جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « International Criminal Court » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Severe breaches of humanitarian law are one of the jurisdictional of  international criminal tribunals ratione materiae. On the other hand, although the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols do not explicitly refer to human rights because refer to the situation of armed conflicts, but in the statutes of the international criminal tribunals, whether the International Criminal Court or ICTY or ICTR, The multiple effects of human rights and international humanitarian law are dealt with each other. In cases such as Prosecutor v. Kronjlak (2002) in the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia, the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights has been pointed out. The main question that has been done in this research in a descriptive-analytical methodology , according to the practice of international criminal courts, what is the mutual influence of international humanitarian law and international human rights? The result of the current research is that the rules of human rights, such as the right to a fair trial for perpetrators of international crimes, witnesses and victims, and not considering the immunity of accused government have penetrated into officials in international criminal proceedings. On the other hand, human rights and international humanitarian law collide with each other in one point “ humanity “ .

Nowadays, gender discrimination is not tolerated in any form as it goes against human rights. A testament to this is the conviction of “Al-Hassan” at the International Criminal Court.. He was accused of committing crimes against humanity for committing gender-based discrimination against women, including rape, forced marriage, and persecution of women and girls through the imposition of laws and directives that violated their fundamental freedoms. This study indicates that Al-Hassan’s actions in his position as the head of the Islamic police in Ansar al-Din meet the criteria for crimes against humanity. Reexamining this case raises the question of whether the enforcement of Islamic laws can involve the elements of crimes against humanity to cooccur. It appears that the actions of some Muslim militia groups, such as Ansar al-Din, could constitute a crime against humanity due to the presence of causation, actus reus, and mens rea elements. These behaviors are mere manifestations of a harsh and extremist interpretation of religion that contradicts its true purposes. While this cannot be attributed to all Muslim countries, reexamining this case can provide valuable insights for all Islamic governments.

In recent decades, violations of children's rights, especially in armed conflicts, have overshadowed the implementation of norms related to this vulnerable groups. Children are exposed to murder, forced conscription, sexual exploitation and other abuses during conflicts. Examples of such violations can be found in Sierra Leone, Congo and Rwanda. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this paper seeks to examine the case-law established in the International Criminal Court regarding the criminalization of child recruitment and how to achieve criminal justice in this trespect. The results of the study show that by convicting Thomas Lubanga of child abuse in armed conflict, the ICC reached a turning point in the fight against impunity for violation of chidren rights. On the other hand, the issue of assigning criminal responsibility to children in the event of a crime during conflicts, especially against the civilian population, is another dimension of the issue that, with the wise leadership of the international judiciary, can put an end to this phenomenon and prosecute its real culprits.

Genocide is one the most important International Crimes that has been adopted by the Rome 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court and set out punishment for it in this international instrument. The crime of genocide has been conceived as mother of crimes in the doctrine. Taking place this crime in China against Uyghur Muslims has been under debate in these years. Recent report of Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy about the Uyghur genocide allege signifies important of the issue and has attracted attention of the media and global society.This article attempts to investigate the issue through scrutinize the questions bellow: has the Actus Reus of the crime of genocide in events sequence concerned with Uyghurs proven? Does it verifyrequisite jurisdictional threshold for initiate investigations by the Prosecutor of ICC? What is the responsibility of Chinese authorities for the crimes mentioned above?In this article, intellectual effort was exerted in order to reach valid answers for the questions about the Uyghurgenocide in Xinjiang region. Based on the documents and reports of different International authorities and organizations, it was revealed the the Actus Reus of the genocide was committed.Although normative and legal possibilities in Rome Statue provides proper conditions for investigating the issue, a bulk of practical obstacles and serious impediments cause the ICC prosecutor refrain from carrying it out. This study also confirms Chinese officials’ international criminal responsibility- at the national and local level- and their mercenaries’ for the Uyghur genocide.The method used in this study is analytic-descriptive one specially analysis related international documents and reports in order to evaluate elements of the crime of genocide.

The victim is an element whose rights have been violated by committing a crime. Although it seems obvious that the perpetrator of the suffering of crime is the most important element of the criminal justice process, this notion has not always been realized not only in domestic law but also in international criminal law. Despite the neglect of the victim in the documents of the old specialized international criminal courts in the new generation of these courts and especially in the law and procedure of the International Criminal Court, the victim has enjoyed an important position in the preliminary investigation, trial and execution, but the challenges and shortcomings There are some in this regard. Deficiencies that must be judged in terms of important developments in favor of the victims. But one cannot ignore the fact that the Court has greatly curtailed the historic opportunity to grant criminal justice to individuals in the international community against perpetrators of international crimes.

On October 7, 2023, Palestinian militant groups led by Hamas launched a surprise attack named "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm" against Israel (El Deeb, 2023). This attack began with a barrage of rockets targeting southern Israel. According to Hamas' announcement, its purpose was to respond to the desecration of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, settler violence in the area, and the siege of the Gaza Strip (Crescent International, 2023). In response, Israel declared a state of war and launched a counter-operation called "Operation Iron Swords" with the aim of destroying Hamas, freeing hostages, and controlling the Gaza Strip. After clearing Hamas militants from its territory, the Israeli army conducted extensive aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip, followed by a large-scale ground attack. During this operation, Israel ordered the evacuation of the northern part of the Gaza Strip and launched nearly 29,000 bombs, rockets, and chemicals, causing damage and destruction to nearly 307,000 homes (Jared & Shah, 2024). Experts claim the scale and speed of destruction of protected objects, such as residential buildings in Gaza, is among the most severe in contemporary history (Evan, 2024). The violent confrontation resulted in the displacement of nearly the entire population of 2.3 million in Gaza. More than 24,000 Palestinians were killed, with over 10,000 children and 7,000 women among the casualties (Abou-Ghazala, 2023).This significant civilian death toll and destruction of buildings and urban infrastructure have led to numerous accusations of war crimes against Israel due to its actions against civilians during the conflict with Hamas. A "war crime" is a violation of the laws of war and can lead to individual criminal responsibility. Important conventions such as the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute, define what acts are considered war crimes.The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to deal with war crimes according to Article 1 of the Rome Statute.As a non-member observer state in the United Nations, Palestine ratified the Rome Statute on April 1, 2015 (Abedini, 2014: 333). Following this ratification, the Palestinian government came under the jurisdiction of the ICC. However, the Israeli government has not joined the Rome Statute and, due to its non-recognition of an independent State of Palestine in the international arena, has not accepted the court's jurisdiction over Palestine.Therefore, the initial question of this article is whether the ICC has jurisdiction over Israel's alleged war crimes. If the answer is yes, then based on what rules can the court condemn Israel's actions in the 2023 conflict as war crimes? This research explores these questions.The first part of this study addresses the issue of the court's jurisdiction in dealing with alleged Israeli war crimes, thereby considering the recognition of an independent State of Palestine. It then examines the existing regulations by analyzing current rules and the membership of both Israel and Palestine in the relevant conventions. Once the competence of these regulations is clarified, the second part presents examples of Israel's alleged war crimes in the 2023 conflict, categorized as crimes against persons and crimes against protected objects. The author attempts to reconcile the acts committed by Israel with the relevant regulations.This research aims to prove the jurisdiction of the ICC and identify the applicable regulations in potential proceedings. It will define crimes against protected persons and objects by applying the Rome Statute, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols clause by clause, ultimately arguing that Israel's actions in the 2023 conflict constitute war crimes.Words can be used to construct the cruelest weapons, yet they can also be the most effective deterrents. Ironically, Israel, a nation that has garnered significant international sympathy through its use of words in recent history, now stands accused of committing a brutal massacre in Gaza.This article sought to analyze the bare facts of the Israel-Gaza conflict through a legal lens and demonstrate how the Israeli army's actions might be considered war crimes under existing regulations.The research identified the ICC as the most competent authority in the international arena to pursue war crimes investigations. Therefore, the first step was to establish the court's jurisdiction in the 2023 Israel-Palestine conflict. In doing so, the article acknowledges an independent State of Palestine, positing that the Israel-Palestine conflict is an international one. Consequently, it concludes that the Court

The Al-Aqsa Storm operation on October 7, 2023, carried out by the military branch of Hamas, namely Al-Qassam, represents an unprecedented military action in the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Hamas's actions may be justified based on the occupation and the right to self-determination, Israel's response to this operation has been extensive, devastating, and unprecedented, to a degree that cannot be considered legitimate defense. The killing of thousands of innocent civilians, the use of prohibited weapons, the destruction of medical centers and hospitals, the collapse of the health system, the all-encompassing siege of Gaza, and the lack of access to vital goods such as food, water, and medicine have led to widespread famine. The destruction of homes and the forced displacement of the people of northern Gaza to other areas are among the blatant atrocities committed by Israel, which could be assessed as the actus reus element of the crime of genocide.
This article seeks to address whether the actus reus and mens rea elements of genocide (specific intent) have been met in light of recent Israeli military operations against the Palestinians (the people of Gaza). Through a descriptive and analytical examination of official reports, doctrine, and international jurisprudence, it concludes that, based on Israel's actions, especially the killing of members of the group, both the actus reus and mens rea elements of the crime of genocide in the Al-Aqsa Storm operation on October 7, 2023, have been fulfilled in a manner that establishes grounds for the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Consequently, the International Criminal Court could exercise its jurisdiction in this case.
The people of Gaza are an integral part of the Palestinian nation and government, united by a common and historic goal and struggle for liberation from occupation and colonization. Their shared nationality, ethnicity, and religion, as well as their continuity of goals, align them as a group protected under the Genocide Convention of 1948 and the Statute of the Court (6).
In addition to the deaths of Palestinians resulting from Israel's military actions, they face immediate risks of starvation, lack of water, and disease due to Israel's enduring blockade, inadequate aid distribution, and extensive restrictions on essential resources caused by the destruction of Gaza's infrastructure due to Israeli attacks. The coordinated and consistent statements of Israeli authorities, operationalized through military orders, serve as compelling evidence of intent.
The pattern of Israeli attacks and actions against the Palestinian population in Gaza since October 7, 2023, including collective punishment, forced disappearances, and the use of famine, water, electricity, and fuel cuts as tools of war, along with public statements by high-ranking Israeli government and military officials, collectively indicate Israel's genocidal intent. The behaviors, circumstances, and presumptions used by ad hoc international criminal tribunals to establish the specific intent of genocide align with the actions of Israeli authorities and can serve as a legal basis for potential proceedings against them.
Currently, the court's prosecutor, Karim Khan, has emphasized the importance of investigating the situation in Gaza, ensuring justice for the victims, and upholding the rule of law. While the prosecutor's actions have been articulated in a series of speeches and not as official actions, no preventive statement regarding Gaza has been issued by the court prosecutor. Member states of the Court, such as South Africa, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Bolivia, and the Comoros Islands, have recently referred the situation in Gaza to the Court, citing genocide as one of the concerns. However, due to the cautious approach of the prosecutor, an official decision regarding genocide does not appear imminent. Nonetheless, a provisional order issued by the International Court of Justice in the case of South Africa against Israel concerning the genocide of the people of Gaza, based on the Convention on the Prohibition and Punishment of Genocide, could potentially alter the court prosecutor's cautious stance.

The Military Action Of The United States Of America In Martyring The High-Ranking Military Officials Of The Country Of Iran, Qassem Soleimani, On January 3, 2020, The Issue That Was Raised Among Iranian And International Lawyers From The beginning Was The Legal Response Of Islamic Republic Of Iran Government To This Incident. Contrary To What It Claims, The American Military Action In This Incident Does Not Comply With Preventive Or Preemptive Elements And The Conditions Of Legitimate Defense And Is An International Violation. The Feasibility Of Judicial Pursuit Of Criminal Liability And Civil Liability Resulting From This Illegal Act In The International Criminal Court And The International Court Of Justice Is The Subject Of This Article. Despite The Non-Membership Of Iran And The United States In The Statute Of The International Criminal Court, Iran Can, By Persuading The Iraqi Government To Accept The Court's Case Jurisdiction, Provide The Possibility Of Exercising The Court's Jurisdiction Over This Case, But Even In This Case, The Case Of The Assassination Of Lt. Gen. Soleimani Cannot Be Pursued Within The Framework Of One Of The Four Crimes Under The Court's Jurisdiction. The Most Effective Legal Mechanism Is Pursuing The Civil Responsibility Of The American Government For This Criminal Act According To The "Convention On The Prevention And Punishment Of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Political Missionaries" (1973), Which The Governments Of Iran And The United States Are Members Of. And Also Preventing The Establishment Of A Mixed International Court, Especially Through The Conclusion Of An Agreement Or The General Assembly Of The United Nations Or The Organization Of Islamic Cooperation. This Convention Prohibits The Commission Of Certain Crimes, Including Murder, Against Persons Under International Protection. It Has Predicted A Dispute Resolution Mechanism That Will Eventually End Up In The International Court Of Justice.

The growth of international crimes is an important factor against international security. However, consensus on the seriousness and danger of these crimes has always become an important challenge among governments, and this has made dealing with these crimes difficult. In this regard, various international organizations such as the International Criminal Court and Interpol have been established by governments to deal with international crimes, and their relationships and limits of cooperation are the challenge of this research.

This article is written in a descriptive-analytical way.

Although there are many international crimes in the international arena and governments face challenges in facing them, not necessarily all of them were considered by the founders in the process of establishing the International Criminal Court. In addition, what challenges the investigation and prosecution of the crimes committed by the International Criminal Court are the jurisdictional limitations of this court, which include subject, time, place, supplementary and personal jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the role of Interpol in dealing with international crimes is expanding. Although the governments have not reached a consensus regarding international crimes, Interpol does not face the limitations of the International Criminal Court in prosecuting many crimes and has the possibility of prosecuting many crimes contrary to the International Criminal Court. Although the scope of activities of Interpol and the International Criminal Court are not the same, they can take important measures in order to deal with international crimes in the same common scope.

Among victims of international crimes, children and adolescents need more support because they are growing mentally and physically and their personality has not been properly formed. Among these, victims of sexual assault are at greater risk, such as repeated abuse, future crime, prostitution, expulsion from society and various sexually transmitted diseases. The leading research by library method seeks to find the level of attention of international criminal court to the sexual abuse of children and also the types of support provided to them in this court. Findings of the study show that the International Criminal Court pays more attention to this issue than other. However, there are still many gaps and weaknesses in the Court's performance and there is a long distance from the theoretical approach to the practical procedure of the Court, which makes it necessary to balance the goals of the Court's proceedings and follow the example of some international judicial institutions in some cases.

The main issue tried to be investigated in this article is what is the structure and process of the preliminary branch of the International Criminal Court? This article is descriptive and analytical and the mentioned question has been investigated using the library method. The findings indicate that the existential philosophy of the establishment of the preliminary branch, in the face of the prosecutor's office, is that countries at the time of the Rome Statute, wanted to establish an institution that could protect the prosecutor from any suspicion of non-compliance with the standards of justice and fairness. Therefore, with the establishment of the preliminary branch, the way is closed to any doubt in the performance of the duties of the prosecutor. The preliminary branch of the International Criminal Court is an advanced judicial system that has been able to meet the goals of a standard trial to some extent by the interaction of the prosecutor's office in the preliminary investigation phase, by issuing the necessary licenses and regulatory policies. The result is that at the stage of starting the prosecution and conducting the preliminary investigation, if the prosecutor does not want to observe the principles of justice and fairness as an impartial judge, he can easily start the prosecution against a country and this is the preliminary branch that prevents this.

One of the accusations against the Zionist regime is committing the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip. According to the 1948 Convention on the Prohibition and Punishment of Genocide, member states are not only required not to commit or incite genocide but also have an international obligation to prevent the commission of genocide or incitement to genocide as an independent criminal act. Committing war crimes in violation of the Four Geneva Conventions (1949) and crimes against humanity contained in the Rome Statute (1998) of the International Criminal Court by the Zionist regime are also other cases that point out the need to review the judicial mechanisms to pursue and file a lawsuit against this occupying regime. The main question of the current research is that, considering the need to deal with the impunity of international crimes, in the current international system, what are the effective mechanisms for pursuing and prosecuting the violators of human rights and humanitarian rights attributed to the Zionist regime in the Gaza war after October 7, 2023?. This research examines mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, national courts based on universal jurisdiction, and regional and special courts with an analytical-descriptive method.

Global environmental crimes could destroy human life; thus, they can be considered as major international crime. In the years since World War II, close attention has been paid to the importance of the environment as well as its health. In various treaties, support and protection of environment against war, chemical and nuclear weapons, as well as other crimes were emphasized. The author of this article believes that in order to prevent environmental crimes, they should be recognized as criminal offences and the perpetrators be punished. Only then they can be classified as separate international crime. Moreover, recent developments in the International Criminal Court's approach to environmental crimes make it possible for the Court to recognize them as a separate crime and define its policy in its Statute. As a result, this article seeks to explain the possibility of identifying crimes against the environment as separate crimes.

Membership and withdrawal from the ICC are subject of applicant state’s will. Member’s state’s obligation to cooperate with the ICC and to ignore its political relations with other states is one of reasons to withdraw from the ICC. However, withdrawal from the ICC membership is subject to formalities that its observance may detract from applicant’s state’s objectives. The South African state is an example of this situation, which has taken steps which has no precedent at the ICC level. Examining the theoretical dimensions of these measures are subject of this article. The research question is what are the challenges for the South Africa’s failure to cooperate with the ICC and its obstacles to withdrawing from the ICC Statute membership? The findings of this study show that the South Africa’s experience in citing mechanisms set forth in the Statute for non-cooperation and withdrawal from its membership without regard to their functioning and compliance with their requirements are self-centered and doomed to failure and void. This is an experience that exists under the same conditions in other member states of the ICC, and in order to avoid its consequences, the requirements of the ICC’s Statute must be observed.

Eyewitness testimony is one of the most important evidences in criminal law. The purpose of this article is to investigate the comparative attitude to witness testimony in jurisprudence, Iranian criminal law and the International Criminal Court. Based on this, the question of the article can be raised as follows: What is the attitude towards the testimony of witnesses in Iranian jurisprudence, criminal law and the International Criminal Court? This article is descriptive and analytical and the mentioned question has been investigated using the library method. The findings indicate that the testimony of witnesses is of great importance in Iranian jurisprudence and criminal law and it is considered one of the important reasons for proving a crime, so that witnesses may be summoned to testify. In the International Criminal Court, the testimony of witnesses is also important, but the testimony of witnesses is voluntary and there is no compulsion in this regard. The most important effects of the type of attitude towards witness testimony are manifested in witness support. In Iran's criminal law, various mechanisms have been considered, such as non-disclosure of witness information, hearing testimony through remote means and executive protection measures. These actions in the International Criminal Court are different in some cases, such as non-disclosure of witness statements and in some other cases, such as the adoption of executive measures, although the International Court has limited possibilities in the field of adopting executive measures to protect witnesses.

Public proceedings are one of the principles of fair proceedings, the limitations and exceptions of which are of great importance and sensitivity. The nature of these limitations and exceptions are important issues that have received less attention in the shadow of the principle of public proceedings. The purpose of this article is to examine the exceptions of public proceedings in criminal jurisprudence, Iranian criminal law, human rights documents and international criminal law. This article is descriptive and analytical, and the library method is used to investigate the mentioned topic. The findings indicate that in jurisprudence, the acceptance of the principle of public proceedings can be inferred, but there is no mention of its exceptions. In Iranian criminal law, at the discretion of the court and in cases such as children's court, public decency, public order and security, religious or ethnic sentiments, and private lawsuits, if the parties to the lawsuit request, the proceedings are closed. In human rights documents, ethics and public order and national security of governments are exceptions to public proceedings. In the statutes of international criminal courts, issues such as public order or morality and security, protection of witnesses and victims, compliance with the expediency of justice, and protection of documents and information are exceptions to public proceedings. Although in international documents, these exceptions are stated in a general way, but the general and non-transparent statement of these exceptions in the domestic laws of countries, including Iran, cannot be defended.

Despite the pivotal role of agricultural development in combatting hunger and achieving food security, limited attention has been directed towards the repercussions of terrorism on agriculture. Nevertheless, empirical evidence does suggest that conflicts detrimentally impact agricultural inputs and outputs, including land, production, and income. In light of this, indicators of terrorism such as domestic, transnational, and unspecified terrorism, total terrorism, number of attacks, and fatalities due to terrorism can be correlated with agricultural indicators encompassing inputs (e.g., agricultural land and labor force) and outputs (e.g., agricultural productivity growth). Agricultural terrorism falls under the category of bio-terrorist crimes, with its primary consequence being the disruption of the agricultural sector. This includes actions such as livestock slaughter, vegetation pollution, and resource supply disturbance. Deliberately introducing animal or plant diseases to evoke terror, inflict economic harm, and destabilize targeted countries characterizes agricultural terrorism. This form of terrorism may be perpetrated by governments or independent terrorist organizations, sometimes acting on behalf of specific governments. Broadly defined, agricultural terrorism involves the deliberate introduction of animal or plant diseases to incite terror, inflict economic damage, and disrupt a nation's stability. Historical precedence reveals terrorist attacks targeting agriculture, orchestrated either by governments or independent terrorist groups linked to specific governments. The aftermath  of biological attacks on agriculture can encompass severe economic crises in the agricultural and food industries, erosion of government trust, and even human casualties. If the chosen disease proves transmissible to humans, both food security and public health face peril. In armed conflicts, various methods of war result in the destruction of crops, displacement of agricultural populations, eradication of agricultural fields, and hindrance of humanitarian aid reaching vulnerable populations. Such actions infringe on the "right to food," a quintessential human right. Observing the principles and regulations of international human rights law can help mitigate armed conflicts' effects on agricultural security. International law unequivocally bans the exploitation of civilian starvation as a method of war. Imposed famines, as seen in countries like Syria, Tigray, Yemen, and now Ukraine, are not only a grim reality but also qualify as war crimes. Consequently, the International Criminal Court bears the responsibility, as per Article 8 of its Statute, to investigate and prosecute deliberate starvation as a war crime. Notably, the provision criminalizing intentional starvation in non-international armed conflicts was amended just a year after the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2417. The Assembly of States Parties to the International Criminal Court addressed this deficiency in the Rome Statute by including war crimes related to non-international armed conflicts. While comprehensive international measures against such terrorist crimes are yet to be sanctioned through the United Nations, the international criminalization of agricultural terrorism holds potential. Given its inhumane nature, expanding the court's jurisdiction in line with the provisions of Articles 5, 6, and 7 of the statute could impede its proliferation to some extent. The utilization of rural law enforcement agencies in countering and preventing terrorist acts against agricultural products is an undeniable necessity. Threats arising from various forms of terrorist crimes, including those targeting agriculture and the environment, necessitate continuous monitoring to avert destruction and insecurity. Additionally, domestic educational and research institutions possess considerable capability in tackling agricultural and environmental terrorism. By dedicating specific training centers to instruct officials and law enforcement officers in proper responses and preventive measures, this system can play a pivotal role. Prominent organizations like the American Academy of Sciences are establishing high-level national security centers to train university elites and scholars to address challenges posed by agricultural terrorist crimes, enhancing biological security and safeguarding food sources. Farmers should adopt measures such as permanent marking of farm and livestock equipment, minimizing predictable absences, and promptly reporting missing equipment to law enforcement. Incorporating investigation and prevention of terrorist acts against agricultural products into police curriculum and textbooks is crucial. Regional and national information resources related to agricultural terrorism should be developed and shared with law enforcement agencies. Additionally, research should address questions concerning the extent and types of agricultural terrorism and explore existing and potential preventive measures. As demonstrated, considering the territorial scope and outcomes of committed actions within the context of crimes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court's Statute, with government consensus and collaboration, criminalizing agricultural terrorism is feasible. Inclusion within the statute's ambit covers terrorist crimes, facilitating the implementation of provisions for criminal pursuit and justice. Although political alignments during terrorist acts pose challenges to pursuing and prosecuting them in the International Criminal Court, a shared approach and cooperation among governments offer avenues for combating such crimes. On the non-criminal front, adopting preventive policies involves establishing technical, technological, and even social frameworks. Implementation of these measures ensures that the offensive and defensive ambiance stemming from terrorist acts remains subject to control, supervision, and management.

The ICC ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation by relying on Article 19(3) of the Statute at the request of the Prosecutor, results which have not been known before. The ICC jurisprudence in relation to the application of Article 19 of the Statute to the situation in the Myanmar has led to conclusions that are important to examine. Therefore, reviewing the results of the ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation and identifying the exit strategy based on jurisprudence is one of the objectives and subject of this article. Research method is descriptive-analytical and relies on the Statute provisions and the ICC jurisprudence to answer research question. What are the results of the prosecutor’s request for a ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation? Research findings show that the ICC jurisprudence in the Myanmar situation not only did not prevent the loss of costs, according to the prosecutor under the concept of judicial economy, but only transferred it from the prosecutor’s office to the ICC. This view is based on two conclusions drawn from the ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation in light of the ICC jurisprudence.First, the issuance of ruling on jurisdiction did not preclude the need to consider the prosecutor’s future request for authorization of the investigation in the Myanmar situation. However, if the prosecutor had resorted to the provisions of Article 15(3) of the Statute from the outset, both the ICC jurisdiction would have been established and the investigation into the Myanmar situation would have been authorized. This is a cost that the Prosecutor has paid for by wasting time, energy and the ICC’s facilities with the theory of judicial economy in her opinion in the situation of the Myanmar. Although the Prosecutor tried to make this cost zero by resorting to the mechanism of Article 19(3) of the Statute, but the ICC jurisprudence showed that this cost is not only not zero, but it is transferred from the Prosecutor’s office to the ICC. Of course, resorting to Article 15(3) of the Statute is subject to providing the necessary documents and reasons to prove the logical basis for the need to start a preliminary investigation in the situation in the Myanmar, which is obtained for the Prosecutor after a brief review of the issue and the supporting reasons according to Article 15(1) of the Statute. But there is a doubt that the Prosecutor was forced to resort to the mechanism of Article 19(3) of the Statute. If the prosecutor was sure that the principle of objective territorial jurisdiction and the effect of the Bangladesh’s membership in the situation of the Myanmar is the basis for exercising the ICC’s jurisdiction, perhaps she would not resort the mechanism of Article 19(3) of the Statute instead of the mechanism of Articles 15(3) and 18(2) of the Statute and preliminaries.Second, recourse to the mechanism of Article 19(3) of the Statute has led to the disregard of the requirements of Article 19(2) of the Statute governing Article 18(7) of the Statute, which is related to Article 15(3) of the Statute. The competent state’s objection to the ICC jurisdiction depends on the Prosecutor’s resort to the mechanism of Articles 15(3) and 18 of the Statute, which was missing in the process of hearing and issuing the ruling on jurisdiction in the situation of the Myanmar. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s resort to Article 19(3) of the Statute without observing the formalities in Articles 15(3) and 18 of the Statute had a negative impact on the position of the state objecting to the application of complementary jurisdiction of the ICC at the stage of issuing the decision to accept jurisdiction in the situation of the Myanmar. These requirements are one of the components of a fair trial and the granting of the opportunity to challenge the ICC’s complementary jurisdiction, which was fulfilled by the prosecutor in accordance with the procedures of Articles 15(3) and 18(2) of the Statute, but did not. The right to object to the application of the complementary jurisdiction of the ICC or to prevent it by using the mechanism in Articles 18 and 19(2) of the Statute is for the state claiming criminal jurisdiction in the crimes under the ICC jurisdiction in which the Prosecutor is applying for permission to start an investigation. According to Article 15(3) of the Statute, the Prosecutor requests permission to start a preliminary investigation, and the state claiming jurisdiction immediately objects to it by resorting to Articles 18 and 19(2) of the Statute to prohibit the ICC’s complementary jurisdiction. Although this possibility is weak in the situation of the Myanmar, it should not be prejudged. Therefore, the judicial procedure thought out a solution to avoid ignoring the rights of the competent state in this regard. Therefore, the competent state’s objection to the ICC jurisdiction at the stage of issuing the order accepting the ICC’s jurisdiction was postponed to the next stage, i.e. the stage of issuing the order for the prosecutor’s preliminary investigation in the Myanmar situation.

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.