Analysis of the Status of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Islamic Penal Code

The International Criminal Court has been established to prevent the perpetrators of international crimes from being unpunished. Alongside the Court, governments have a significant role in dealing with international crimes. One of the steps required by governments to deal with international crimes is the criminalization of these crimes in their domestic law, because one of the important reasons for the lack of interest and willingness of national courts to deal with these crimes is the lack or lack of proper laws and regulations. The philosophy of conferring jurisdiction on states, for disregarding territorial or individual jurisdiction, requires a joint struggle against the crimes that affect all governments. Therefore, the foundation of global competence is based on the shared interest of all states in countering offenses that affect international interests. Unfortunately, the principle of universal jurisdiction, with its secondary and subsidiary nature, as well as the question of whether it is compulsory or optional, has been met by the reluctance of most governments. The practical procedures of governments and the
few cases made on the basis of this principle of jurisdiction can be invoked in support of this view. In this paper, while analyzing the position of the principle of universal jurisdiction in the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Islamic Penal Code of Iran, we will examine some of the most important crimes that may be pursued in accordance with specific laws or international treaties and based on the principle of universal jurisdiction in Iran.