools make the perpetrators be held accountable for these offences in Myanmar. At the international level, in the area of the individual criminal responsibility, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has prosecuted the crimes against humanity committed in Myanmar and the international liability of Myanmar related to the genocide against Muslims with the Gambia’s official complaint in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is to proceed. Also for the investigation and documentation of the human rights violations in Myanmar UN Human Right Council has applied the fact finding mechanism to record this genocide. In the national level, universal jurisdiction has provided a capacity for legal proceeding related to the massacres have been occurred in Myanmar. It has been applied in Argentina. The experience against impunity in Myanmar includes teachings for confronting the committed genocide in other crises that it is necessary to examine them.

With the spread of pirate attacks, especially on the coasts of Somalia and the Gulf of Aden, as one of the ways to deal with this phenomenon, the prosecution of pirates in a third country, ie a country that is neither the country of the pirates nor their country of arrest, is planned and welcomed. Some countries, including Kenya, Tanzania and the Republic of Seychelles, have announced their readiness to extradite and prosecute pirates arrested by other countries. The three countries, led by Kenya, have in recent years become places to try arrested pirates.

This study is of descriptive - analytical one.

Ethical Considerations: 

Authenticity of the texts, honesty has been observed in this study.

None of the pirates tried in Kenya have been apprehended by the countrychr('39')s navy until 2020. The pirates were arrested and transferred to the country by the forces of the countries present in the waters of the region who have signed piracy transfer agreements with the Kenyan government for trial. UN Security Council Resolution 1851 calls on governments and regional organizations to sign such agreements. Following the Security Council Resolution, the Government of Kenya concluded agreements with the United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark, China, Canada and the European Union.

Despite criticism of the Kenyan judiciary, particularly in the area of human rights issues, Kenyan courts have been prosecuting pirates for more than a decade and are gradually establishing their position as an important element in the fight against terrorism. Piracy is in the international arena.

The municipal courts, based on the whole forms of jurisdictional principles (territorial, nationality, universal jurisdiction etc.) have the authority to investigate the aggression crime. Of course, the nature of this offence is different from the other core international crimes in International contexts like (war crime, genocide and crimes against humanity) and the conventional crime in International contexts like (terrorism, smuggling of narcotics etc.) since the condition of investigating the aggression offence is the proving aggression which is in the competency of the Security Council of the United Nation. Attempt is made here to discuss, the above mentioned issues and the processes involved. The conclusion will be the promotion of the fact that the recent advances in International Criminal Law paves the ground, for the municipal courts to investigate other crimes in addition to aggression.The conclusion will be the promotion of the fact that the recent advances in International Criminal Law paves the ground, for the municipal courts to investigate other crimes in addition to aggression.

International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first permanent body established in pursuance of implementing criminal justice and fight against impunity and was assigned with the critical function of prosecution and conviction of perpetrators of the most heinous international crimes. Having been enforced in 2002, the Rome Statute is the constitutional document of the Court which was drafted and adopted with the goal of ensuring effectiveness and efficiency of this primary international body. Provisions related to jurisdiction of the Court are among the most important parts of the Statute and were the subject of many controversial issues during the negotiations of the Rome conference, after the establishment of the Court, and even now. One such issue is the preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction the Court and the existence of jurisdictional gaps in the Statute in the confrontation with the international crimes covered in that document. This article tries to, first, appropriately elaborate on the preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction formulated in Article 12 of the Statute, second, to explain the arguments for and against expanding the mentioned preconditions, and finally, to submit an argumentative assessment of different views concerning whether such expansion is possible.

The decision of the International Court of Justice in case of Belgium against Senegal about the breach of article 6 and 7 of Convention against torture about the obligation to prosecute or extradite of the ex-president of Chad is important from different dimensions due to the fact that it shows the obligation of the international community about prosecution and extradition of international criminals. This decision indicates the jurisdiction of Belgium about the prosecution of Hessne Habre for the crime of torture. The prohibition of torture has been accepted as jus cogens and therefore the immunity of a head of states is not accepted accordingly. The members of international society have responsibility toward prosecution and extradition of international criminals. In contemporary international law, there is no immunity for international criminals. The procedure of the International Court of Justice in case of Hebre confirms the obligation of the states to prosecution or extradition of Hebre for the crime of torture. Now we can see obvious consensus in the international community in the prosecution of the crime of torture as a common principle in binding international documents.

The municipal courts, based on the whole forms of jurisdictional principles (territorial, nationality, universal jurisdiction etc.) have the authority to investigate the aggression crime. Of course, the nature of this offence is different from the other core international crimes in International contexts like (war crime, genocide and crimes against humanity) and the conventional crime in International contexts like (terrorism, smuggling of narcotics etc.) since the condition of investigating the aggression offence is the proving aggression which is in the competency of the Security Council of the United Nation. Attempt is made here to discuss, the above mentioned issues and the processes involved. The conclusion will be the promotion of the fact that the recent advances in International Criminal Law paves the ground, for the municipal courts to investigate other crimes in addition to aggression.

Piracy has a long history and goes back to the 13th century BC and The oldest known international crime. it happens. In general, piracy, illegal any act of violence by a private boat (NGOs) on the high seas against another ship is done with the intention of looting. Pirate More boats hard and light and heavy weapons to intercept its prey used to raid the ship enslaves and property vessels and crews to the loot or to capture passengers request money . piracy can without any limitations they tried it. They can also take appropriate action in the case of ships and adopt the relevant property.

The event of transnational crimes entailed to the reviewing of tradition bases of jurisdiction like territorial and personal jurisdictions. So universal jurisdiction as a legal base for prosecute of international crimes came to internal laws of States. discard with the source and nature of universal jurisdiction, application of universal jurisdiction needs some conditions which can be induced from different sources of international law, like presence of the accused, legality of crime and punishment, dual criminality, awareness of law, Non Bis in Idem principle, et.
While there is no doubt in respecting to some of these conditions, there are some challenges to some of them like mutual criminality and necessity of a personal prosecutor. Universal jurisdiction is in conformity with the principle of access to justice and can help to international public order provided respecting to necessary conditions by national courts.

Information technology has not only revolutionized the human life, but has also established a new space called cyberspace . Due to the very nature and constitutional elements of this space ,it has both served the human and worked as an instrument for committing ceitain illegal affairs.Cyberspace, similar to real space, has provided a new venue for offenders to commit crimes. This way, computer offenders will resort to offend cyber users. The broad, trans-boundary nature of the crime can serve as a reason for lack of any effective decision in confronting the problem by different countries so far. Therefore, this article, considering the need for nationally and internationally supporting the victims of cybernetic crimes, has tried to investigate criminal laws considered for such people. Unfortunately, the current laws and the cybernetic regulations are of unique nature requiring the formulation of both general and certain field specific laws. It is necessary to indicate that the local courts can also rely on the principle of international credibility, to combat cybernetic crimes and support the victims. The current laws and procedures within the national and international domains are neither sufficient nor effective. So, the establishment of international consensus on different issues such as development of international treaties, supervision of cybernetic spaces, formation of international cybernetic police, establishment of cybernetic courts, modification of the current computer crime laws and reevaluation of domestic crime investigation procedures can help to overcome the shortcomings on cybernetic laws.