چکیده:
Since April 29, 1993, nearly 12 years have passed since the inception of the Chemical Weapons Convention. This convention, along with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Biological Weapons Convention, is considered a core part of international law regarding armed conflict and disarmament. The development and codification of this branch of international law has led to state obligations regarding the criminalization, prosecution, and punishment of perpetrators of war crimes. In this regard, following the approval of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, countries have shown a greater inclination toward accepting and criminalizing these crimes in their domestic laws. Furthermore, the use of chemical weapons in warfare is one of the issues that may fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Iran is still considering the issue of accession or non-accession to the aforementioned court. Given the principle of 'the complementarity of the Court's jurisdiction' and the jurisprudential rule of 'Nafi al-Sabil' (denial of means), in the event of accession, this country will feel an even greater necessity for the criminalization of the aforementioned crimes. Of course, Iran currently also has obligations to criminalize these crimes based on the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1993 Paris Convention, which it has not yet implemented. Political logic also dictates that these crimes be identified in domestic law. This action is not only consistent with Islamic principles but also, theoretically, the prosecution and punishment of war criminals has jurisprudential precedent. Moreover, the criminalization of chemical weapons specifically has contributed to strengthening international custom in this field, and Iran will also have the jurisdiction to adjudicate this crime if it occurs within Iranian territory.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Therefore, from a political perspective, the threats that Islamic countries, including Iran, face, as well as previous experience, show that war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons, must be accepted in domestic law.
Furthermore, in terms of adhering to human rights and humanitarian law standards, not considering war crimes as crimes in domestic law, along with inappropriate interpretations that may be provided, can have legal and political consequences for the country in international forums.
With the approval of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, and especially based on Article 7 thereof, member states became obligated to prevent natural and legal persons under their jurisdiction from engaging in activities prohibited by the Convention and to enact appropriate criminal laws in this regard.
Given the various legal necessities arising from the country's international obligations, the possibility of joining the International Criminal Court, while adhering to the principle of "Nafi al-Sabil" (non-subjugation) and documentation jurisprudential in the field of war crimes, as well as political necessities based on the previous experiences of Islamic countries and the proposed policies for the regime regarding international law, it is necessary that Iran, which itself has been a victim of chemical weapons and has obvious deficiencies in domestic law in this regard, also carries out reforms.
Therefore, according to these obligations, war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons, must be criminalized in domestic law, especially since the effectiveness of "humanitarian law"2 depends on the initiatives of the legislature of the state signing these treaties, and domestic courts can, on this basis, handle these crimes which have a global aspect (Ardebili, 1383: 192 and 165).
(
, 
, 
)
