خلاصة:
International criminal acts have various manifestations, and for each of them to be criminalized, a precise legal perspective must be formed in the international community. It is absolutely necessary that these criminalizations are carried out by international criminal authorities so that they take on an objective and practical form. In fact, international criminalization faces various challenges, among which one can mention the lack of strong enforcement guarantees after identifying an act as a crime. Therefore, our goal in this article is to explain the foundations of international criminalization and how enforcement guarantees accompany the criminalization of an act committed by a person. In summary, it can be concluded that international criminalization faces uncertainty due to enforcement problems and the absence of an absolute power beyond national powers in the world, which is one of the biggest challenges of international criminalization. The current article is conducted using a library-based method and in a descriptive-analytical manner.
ملخص الجهاز:
" To establish a state's unwillingness, the judges of the Court must determine whether the case formed at the national level is intended to shield the person from criminal responsibility, or whether the proceedings were not conducted independently or impartially, or were conducted in a manner that is inconsistent with the intent to bring the person to justice.
The Statute of the International Criminal Court has categorized four cases, including: war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and aggression, as the most heinous international felonies.
" According to Schabas, this paragraph does not conflict with the principle of legality of crime from the perspective of the International Criminal Court, because it pertains to a space outside the Statute.
The Statute has created important advancements in the field of international criminal law, including regarding the principles of legality of crimes and punishments.
From the perspective of the International Court of Justice, one can rely on the famous finding of the Nuremberg Tribunal to support the argument that only individuals can commit the obligations set forth in Article 3 of the Genocide Convention, which states that crimes against international law are committed only by means of human beings and not abstract entities.
In particular, the judgment issued in the case of 2 and others is noteworthy, because for the first time, an international criminal institution defined the crime of persecution and interpreted and 3 implemented its elements according to the customary rules of international humanitarian law.
(
, 
, 
)
