Suchergebnisse

Due to quantitative expansion and evolution in committing the crime at the international level, the scope of criminal proceedings has been widened significantly. Tolerance and forgiveness towards crimes that happen at international level not only is a double oppression on the victims, but also provide a fertile context for others to commit crimes more daringly. Thus, it is essential that international criminals are held accountable to the law and competent institution, and the realization of this issue leads to the victim satisfaction in international law. Not only in international law, but also in domestic law, show respect and protection of human rights is effective only when there is an effective justice system to guarantee the rights. Although some international crimes practically occur by the government or at least high-ranking government officials, the Statute of the International Criminal Court has reiterated this point that they only have jurisdiction over the crimes committed by natural persons rather than legal entities, which one good example is governments, and although the real victims of these crimes have been human beings, in the case of action and referring the case to the competent international courts, these are the states (rather than the victims) that actually have the right of access to the authorities and not beneficiaries .Thus, at the first step, we should see whether the Court has jurisdiction over the crime committed by the government and whether people can file an action independently in the International Criminal Court or not? When people, rather than governments, are beneficiaries in some international crimes, why only the government and not the people is the plaintiff? And what is the right of the victim in such category of crimes? Accordingly, the current research seeks to examine these rights and restrictions, and relevant limitations.

The effects of globalization, is the globalization of responsibilities. Due to globalization, global or international criminal responsibility of the perpetrators of the crime will follow. States as one of the international actors are also not exempt from this, and the issue of criminal responsibility for them, because the rulers of communication and sensitivity to its governance principles, coupled with a lot of complexity. According to the principle of necessity, anticipate criminal responsibility of states to prevent and avoid a lot of international crimes by nature and only with the support and assistance of States in the international dimension, to establish international order and security, in line with the process of globalization is inevitable. However, with the removal of Article 19 of the draft international responsibility of the State, approved by the International Law Commission, represents the most important source of international criminal responsibility of the government, doubt the government, there is no criminal liability, it should be stressed that the elimination of the need for It does not prejudice the existence of numerous international documents and procedures, are an expression of this. The fact is that many of the behaviors that violate the rules of universal acceptance of the international community, can be done only by governments and civil responsibility only for governments to violate the rules of universal and important, in accordance with the principles of justice and international law, such as the need to maintain international peace and order of the international community, that it makes some states of the vacuum to be exploited. In order to resolve ambiguities about the criminal responsibility of the state, should the use of existing capacity of the international community, including the UN and the Security Council, to build the infrastructure and the necessary arrangements for the progressive development of these institutions, such as that for the International Criminal Court done.