چکیده:
The initial concept of the principle of universal criminal jurisdiction, based on which a country's national courts can adjudicate a crime that has neither occurred within its territory, nor involves its nationals as defendants or victims, nor was committed against its interests, has evolved in various dimensions. It has progressed from the choice to prosecute the single crime of piracy to the theory of universal jurisdiction, which has developed through custom and international treaties to a stage where governments now even accept the obligation to punish the newest crimes subject to this principle. Although the perspective on this jurisdiction differs in each existing legal system, and therefore various regimes of domestic legislation exist in this field today, its evolutionary course is toward universal or maximal acceptance and implementation. Thus, domestic courts derive the origin of their jurisdiction in this matter from custom, international treaties, or the national laws of their respective countries, and do not consider its application to be an interference in the sovereignty of other countries. In this article, an attempt has been made to examine the origin and legal nature of this jurisdiction, based on the hypotheses presented.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Does the implementation of the principle of universal jurisdiction based on an international treaty, regarding the nationals of non-member states, not constitute a violation of the principle of legality of crime and a breach of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?
(Basyoni, Weiss, 68:1995) Some of these treaties that provide for the permission or obligation to exercise universal jurisdiction are, in order of adoption date: the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Articles 49, 50, 129, and 149), the 1958 Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 19), the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful &%00107UQMG001G% aircraft hijacking 1970 (Articles 4, 5 and 7), the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation 1971 (Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8), the Convention on Offences against Internationally Protected Persons 1973 (Articles 3, 6 and 7), the Convention against Hostage-Taking 1979 (Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8), the Convention against Torture 1984 (Articles 5 and 7), the Protocol concerning the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of International Civil Aviation 1988, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988 (Articles 6, 10 and 11), the Convention on the Safety of United Nations Peacekeepers 1995 (Articles 10 and 14) and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997 (Articles 6 and 8) Recent events, including the establishment of the International Criminal Court, have raised the question of whether the member states of these conventions can use the authority mentioned in these treaties to prosecute nationals of non-member states found in their territory?
(
, 
, 
)
