Abstract:
Under the UN Charter، the Security Council is the primarily responsible organ for keeping international peace and security. For this end، it has taken a variety of actions، one of which is the establishment of international criminal courts such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The purpose of these courts is to punish international criminals to maintain or stabilize peace. In addition، International Criminal Court has been established to combat impunity of great criminals. Overlapping functions of these two، on the one hand، and the dependency of International Criminal Courts on States and the Security Council together with the negligence on the part of the Security Council in its primary responsibility given by the Charter، on the other، underlie the interference of the Security Council in jurisdiction of the mentioned courts and lead to the non-realization of international criminal justice and the perpetuate continuation of justice practice based on discrimination in international criminal law. This article aims to study the relationship between these two important international institutions and has come to this conclusion that in their interrelationship، the priority is given to the promotion of international peace and security over universal criminal justice.
Machine summary:
The referral of the situations in Darfur and Libya to the Court by the Security Council is an example of the interaction between these two in the field of international criminal law, just as the issuance of Security Council Resolution 1422 and the exemption of peacekeepers from non-member state nationals from the Court's jurisdiction can be considered a confrontation between them.
Regarding the granting of this privilege to the Security Council, it must be said that this authority, precisely because of its connection to the primary duty of the Security Council, is not only not negative but, for the following reasons, has been necessary and even essential, because this authority ensures, first, that this practice becomes established in the United Nations Security Council—that the solution to all problems is not only military and political, and that many issues can be resolved through legal and judicial means, via the International Criminal Court or other international judicial authorities, with the minimum human and financial cost.
Due to the fact that the structure of the aforementioned article and the powers expressly granted to the Security Council therein are absolutely non-interpretable and, consequently, cannot be limited by the Court, politicization and the exertion of pressure by major powers in the Security Council, such as the threatening entry of the United States to apply discrimination and exemption for peacekeepers who are nationals of non-member states of the Statute from the regulations of the Criminal Court, which led to the issuance of Resolution 1422, will be a clear example of the continuation of discriminatory justice.
(
, 
, 
)
