International Criminal
Hassan Poorbafrani; Zahra Shokati Ahmadabad; Mohammadhasan Maldar
Abstract
Transferring convicts to prison is oneof the almost new forms of judicial cooperation.The ever-increasing communication has doubled the need to use this institution.Iran also paid attention to this matter by concluding the treaty on the transfer of convicts with Azerbaijan in 1378.Although the process ...
Read More
Transferring convicts to prison is oneof the almost new forms of judicial cooperation.The ever-increasing communication has doubled the need to use this institution.Iran also paid attention to this matter by concluding the treaty on the transfer of convicts with Azerbaijan in 1378.Although the process of concluding these treaties is increasing in the country today,there is always the question of whether the approval of a special law in this field is not necessary.And if there is a law, wouldn't it be easier to solve the problem of transferring Iranians sentenced to prison in other countries and vice versa? Using the descriptive-analytical method and library tools, the upcoming research, in addition to examining the reasons why legislation is not necessary,also explains the reasons for its necessity.The result is such that the adoption of a special law in this field is not useless,because it can help in the process of transferring convicts and their procedure.However, considering the serious obstacles in the way of this legislation, the least action can be the creation of a model document by the country so that it has the necessary policies in mind before entering the stage of creating rights and obligations in the field of treaties.
Heidar Piri; Seyed Mohammad Ghari Seyed Fatemi; Hadi Mahmoody
Abstract
Analogy as an applied matter does not have the same credibility in the logic and the different areas of the contemporary international law system. In international criminal law, like most domestic legal systems which interdict analogical reasoning in criminal law, according to art.22 (2) Rome Statute ...
Read More
Analogy as an applied matter does not have the same credibility in the logic and the different areas of the contemporary international law system. In international criminal law, like most domestic legal systems which interdict analogical reasoning in criminal law, according to art.22 (2) Rome Statute of the ICC:the definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. Nevertheless, in the international community as evolving, Criminal rules are not always able to accommodate all the crimes that occur.Hence,the lack of comprehensiveness of law and the emergence of new issues,as well as the use of ambiguous terms such as "other inhuman acts" in most of international criminal documents, made it inevitable to use analogy in international criminal law,not only as a useful tool in identifying applicable rules, but also as a form of interpretation.However,the authors believe that the use of analogy in international criminal proceedings does not have the power to make new crimes and imposes punishment without resorting to a valid criminal code. In addition to expressing a normative framework for analogical reasoning in international criminal law,this article analyzes the role of analogy in the decision-making processes of the international criminal courts and Tribunals
nadia bagheri; mojtaba janipour; mahin sobhani
Abstract
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to consider the Tu quoque defence in the context of international criminal law by the analytical-descriptive approach. Simply put, Tu quoque is the Latin term (equal to: You too) and often is stated in this context: (You should not punish me because you did it too). ...
Read More
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to consider the Tu quoque defence in the context of international criminal law by the analytical-descriptive approach. Simply put, Tu quoque is the Latin term (equal to: You too) and often is stated in this context: (You should not punish me because you did it too). This defence, for the first time was implicitly accepted during the Nuremberg tribunal (following World War II) in the Admiral Karl Doenitz case. The original base of this argument is the clean hands doctrine: (if one of the parties of armed conflict has committed certain crimes, his hands to prosecute or punish other parties of conflict for the same crimes are not clean). Recently, criminal tribunals such as International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia have been faced with Tu quoque as a defence. Despite the existence of an ambiguous history for this defence, jurists have not paid enough attention to this defence. This paper, by examining the jurisprudence of IMT and other international criminal courts, concludes that Tu quoque defence in Genocide and Crimes against humanity cannot be accepted, but in some War Crimes and the Crime of Aggression, this defence is acceptable under certain circumstances.
alireza roostayie; alireza arashpur
Abstract
For decades from now, the Rohingya ethnic minority has endured grave human rights violations in North Arakan State’s of Myanmar. Hundreds of thousands have fled across the border to Bangladesh towards harsh conditions of life.This paper indicates that it can be said with any degree of certainty ...
Read More
For decades from now, the Rohingya ethnic minority has endured grave human rights violations in North Arakan State’s of Myanmar. Hundreds of thousands have fled across the border to Bangladesh towards harsh conditions of life.This paper indicates that it can be said with any degree of certainty that the intent behind such actions is to ethnically cleanse North Arakan State.Ethnic-cleansing means “rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area”. According to international criminal law, the concept of ethnic cleansing on the one hand with crimes against humanity (deportation and forcible transfer) and on the other hand is associated with genocide. However, the growing body of evidence on killing and violence against RohingyaMuslims in Rakhine State demonstrates that this ethnic-cleansing is more than simply the removal of the Rohingya from the land, but is part of a deliberate process of destruction of the Rohingya people and commissionof genocide against them.
S. Mohammad Sadegh tabatabai; S. Hussein As’adi
Abstract
The jurisdiction of a court refers to its capacity in order to take valid
legal actions. The first of purpose the criminal law is to inflict deserved
punishment for retaliation of the committed crime. A prosecutor prosecutes
defendant which might lead to conviction. Many states including Iran claim
jurisdiction ...
Read More
The jurisdiction of a court refers to its capacity in order to take valid
legal actions. The first of purpose the criminal law is to inflict deserved
punishment for retaliation of the committed crime. A prosecutor prosecutes
defendant which might lead to conviction. Many states including Iran claim
jurisdiction over the crimes of their own citizens even if these crimes have
been committed abroad. Moreover, it is also true for a case when an apatrid
individual commits a crime against an Iranian citizen abroad. Considerable
ambiguities and errors are observable by studying the determined
jurisdictional principles in the Criminal Procedure Code. The reason for this
ambiguity revolves around article 316 which is not clear- cut, which may
leads jurist and judges to interpretive narrowly. As principle of legitimacy of
offences provides that penal codes must be interpreted strictly and should
not be generalized through compression method, it is necessary that it
article be reformed.
Hojjat Salimi Turkaman
Volume 1, Issue 1 , October 2012, , Pages 61-96
Abstract
Nowadays, various subjects of international law, includingcriminalization of use of nuclear weapons, can be studied from twodifferent aspects. In the classic paradigm of international law based onWestphalian order and sovereignty–oriented approach and in light ofinternational court of justice(ICJ) ...
Read More
Nowadays, various subjects of international law, includingcriminalization of use of nuclear weapons, can be studied from twodifferent aspects. In the classic paradigm of international law based onWestphalian order and sovereignty–oriented approach and in light ofinternational court of justice(ICJ) findings, mere employment ofnuclear weapons is not forbidden and nor is considered as aninternational crime. However it can be claimed that new paradigm iscoming up in international law. In This new paradigm based onhuman values, sovereignty can’t prevent emergence of a rule onbenefit of human rights crucially. Although survey of some subjectsfrom this aspect could lead to unacceptable result in comparison withthe last paradigm, it is the fact that everyone has to believe it late orsoon. Use of nuclear weapons in context of this emerging and nonestablished international law is violation of international Jus Cogensand public order and contains three forming elements of internationalcrimes. Then, in contrast to the classic paradigm of international law,use of nuclear weapons can be considered as an international crime inthe new emerging paradigm.
