Abolfath Khaleghi
Abstract
The extensive grounds of terrorist’s unpunishment, specifically in the newly-founded and governmental crimes, has affected the frequency of these terrorist acts and has led to the increasing development of their anti-human practices in regional and global levels. The unprecedented order and official ...
Read More
The extensive grounds of terrorist’s unpunishment, specifically in the newly-founded and governmental crimes, has affected the frequency of these terrorist acts and has led to the increasing development of their anti-human practices in regional and global levels. The unprecedented order and official terror of internationally protected persons, including the commander of the Quds Force by the US president, is the example of a crime that has violated treaties, customary rules and international legal principles and the new forms of terrorism, which could be imitated by other states’ presidents, threatens the peace and stability of the international community. Considering that the terrorist act was committed in the territory of a foreign country with the aiding and abetting of alien’s nationals, the victim's country is not easily able to prosecute the commanders who ordered and perpetrators of that incident. This is due to the fact that the terrorist act has occurred outside the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran and therefore the principle of territorial jurisdiction, which is the basis for the determination and recognition of the competent courts and law, cannot be enforced. Overcoming this fundamental obstacle and finding legal solutions to achieve the governing rules and the competent authority by exploring the jurisdictional aspects of international institutions is a challenge that has been addressed in this article through a descriptive-analytic method of study. Strategies such as applying the principles of substitute competence, using the capacity of the relevant states’ cooperation, legal capacity-creating based on the measures tested in the world community, constitute applicable responses for solving the problem.
null null; nematallah nabavi
Abstract
Abstract War crime, as an international criminal act, has many forms which has been criminalized by the international criminal court statute. Some instances of war crime that have been internationally criminalized concern to the use of some kind of weapons in an international conflict. This category ...
Read More
Abstract War crime, as an international criminal act, has many forms which has been criminalized by the international criminal court statute. Some instances of war crime that have been internationally criminalized concern to the use of some kind of weapons in an international conflict. This category is often called unusual weapons, in contrast to Conventional Weapons, which contains several different types of chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons and instances of firing explosive shells, which inflict unnecessary pain and suffering. The use of any types of unconventional weapons by perpetrator, considered as intentional crimes in some international documents, including the statute of the International Criminal Court. In these intentional crimes, in addition to the will to commit the crimes, the perpetrator need to be aware of circumstances. Islamic jurisprudence has imposed some restrictions and bans on the use of warfare instruments. Illegitimacy of using some military equipment as a general rule applicable to several instances, is an elementary principle. Hence, Islamic teachings and religious orders can be resorted to ban the use of these types of weapons as may be cited in various international documents, which contain the rules and norms of humanitarian law. This descriptive–analytic study shows that the theoretical foundations of the Prevention and Punishment of the use of unconventional weapons, are supported by similar rules in both Islamic law and international criminal system. These rules are based on the logic of rational religious law and the interests of human society.