Journal of Criminal Law Research

Abstract Problem Statement and Background
Crimes against national security lie at the intersection of national security and citizens’ rights and freedoms. In the Global South, the concepts of security and security-related crimes cannot be analyzed independently of the historical, social, political, and structural contexts of these societies. The legacy of colonialism, external interventions, and structural inequalities have influenced the formation of the concept of security in Southern societies. Iran, as one of the societies of the Global South, has historically experienced classical colonialism, neo-colonialism, and epistemic colonialism. From this perspective, crimes against security in Iran are not merely the product of offenders’ individual actions; in some cases, they are also connected to historical and social structures and domestic and international power relations.
By contrast, Iranian criminal law concerning crimes against security has, in many cases, been shaped by the prioritization of security and the preservation of the political system over citizens’ rights, placing security offenders in a different position from ordinary offenders. This has resulted in the emergence of certain elements of enemy-oriented criminal law, in which offenders are considered not merely on the basis of their past criminal conduct but also in terms of their potential future danger. Preventive criminal intervention, the criminalization of preparatory conduct, severe punishments, restrictions on certain defense rights, reliance on special legislation, and the possibility of prolonged detention are among the characteristics of this approach. Such elements can be observed in both substantive and procedural criminal law in Iran.
Southern Criminology is a theoretical and practical project aimed at decolonizing and democratizing criminological knowledge. By criticizing epistemic imperialism, it seeks to reconsider the power relations embedded in dominant Northern knowledge. The present article, adopting a critical approach and drawing upon the conceptual framework of Southern Criminology, examines Iran’s criminal policy toward crimes against national security and seeks to answer the fundamental question of how Southern Criminology can provide a basis for redefining Iran’s criminal-law approach to security-related crimes. The significance of this question lies in the fact that mainstream criminology has largely been based on the experiences of Northern societies and, in some cases, lacks sufficient capacity to explain the historical and structural contexts of Southern societies. By challenging the epistemic dominance of the Global North and emphasizing the experiences and knowledge of Southern societies, Southern Criminology makes it possible to reconsider concepts such as crime, security, threat, and punishment within the historical and social context of each society.
Research Objective
The main objective of this study is to explain the capacity of Southern Criminology to criticize and redefine the enemy-oriented approach of the criminal law of the Islamic Republic of Iran toward crimes against security. The study seeks, first, to identify the historical and structural context of security-related crimes in Iran; second, to examine the components and manifestations of the enemy-oriented approach in Iran’s substantive and procedural criminal law; and third, by drawing on the epistemological foundations of Southern Criminology, to provide a theoretical framework for moving from an enemy-oriented approach toward an independent, context-sensitive, justice-oriented, and human-dignity-based criminal law. Accordingly, the study does not merely seek to criticize existing regulations but aims to demonstrate that reconsidering criminal policy concerning security-related crimes requires a coherent theoretical foundation.
Research Method
This study is fundamental-applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of method, and adopts a qualitative and critical approach. The theoretical framework of the research is Southern Criminology. The research data were collected through documentary and library-based research, drawing on primary legal, criminological, and theoretical sources concerning crimes against security, enemy-oriented criminal law, and Southern Criminology. The analysis first examines the concept of national security and the position of security-related crimes in the Global South. It then explains the formation and characteristics of enemy-oriented criminal law and analyzes its manifestations in the substantive and procedural criminal law of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Subsequently, the theoretical foundations of Southern Criminology, including postcolonialism, contextual knowledge, critique of epistemic colonialism, and cognitive justice, are employed as analytical tools for reconsidering security-related crimes in Iran. Accordingly, the final analysis is conducted at three levels: classical colonialism, neo-colonialism, and epistemic colonialism.
Research Findings
The findings indicate, first, that national security in Iran cannot be analyzed solely within the framework of external threats or the individual actions of security offenders. Security in Southern societies has domestic, regional, and global dimensions, and in Iran, the interaction among these levels has contributed to the emergence of security challenges. Therefore, a purely criminal and individual-centered analysis of crimes against security overlooks part of their social reality.
Second, the examination of Iranian criminal law indicates that elements of enemy-oriented criminal law can be observed in both substantive and procedural domains concerning crimes against security. At the substantive level, these include preventive criminalization, consideration of thoughts and preparatory conduct, the breadth of criminal offenses, severe punishments, and restrictions on the application of certain leniency measures. At the procedural level, restrictions can also be observed concerning arrest, interception, pretrial detention, the selection of counsel, access to case files, and proceedings before Revolutionary Courts.
Third, from the perspective of Southern Criminology, the historical and structural contexts of security-related crimes in Iran are connected to the legacy of colonialism and newer forms of domination. At the level of classical and quasi-colonialism, border-making and external interventions; at the level of neo-colonialism, sanctions, hybrid warfare, and media interventions; and at the level of epistemic colonialism, the imitation of Northern epistemic and legal models may constitute contexts conducive to certain forms of security-related offending.
Fourth, the findings demonstrate that Southern Criminology has the capacity, through postcolonialism, situated knowledge, critique of epistemic colonialism, and cognitive justice, to challenge the dominant conception of the security offender as an “enemy.” Rather than disregarding the historical and social contexts of criminal behavior, this approach emphasizes understanding those contexts and recognizing the knowledge and experiences of marginalized groups. From this perspective, sustainable security cannot be achieved merely through expanded criminal intervention and harsher punishment; it also requires attention to the structural conditions that produce insecurity and greater citizen participation in the political and social order.
Conclusion
The present study demonstrates that the Iranian criminal law, regarding crimes against security, incorporates elements of an "enemy-oriented" approach in both its substantive and procedural dimensions. However, it is the Southern Criminological analysis that reveals that this approach should not be regarded solely as a domestic choice, but can be understood in relation to historical colonial and quasi-colonial power relations. From this perspective, the roots of security-related crimes can be examined at three levels: classical colonialism, manifested in artificial border demarcations; neo-colonialism, reflected in hybrid warfare and sanctions; and epistemic colonialism, manifested in imitative and neoliberal development models.
Accordingly, the adoption of an enemy-oriented approach not only fails to ensure national security, but may itself contribute to undermining security from within through the extensive exclusion of citizens, the erosion of social capital, the weakening of citizenship rights, and the reproduction of violence. Therefore, breaking this vicious cycle requires a fundamental redefinition of the criminal-law approach to crimes against security, drawing on Southern Criminology and moving beyond an enemy-oriented logic toward a model grounded in cognitive justice, social contextualization, and human dignity.

Abstract Background and Problem Statement The integrity of financial reporting constitutes one of the fundamental pillars of corporate governance and market transparency. Among financial statements, the balance sheet plays a particularly significant role because it presents the financial position of a company at a specific point in time and serves as a primary basis for the decision-making of shareholders, investors, creditors, and other stakeholders. Consequently, any intentional distortion of the balance sheet may undermine public confidence, impair economic decision-making, and threaten the transparency of commercial activities. To safeguard these interests, Article 258(2) of the 1967 Amendment to the Iranian Commercial Code criminalizes the preparation, presentation, or publication of an Unreal Balance Sheet for the purpose of concealing the Real Financial Position of a company. Despite the importance of this provision, Iranian legal scholarship has paid limited attention to the legal nature and constituent elements of this offence. More importantly, the legislation does not define what constitutes an Unreal Balance Sheet, nor does it establish a clear boundary between ordinary accounting errors and criminally punishable financial misrepresentation. This legislative ambiguity raises a fundamental legal question: should every inaccuracy in a balance sheet be considered criminal, or only those distortions that materially alter the Real Financial Position of the company? The present study addresses this gap by integrating principles of Corporate Criminal Law with internationally recognized accounting concepts, particularly Fair Presentation and Materiality, to provide a coherent interpretation of Article 258(2). Research Objective The principal objective of this research is to analyze the legal, material, and mental elements of the offence of presenting an Unreal Balance Sheet under Iranian law. More specifically, the study seeks to determine the legal criteria that distinguish criminal financial misrepresentation from technical accounting mistakes. It also aims to clarify the meaning of the statutory phrase "concealing the real financial position of the company" through the concepts of Fair Presentation and Materiality, which are well established in international financial reporting standards. In addition, the study examines whether the offence should be interpreted as a result-based crime or a conduct-based crime, identifies the scope of criminal liability among corporate officers, evaluates the position of auditors and statutory inspectors, and compares the Iranian approach with selected legal systems, including the United States, England, and France. Finally, the article analyzes the corresponding provision contained in Article 977 of the Draft Commercial Code to identify legislative continuity and reform. Research Method This research adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology based primarily on library research. The legal analysis relies on Iranian statutory provisions, doctrinal writings, and comparative legal materials. Because Iranian judicial precedents concerning this offence are virtually nonexistent, the study supplements domestic sources with comparative analyses of foreign legislation, judicial decisions, and international accounting standards. The research extensively examines the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), International Accounting Standard (IAS 1), the IFRS Conceptual Framework, International Standards on Auditing (ISA 320), and relevant guidance issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Comparative references are also drawn from American securities law, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, SEC regulations, English fraud legislation, and French criminal jurisprudence relating to false financial statements. This interdisciplinary methodology enables the integration of Corporate Criminal Law with internationally accepted accounting principles, particularly Fair Presentation and Materiality. Research Findings The findings demonstrate that the legal element of the offence is confined to members of the board of directors and managing directors. Although auditors and statutory inspectors play an essential role in ensuring the reliability of financial statements, Article 258(2) does not recognize them as principal offenders. Their criminal liability may therefore arise only under the general rules governing accomplice liability where the statutory requirements are fulfilled. With respect to the material element, the study concludes that criminal conduct encompasses both the presentation of an Unreal Balance Sheet to shareholders and its publication to the public. These two forms of conduct protect different legal interests. Presentation primarily safeguards shareholders' decision-making, whereas publication extends protection to creditors, investors, and the broader commercial community. The research further establishes that the concept of the Real Financial Position cannot be interpreted literally or mechanically. Instead, it should be understood in light of the accounting principles of Fair Presentation and Materiality. A balance sheet should be regarded as unreal only when a material misstatement substantially distorts the faithful representation of the company's financial condition. Minor accounting inaccuracies, technical errors, estimation differences, or immaterial omissions do not necessarily amount to criminal conduct because they do not alter the overall financial picture of the company. The analysis also demonstrates that Materialityprovides the most appropriate legal criterion for distinguishing criminal falsification from ordinary accounting errors. A misstatement should only be regarded as criminal where it is sufficiently significant to influence the economic decisions of a reasonable shareholder or investor. Consequently, not every numerical inaccuracy transforms a balance sheet into an Unreal Balance Sheet. Rather, only those distortions capable of concealing the Real Financial Position satisfy the statutory requirement. Regarding the mental element, the study emphasizes that Article 258(2) expressly requires a specific intent to conceal the Real Financial Position of the company. Therefore, negligence, professional mistakes, computational errors, or ordinary accounting misjudgments cannot establish criminal liability in the absence of fraudulent intent. The requirement of specific intent significantly narrows the scope of criminalization and reinforces the principle of strict interpretation in Corporate Criminal Law. Comparative analysis further confirms this interpretation. Although American, English, and French legal systems adopt different legislative approaches, each distinguishes material fraudulent misrepresentations from insignificant accounting irregularities. In all three jurisdictions, criminal liability generally depends upon intentional deception accompanied by a materially misleading representation capable of influencing financial decisions. Conclusion This study concludes that the offence established by Article 258(2) should be interpreted narrowly and consistently with the fundamental principles of Corporate Criminal Law. An Unreal Balance Sheet should not be equated with every accounting error or technical discrepancy. Criminal liability arises only where a material misstatement intentionally conceals the Real Financial Position of the company and undermines the principle of Fair Presentation. The concepts of Materiality and Fair Presentation, although originating in accounting standards, provide valuable interpretative tools for determining the legal meaning of the statutory expression "real financial position." Their incorporation into the legal analysis offers an objective standard capable of distinguishing punishable financial fraud from non-criminal accounting mistakes. This approach simultaneously protects shareholders and market transparency while preserving the fundamental criminal law principles of legality, proportionality, and strict interpretation. The principal contribution of this research lies in combining criminal law analysis with modern accounting standards to develop a coherent legal framework for interpreting the offence of presenting an Unreal Balance Sheet. The proposed interpretation enhances legal certainty, limits excessive criminalization, and provides practical guidance for courts, prosecutors, corporate managers, auditors, and legal scholars dealing with financial reporting offences.

Abstract Introduction and Background In any society, the establishment of public order and security is considered one of the fundamental pillars. The main goal of this effort is to prevent chaos and create a peaceful and secure environment for citizens to live. The most important component that is directly related to maintaining public order and security and provides the basis for sustainable development is the “right to social health” of citizens. The right to social health goes beyond mere access to health and medical services, meaning ensuring conditions in which all members of society can achieve the highest level of physical and mental health; conditions that include enjoying a safe environment, quality education, social participation, and distributive justice. This right is not only a human necessity, but also the foundation of public welfare and the social state, and its absence can lead to the weakening of social cohesion, an increase in crime, and even the violation of other human rights, including social and national security and civil unrest. International reports show that societies with low social health indicators are up to forty percent more exposed to crime and civil unrest, which doubles the importance of preventive policies. In such circumstances, participatory criminal policy, as a new approach that emphasizes the cooperation of citizens and civil institutions, can be an effective solution to prevent violations of the right to social health. Given the challenges in realizing this right, traditional criminal approaches that are mainly state-oriented and reactive, do not have the necessary efficiency. In contrast, “participatory criminal policy,” as a new approach in the criminal justice system, emphasizes constructive interaction between the formal judicial institution and civil society. Criminal policy refers to a set of governmental and non-governmental strategies and measures designed to prevent crime and control crime. The right to health is one of the fundamental human rights that has been recognized not only in the legal systems of countries but also in international law. This human right has broad dimensions and goes beyond access to health services, including enjoying a safe environment, quality education, social participation and distributive justice, and follows the conditions that are necessary to achieve desirable health. One of the most important dimensions of this right is the right to social health, which means that all members of society have access to the highest level of health. Since this right is directly related to social cohesion and social order and security, therefore, its preservation is of great importance to governments. However, its realization has also faced obstacles. Research Objective The aim of the present study is to examine the obstacles and strategies of participatory criminal policy against the violation of the right to social health of citizens in Iran. Research Method The research method is descriptive-analytical and uses library resources and the method of conducting qualitative research. By examining criminal policy and participatory criminal policy, it explains the position of the right to social health in Iranian law. Research findings The research findings indicate that participatory criminal policy has been able to establish social welfare among citizens to some extent by promoting the right to social health using the capacities of society. However, the lack of support from organizations, social resistance, lack of public awareness, and weakening of social solidarity, as well as the lack of transparency and trust-building, are considered obstacles to the realization of this right in Iran. In this regard, legalizing disclosure, social resilience through strengthening local networks and non-governmental organizations to increase citizen participation, clarify public affairs, and build trust between the government and citizens through accountability and transparency, etc., have been proposed as the main strategies. The realization of the right to social health is not only a legal requirement but also a moral and social necessity that must be considered in government policies and programs in order to establish social justice and promote public welfare. Participatory criminal policy, as a new approach, attempts to prevent violations of the right to social health by attracting the cooperation of citizens and non-governmental organizations. This approach, by utilizing the capacities of the community, can help promote social welfare, but requires transparency, trust-building, and increased public awareness.

Abstract Problem and Background Differential criminal procedure for children is one of the important achievements of modern criminal policy and the movement for the protection of child rights. It is based on the recognition that children, because of their age, developmental characteristics, psychological conditions, and special needs, should not be subjected to the same criminal procedures and judicial mechanisms applied to adults. Accordingly, modern juvenile justice systems have gradually shifted from purely punitive approaches toward protective, educational, corrective, restorative, and rehabilitative responses. Differential criminal procedure seeks to establish special procedural guarantees for children at different stages of the criminal process, including police investigation, preliminary investigation, prosecution, trial, sentencing, and execution of judicial decisions. The development of differential criminal procedure is closely connected with the expansion of child rights and modern criminal policy. The best interests of the child, respect for human dignity, individualized treatment, rehabilitation, and social reintegration are among the fundamental principles of juvenile justice. Iranian criminal legislation has also recognized this approach. The Criminal Procedure Code contains special provisions concerning children and adolescents and provides specific procedural mechanisms intended to distinguish juvenile justice from the ordinary criminal justice system governing adults. However, the existence of special legal provisions does not necessarily guarantee their effective implementation. Examination of the legal framework and practical judicial approaches reveals a significant gap between legislative objectives and practice. Legal ambiguities and inconsistencies, insufficient specialized institutions, weaknesses in protective mechanisms, the absence of specialized police for children, difficulties concerning personality files, and certain judicial practices have created obstacles to the realization of differential criminal procedure. Consequently, in some cases, proceedings involving children may approach the ordinary model of adult criminal proceedings. The central issue of this research is therefore whether the existing regulations governing criminal procedure for children have been able to achieve the objectives of differential criminal procedure in practice and what the main obstacles to its realization are. Objective of the Research The main objective of this research is to analyze the foundations and manifestations of differential criminal procedure for children and to identify its major legislative and practical challenges. The study seeks to determine whether the special procedural mechanisms established by Iranian criminal legislation have created a genuinely differentiated system of juvenile justice or have remained largely formal. The research also aims to assess the compatibility of differential criminal procedure with child rights, modern criminal policy, restorative justice, rehabilitation, and social reintegration. Particular attention is given to specialized police, specialized judicial authorities, personality files, protective mechanisms, informal justice, restorative justice, and the specialization of professionals involved in juvenile proceedings. Research Method This research employs a descriptive-analytical method and is based on library research. Relevant legal provisions, legal scholarship, academic literature, and judicial approaches concerning children, juvenile justice, child rights, and differential criminal procedure are examined and analyzed. The descriptive dimension identifies the existing legal rules, procedural guarantees, and specialized mechanisms, while the analytical dimension evaluates their effectiveness in achieving the objectives of differential criminal procedure. The research therefore focuses on the relationship between legislative intention and practical implementation and examines existing challenges from the perspective of child protection, modern criminal policy, restorative justice, and rehabilitation. Research Findings The findings demonstrate that the Iranian legislator has shown a clear intention to establish differential criminal procedure for children and adolescents. The adoption of special procedural rules and recognition of differentiated mechanisms represent an important development in Iranian juvenile justice. Nevertheless, these provisions have not yet resulted in a comprehensive and effective system of differential criminal procedure. First, legal ambiguities and inconsistencies in some provisions create uncertainty regarding the scope and application of special procedural protections and may lead to different judicial interpretations. Therefore, differential criminal procedure is not always implemented uniformly. Second, the insufficient development of specialized institutions constitutes a major obstacle. In particular, the absence of a fully established specialized police system for children weakens differentiated treatment from the earliest stage of the criminal process. Police officers who lack specialized knowledge of child rights, child psychology, and juvenile justice may unintentionally expose children to procedures designed primarily for adults. Third, the practical application of personality files faces significant challenges. Consideration of the child’s personality, psychological condition, family circumstances, social environment, and individual characteristics is essential for individualized juvenile justice. However, deficiencies in the preparation and evaluation of personality files and limited participation of psychologists, social workers, and other specialists may prevent judicial authorities from making fully individualized decisions. Fourth, the findings indicate weaknesses in protective, restorative, and informal mechanisms. Although the legal framework recognizes certain educational and corrective responses, these mechanisms have not reached their full practical potential. Continued reliance on formal criminal proceedings may restrict the development of restorative justice and informal justice, despite their potential to promote rehabilitation, education, and social reintegration. Finally, the effectiveness of differential criminal procedure depends substantially on the specialization of judicial and professional actors. Judges, prosecutors, police officers, lawyers, psychologists, and social workers require specialized training in child rights, child development, juvenile justice, restorative justice, and rehabilitation. Without such specialization, the practical effectiveness of special legal provisions remains limited. Conclusion The research concludes that Iranian criminal legislation has taken important steps toward establishing differential criminal procedure for children, but legislative recognition has not yet been fully transformed into effective institutional and practical differentiation. The main obstacles include legal ambiguities and inconsistencies, insufficient specialized institutions, the lack of specialized police for children, deficiencies in personality files, weak protective mechanisms, limited use of restorative and informal justice, and certain judicial practices. Achieving genuine differential criminal procedure therefore requires comprehensive legislative, institutional, and practical reforms. Existing regulations should be revised to eliminate ambiguities and establish coherent procedural guarantees for children. Specialized police for children should be established, and specialized judicial and support institutions should be strengthened. Personality files should be improved through the effective participation of psychologists, social workers, and other qualified specialists. Moreover, restorative justice and informal justice should be expanded where appropriate to reduce unnecessary reliance on formal criminal proceedings and strengthen rehabilitation and social reintegration. Ultimately, genuine differential criminal procedure requires a transition from merely formal legal differentiation to effective institutional and practical differentiation. Such a transformation can strengthen juvenile justice, protect child rights, and ensure that children are treated primarily through protective, educational, corrective, restorative, and rehabilitative measures rather than through punitive mechanisms designed for adults.

Abstract Problem Statement and Literature Review The use of foreign military bases located within the territory of third States has become one of the challenging issues in contemporary international law, particularly in the context of armed conflicts. These facilities may serve important functions in planning, supporting, coordinating, or conducting military operations and may therefore raise fundamental questions regarding the prohibition of the use of force, international State responsibility, and individual criminal responsibility. Although the establishment of a foreign military base or the presence of foreign military forces in the territory of another State does not, by itself, constitute an internationally wrongful act, the legal consequences of such facilities become significant when they are used in connection with military operations alleged to violate international obligations. Existing studies have examined various aspects of State responsibility, attribution of conduct, the prohibition of the use of force, and international criminal responsibility. Research concerning the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts has mainly focused on the conditions of attribution and the responsibility arising from aid or assistance provided in the commission of an internationally wrongful act. Likewise, studies in international criminal law have addressed individual responsibility for international crimes, particularly war crimes and the crime of aggression. However, insufficient attention has been paid to an integrated analysis of foreign military bases as a connecting factor between State conduct, assistance or facilitation of internationally wrongful acts, and the possible criminal responsibility of political and military officials. The necessity of the present study arises from the increasing complexity of contemporary military operations, in which the use of foreign territories, airspace, military facilities, and logistical capabilities has become a common feature of armed confrontations. In such circumstances, determining the responsibility of the State operating military bases, the host State providing facilities, and individuals involved in military decision-making requires a comprehensive legal framework based on the principles of attribution, international State responsibility, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. Research Objective This research aims to analyze the legal role of foreign military bases in armed conflicts and to examine their consequences for international State responsibility and individual criminal responsibility. The main objective is to identify the legal conditions under which the use of military bases, airspace, logistical facilities, and other military capabilities located in third States may result in responsibility for the State conducting military operations, the host State providing such facilities, or individuals involved in related actions. The research seeks to demonstrate that the mere existence of foreign military bases or the existence of defense agreements between States cannot automatically establish international responsibility. Rather, responsibility requires the determination of specific legal elements, including attribution of conduct, knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the operation, effective assistance, and a sufficient connection between the facilities provided and the alleged internationally wrongful act. Furthermore, this study aims to distinguish among three separate levels of accountability: the international responsibility of the State conducting military operations, the possible responsibility of the host State based on assistance or facilitation, and the individual criminal responsibility of persons who participate in planning, ordering, directing, or assisting international crimes. Methodology This research employs a descriptive-analytical method based on library and documentary sources. The study examines relevant international legal instruments, including the Charter of the United Nations, particularly Article 2(4) concerning the prohibition of the use of force and Article 51 concerning self-defence, the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, international humanitarian law instruments, international judicial practice, and relevant academic sources. Through a legal analytical approach, this research examines concepts such as attribution of conduct, effective control, aid or assistance, international State responsibility, command responsibility, and individual criminal responsibility. The Iran–United States military confrontation is selected as a case study to evaluate the possible legal consequences of using foreign military bases and related facilities in military operations. Findings The findings of this research demonstrate that foreign military bases cannot be considered, solely because of their existence, as evidence of international responsibility. The legal assessment depends on the actual function of these facilities, the manner in which they are used, the level of knowledge of the relevant States, and the material relationship between these facilities and specific military operations. Regarding the responsibility of the State operating foreign military bases, the research indicates that where such facilities are used for planning, supporting, coordinating, or conducting military operations alleged to violate international obligations, and where the relevant conduct is attributable to the State under international law, the possibility of international responsibility may arise. In this regard, military bases functioning as operational, intelligence, logistical, or command centers may constitute significant elements in assessing State responsibility. With respect to host States, the findings indicate that merely permitting the establishment of foreign military facilities or maintaining defense relations with another State is insufficient to establish international responsibility. However, where a host State knowingly provides effective assistance, logistical support, access to facilities, or other forms of contribution directly connected with an internationally wrongful act, its responsibility may be examined under the rules governing aid or assistance in the commission of an internationally wrongful act. The study also demonstrates that international State responsibility and individual criminal responsibility constitute distinct but related legal frameworks. The establishment of State responsibility does not automatically result in the criminal responsibility of individuals. Individual criminal responsibility requires independent proof of the material and mental elements of international crimes, including participation, ordering, contribution, facilitation, or command responsibility. Regarding international crimes, particularly the crime of aggression and war crimes, the findings show that only individuals holding leadership positions and possessing effective authority over political or military actions may potentially incur international criminal responsibility, provided that all required legal elements are established. Conclusion The analysis conducted in this research confirms that foreign military bases represent an important factor in contemporary armed conflicts; however, their mere existence cannot create international responsibility. Determining responsibility requires a case-by-case assessment based on attribution of conduct, the nature and extent of assistance provided, knowledge of the relevant circumstances, and the connection between the facilities used and the alleged violation of international law. The study concludes that the legal assessment of foreign military bases in armed conflicts requires simultaneous consideration of international State responsibility and individual criminal responsibility. While the State conducting military operations may bear responsibility for acts attributable to it, the responsibility of host States depends on their level of involvement, knowledge, and contribution to the relevant operations. At the individual level, criminal responsibility can only arise where the elements of international crimes and the personal role of political or military officials are established. Therefore, the legal regulation of foreign military bases should be interpreted through an integrated framework combining the prohibition of the use of force, the rules of State responsibility, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law.