Universal Jurisdiction, Conditions for the Exercise of Complementary Jurisdiction, and Crimes Subject to Universal Jurisdiction in Iranian Criminal Law

Abstract

Universal jurisdiction and complementary jurisdiction are among the significant issues in international criminal law that have consistently been the subject of scholarly debate and analysis. The conditions and obstacles related to the exercise of these two types of jurisdiction constitute matters requiring careful examination. What has rendered the present inquiry necessary is the identification and analysis of crimes subject to universal jurisdiction within Iranian criminal law. The objective of this article is to examine universal jurisdiction, the conditions for the exercise of complementary jurisdiction, and the crimes subject to universal jurisdiction in Iranian criminal law. This study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach and, through a library-based research method, addresses the aforementioned subject. The findings indicate that the principle of universal criminal jurisdiction has evolved in various dimensions and is applied to a broad range of serious international crimes; however, it faces challenges such as legislative limitations, statutes of limitation, immunities, amnesties, and weaknesses in the presentation of evidence, which constitute obstacles to the exercise of universal jurisdiction. Furthermore, the inability of states to exercise the jurisdiction of national courts, the unwillingness of states to exercise judicial jurisdiction, and the unfair or unrealistic exercise of national jurisdiction represent obstacles to complementary jurisdiction. Piracy, the slave trade, unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, crimes against internationally protected persons including diplomatic agents, war crimes, the crime of dissemination and trafficking of obscene publications, the crime of apartheid, and drug trafficking are among the most significant crimes subject to universal jurisdiction in Iranian criminal law.