After positive vote of 120 country to Rome statute and approval or accession of 114 country (almost tow third of world states) till the end of 2010, hopes to fight against impunity and ending barbarity entered to a new stage and achieving universal criminal justice goals as a new attitude of global criminal organizations like ICC in punishing core crimes criminals get dominant willing. But because this new tribunals affects states sovereignties and super power authorities or power abusers in breaching fundamental human rights (Noyau dur), a range of problematic countries refused accessing to Rome statute, so strongly tried to not allow the ICC achieving its goals and encountered justice against politick. This article analyses the most important political challenges of Rome statute.

In light of the imperative to protect vulnerable groups within international criminal law, and given that neither the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) nor the 1948 Genocide Convention expressly defines "group," this article undertakes a critical examination of the concept through an analysis of legal doctrine, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the 1998 Rome Statute, the ICC’s draft statute, as well as the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). This analysis serves two critical purposes: first, to clarify the contested scope of "group" under international law; second, to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the ICC’s jurisdictional reach to encompass non-enumerated groups, such as political or cultural collectivities. The study establishes that the absence of objective criteria for distinguishing non-protected groups – particularly political and cultural collectives, combined with state sovereignty concerns regarding an expanded "group" doctrine and fears that broader incrimination of genocide could impede ratification of relevant instruments, constitutes the primary rationale underlying the continued exclusive criminal protection of the four enumerated groups (national, ethnical, racial, and religious) under the Convention and the Rome Statute.

Field and Aims: Issues such as terrorism, nuclear threats, population explosions and narcotics can be considered as the challenges of the last century in the world,There is no doubt that one of the most important problems facing the international community and the rights of future generations will be the "environmental crisis". Today, the challenges and crises caused by the existence of conflicts, especially terrorist acts and their destructive effects on various levels of human natural life, have made the rights of future generations an unbelievable threat. Therefore, it is an undeniable necessity to deal with crimes that cause the violation of any human activity such as political, military, economic, cultural and scientific activities with the potential to have a detrimental effect on the health, health or long-term survival of any group or community. Methodology: The methodology in this article is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of method. Phishing tools have also been used to collect data. Findings: In relation to crimes committed against future generations, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has not significantly criminalized and suppressed such crimes, but given the scope of jurisdiction set forth in its Statute on the Recognition of Criminal Offenses, And even their desegregation and compatibility with instances of crimes against future generations, it can be acknowledged that it is possible to prosecute such crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Conclusion: Adopting a sound and effective criminal policy is a strategy that makes it possible to deal with the various dimensions and forms of crimes against the rights of future generations. Of course, there is no doubt that the attempt to create a new international crime in line with the crimes against the rights of future generations will have its own shortcomings and criticisms. In addition, crimes against the rights of future generations have presented a clear and negative approach to these rights, focusing on the conscious commission of serious violations of economic, social and cultural rights.

The establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights presents significant differences from the establishment of all international criminal courts. Accordingly, the establishment of African Court was founded on the lake of cooperation of African governments with the International Criminal Court and the failure to accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to international crimes on the African continent. However, the establishment of such a court in various dimensions can pose major challenges in terms of jurisdictional overlap with the International Criminal Court. However, the Court of Justice, Human Rights and the African Nation acquired jurisdiction over international crimes across the African continent in 2014 with the accession of a supplementary document called the “Malabo supplementary document”. But, despite the inclusion of examples of war crimes in the document, it was considered as a re-reading of the regulations adopted in the Rome Statute. But, the issue was the establishment of jurisdiction in the jurisdiction of the African Court. The African Court of Justice, under the Supplementary Document, in response to war crimes, addressed challenges such as compliance with international humanitarian law standards in armed conflict, protection of children's rights, the use of nuclear weapons and genocide and so on.

When a criminal is sentenced to retaliation for crimes less than death, the demand of someone who has been committed a crime against him is sufficient for retaliation. This question may be raised that whether the complete retaliation of an injury of criminal, prior to the establishment of full recovery in the real crime victim is permissible or not? Famous jurists based on the Qur' anic generalities and absolutes, and no-spread principle, made the license of retaliation before recovery of their own principle. In contrast, some jurists have not accepted the license of retaliation before recovery. And some others have divided between the injuries that are typically spreading and injuries which do not spread. It is noteworthy that the legislator has provided and presented in Article 440 of Islamic Penal statute. But before executing a life retaliation, the heir authority should pay the blood money of crime as retaliating perpetrator`s. And if the emerged spread is considered unintentionally, the perpetrator is condemned to pay the blood money which is committed by the spread, and does not diminish the amount of the blood money retaliation. The authors, after reviewing the issue and with great care in its documentation, believe that the lack of retaliation permission has no legal basis. Ultimately, they choose "the divisiveness view" as their choice.

The Rome Statute authorized the International Criminal Court to exercise jurisdiction over crimes of aggression. In the first Review Conference of the Rome Statute in 2010, the crime of aggression and its elements were delineated and identified with the goal of protecting world peace. The present study explored the Actus Reus of the crime of aggression based on the latest amendments to ICC's Statute. The gravity and broadness of the acts of aggression mean that committing such crimes occurs through special arrangements and conditions. The crime of aggression refers to a series of actions called war management. The aggressors are convicted of this crime when specific conditions are met. At first, there is planning and then military supplies and equipment are procured, which leads to a planned attack by the military leaders. Once the act of aggression and territorial occupation is completed, the last step is war management. The Actus Reus of the crime of aggression in ICC's Statute includes the planning, procurement, initiation, and execution of the act of aggression. These are undertaken by political and military leaders in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the action of a state The actions must be intended for an act of aggression and are deemed violations of the UN Charter given their nature, intensity, and extent.

Criminalization itself is related to limiting human rights and denying and violating them, therefore interfering with people's rights and freedoms and using power to limit them requires justification. However, the attempt to criminalize ecocide is the most important message of this treatise, the definition of the crime of ecocide, the material and spiritual elements, and what is the position of ecocide in the definition of the crime if there is human or cultural damage. Governments and powerful groups and powerful companies are the main cause of environmental destruction and damage to the environment But because the authority to criminalize is in the hands of the governments and the relevant laws are established and approved by the governments, and also because of the influence and connections between the groups of power and wealth and especially the multinational companies with the governments. Actually, the possibility of criminology in the field of environmental damage is very limited. In an analytical and descriptive way, we will deal with the process of drafting and criminalizing and approving ecocide in France and Belgium. We will also examine the responsibility of companies and governments and their role in the criminalization of ecocide. And we'll be watching to see if the new legal and ethical restrictions help slow the progress of Earth's catastrophes ahead. And also with the criminalization of ecocide, which losses are prevented or which values are passed?

The threshold of non-international armed conflicts is a criterion in terms of which the internal disturbances and tensions e.g. riots, and both isolated and sporadic acts of violence, are no longer characterized as civil wars. This term was introduced into the literature of International Law in 1949, following the formation of the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The impact of the above-mentioned concept is directly in connection with the sovereign rights of States, particularly the exclusive jurisdiction of the national judicial authorities. Consequently, its effect on managing the conflicts and dealing with the operations of anti-government armed forces, has always been one of the most controversial parts of different diplomatic conferences, including those led to the creation of the Common Article 3, Article 8 of the Rome Statute and especially the Additional Protocol II to Geneva conventions.

Third party intervention is one of the related subjects to the legal procedures of international and national tribunals. The intention of such procedure is to protect the rights of a country which is not party to the proceeding but there is a possibility of legal interests’ affection during the trial. Although under article 59 of the statute of ICJ, the verdict of the court is not mandatory for the third party but this not mean that the verdict does not burden legal effects to the non-parties of the lawsuit. Article 62 of the statute is a provision to protect the legal interest of third party. The findings by the court during the proceeding may effect legal situation of t third countries and article 62 notices this point. This contribution will analyzes article 62 from perspective of the court’s legal practice. The court believes that there are just two factor which make third party intervention possible: presence of an interest of a legal nature and possibility of impacting on the trial. The practice has proof that the court may apply its jurisdiction independently, without any specific consent of the parties to the proceeding.

The mental element of intentional felonies which are in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court has been mentioned under art.30 of the Rome Statute. Except those stipulated unintentional, as a general rule, this article is evenly applied to all crimes in the jurisdiction of the Court. This article cannot define material and mental of elements of the crimes transparently and clearly although it seeks to create a general rule for mental element of all crimes in the jurisdiction of the Court, and still, there are a lot of uncertainties on them. These uncertainties have challenged the interpretation and implementation of the mental element related issues in the Statute. Defining and separating primary and essential parts of a mental element within the art.30, this paper examines and discusses the relationship of these elements with the behavior, condition, and result of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.