Contexts, Requirements, and Consequences of the Exercise of Domestic Jurisdiction by States over International Crimes (With a View to the Relationship Between Iran and the International Criminal Court)

Abstract

International crimes, as the most severe violations of human rights and humanitarian law—including crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes—have consistently been the subject of discussion and examination in both international and domestic forums. The exercise of domestic jurisdiction by states in confronting these crimes is regarded as one of the most complex and challenging issues in international law. Many states, aiming to preserve national sovereignty and ensure justice within the framework of their domestic laws, undertake jurisdiction over such crimes. On the other hand, international tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), as a global authority, seek to prosecute international criminals through coordination with domestic judicial systems. In this context, Iran’s relationship with the ICC also faces particular challenges, as Iran has not yet joined this institution. Nonetheless, some international crimes are addressed within Iran's domestic legal framework, indicating the country's effort to exercise domestic jurisdiction over international crimes. The main objective of this thesis is to examine the necessary conditions for enabling Iran to exercise jurisdiction over international crimes in its domestic courts, to the extent that recourse to the jurisdiction of foreign international courts becomes unnecessary. Library and online research methods were used to collect information. Additionally, data were gathered through the use of note-taking tools.