Family is a social system and it is considered as one of the important bases of the society. Recognition of influential factors in enhancing this social entity can be a great step toward promotion of the society’ s cultural level. In this study the contribution of three constructs of schema, attachment style and forgiveness in predicting the marital conflict were examined. The study was descriptive and correlational. The sample includes married teachers who were selected through cluster sampling in 1394. Data collection tools are initial schema questionnaires, attachment style scale, forgiveness questionnaire and marital conflict questionnaire. Data was analyzed by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient and stepwise regression analysis. The results show that among the schemas, the disconnection/rejection schema (p=0. 01, β =0. 12), impaired autonomy and performance (p=0. 01، β =0. 34), impaired limits (p=0/01، β =0. 13), avoidant unsecure attachment style (p=0. 01، β =0. 11), anxious unsecure attachment style (p=0. 01، β =0. 31), secure attachment style (p=0. 01، β =-0. 37) and forgiveness (p=0. 01، β =-0. 63) predicted the marital conflict. The findings mean that higher schema and unsecure attachment style would increase the marital conflict, and higher forgiveness and secure attachment style would decrease the marital conflict.

The assassination of Rafiq Hariri, the former prime minster of Lebanon and his accompanying persons at 14 February 2005 gave an opportunity to the international community to bring the crime of terrorism into justice by a special tribunal. This Tribunal is a forum beyond a national court. It was established by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and an agreement between the UN and the Lebanon government. The crime of terrorism, as well as, conspiracy, sectarian violence and civil war related crimes are under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Lebanen Criminal Law is the applicable criminal law of the Tribunal and the Chambers of the Tribunal compose both Lebanese and the international judges. The establishment of the Lebanon Special Tribunal is important not for giving more clarity to the different dimensions of the crime of terrorism but because it can be considered as a further step towards expanding fight against Impunity. Since by this time, the jurisdiction of all the international crimes such as War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and Genocide. Where as, Lebanon Special Tribunal has extended the scope of fighting against International Crimes by adjudging the crime of terrorism. The structure, organs, jurisdiction, and the procedure of this Tribunal have optimistically increased the possibility of the suppression of terrorism despite the political considerations.

International criminal justice is one of the fundamental goals of the international community that considered as the subject of deferent actions at the national, regional and international levels. Although, regional mechanisms were delayed to combat the Impunity compared to international and national courts and this process is very slow in Asia and America. In fact, regional judicial implementation of international norms is relatively common in the fields of international human rights and there are attempts to create a regional criminal court, such as the proposed of grant the African Court of Justice and Human Rights the criminal jurisdiction. But the importance and the necessity of these courts and their relationship to ICC is the new legal challenge. Generally, the case is admissible before the ICC if the State which has jurisdiction is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. However, the important issue is: how do regional tribunals fit with the Principle of Complementarity in the Rome Statute? The answer to this question requires the proper understanding of the legal relationship between States and regional tribunals and the contextualized application of the principles of treaty interpretation enshrined in the Vienna Convention.

The article seeks to enumerate the cases of Impunity of offenders in Iranian law and international documents, and to examine ways to deal with it,With the premise that it cannot be considered an acceptable phenomenon, we decided to state the cases of Impunity in Iranian law (the normal way to fall punishments is their execution, but sometimes the punishment disappears without execution, from which We refer to the abnormal ways in which punishment falls. Punishment is sometimes overturned because a way other than their fulfillment achieves the purpose of punishment. ) Examines the legal principles preventing the punishment of criminals, including the principle of internal criminal law, the principle of non-interference, the principle of immunity in cases against Impunity from the Nuremberg Charter to the Rome Statute. Analyze the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Court. Finally, it can be said that, firstly, the existence of Impunity in domestic law can be opposed to the principle of punishment and consequently the lack of justice, and secondly, among the provisions of the Statute. Rome There is conflict and frustratingly the administration of criminal justice through the Tribunal It has become possible in relation to underdeveloped countries. In the meantime, there is no proper mobilization by the Security Council.

The crime of piracy as the oldest international crime has emerged in a modern way in recent years. In addition, piracy is one of the first and main crimes that have been subject to universal jurisdiction. Today, this crime has moved away from its classic way and has progressed to the point of a transformation. This has caused the United Nations Security Council, as the main pillar of maintaining international peace and security, to deal with it many times by issuing resolutions. Despite continuous efforts to prosecute the perpetrators of piracy in domestic courts, the international community has not been able to effectively deal with this phenomenon, because states are facing problems to suppress piracy, including the increasing human rights norms. For this purpose to fight against piracy, new and potential solutions have been proposed, including the establishment of a special international court, referring piracy to the International Criminal Court, as well as dealing with the crime of piracy as a terrorist crime through anti-terrorist conventions. In this regard, according to outcomes of this research, combat to modern piracy in the International Criminal Court can be considered the most effective and efficient way. Compiled with a descriptive and analytical method, by setting this outcome as a hypothesis and examining the characteristics and the limitations of combat to this crime, new and potential solutions of combat to Impunity of modern piracy, especially in International Criminal Court, has been discussed.

One of the fundamental institutions in the Islamic penal code is the legal justification for Impunity. This issue, which creates a boundary between Islamic law and secular rights, has long been the subject of attention by lawyers, criminologists and psychologists. The rights of the perpetrators It is considered that punishment is considered a legal issue, and criminologists, with a causal view of their consequences and consequences, in line with the goals of criminal psychology and educational approach, are a deterrent and prospective factor associated with the principles, foundations and objectives of punishment. Criminological Assistance Subject to Exemptions from Keeper in Respect of Goals The use of punishments and arbitrary institutions is one of the achievements of modern criminology in criminal law to assist in the criminalization of individuals' socialization and personal and social support, as reflected in new criminal laws. In this regard, criminal law shows a significant correlation with the use of jurisprudence and other sciences, including criminology, psychology and sociology, and, of course, ethical considerations in scientific and supportive dimensions. In the meantime, ethics and its relation to rights are the main and most commonly discussed issues in the philosophy of law. The impact of morality on criminal law has always been a controversial issue in both criminality and the determination of punishment. Nonetheless, attention to moral principles and considerations is one of the most important reasons for emphasizing Impunity. Through respect and trust, one can influence the will of the criminal and prevent the repetition of the crime. Also, some of the conditions that the legislator has in Article 38 And the 39th Criminal Code, approved 92 (for example, honorary motivation, good record, etc. ), is consistent with ethical considerations.

The issue of delegating the authority to kill humans to artificial intelligence in wartime is one of the most challenging emerging disciplines, as it raises numerous legal issues. This is the first time that legal knowledge has encountered a phenomenon that, despite being created by humans, is independent of humans in thinking and decision-making, and it may be possible after multiple stages that even the creator of the system cannot comprehend or control its operation. Therefore, this article discusses the obstacles that the International Criminal Court must overcome to apply direct criminal responsibility and the doctrine of commander's responsibility in cases where artificial intelligence weapons have led to the killing of civilians and war crimes, as well as the steps that should be taken to overcome these obstacles. Following a documentary approach and a descriptive-analytical analysis, this article concludes that the current provisions of the statute regarding artificial intelligence need to be revised due to the emergence of a concept called the gap in responsibility, which is caused by the unique nature of artificial intelligence. To adapt to the new conditions, the international community must require manufacturers to provide maximum transparency and prohibit producing certain types of artificial intelligence. Regarding the possible killings caused by the use of artificial intelligence weapons with the ability to self-learning after production, the court statute must explicitly and exclusively specify the rules of criminal responsibility so that the existence of AI weapons does not lead to Impunity.

The Israeli regime's attacks against the Palestinian people constitute international crimes as specified in the Rome Statute. Consequently, the international community bears significant responsibilities in addressing the complex situation in the occupied territories. Central to this endeavor is the precise understanding of the position and functions of the principle of due diligence in international criminal law. This principle mandates full compliance with international norms in addressing aggression and other serious international crimes outlined in the Rome Statute. It also entails quantifiable obligations to enhance governmental cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC).The principle of due diligence, as an international legal obligation, can significantly improve the effectiveness of measures aimed at addressing the Impunity of Israeli leaders. Governments must exert their utmost efforts to cooperate effectively with one another and with the ICC, particularly in preventing crimes committed by the Israeli regime in the occupied territories, and in prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of these crimes. Comprehensive judicial assistance actions are essential to support the victims of these crimes, repair the damages caused by the attacks, and establish and implement sanctions systems across various fields against the Israeli regime.Therefore, it is crucial to discuss the necessity for comprehensive, responsible, and concerned cooperation of governments with the ICC to address the Impunity of Israeli regime leaders. This article aims to examine the position and functions of the principle of due diligence in international criminal law, emphasizing the importance of governments' unconditional adherence to this principle in confronting the crimes of the Israeli regime and combating the Impunity of its leaders.

On January 3, 2020, on the orders of US President Donald Trump, Sardar Soleimani's car was targeted by a drone near Baghdad airport. This violates a number of obligations, including the prohibition of the use of force, the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of other countries, the right to life and diplomatic rights, and therefore, in addition to the international responsibility of the United States. This action, and on top of that, has followed Donald Trump. The non-membership of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq and the United States in the International Criminal Court, on the one hand, and the United States' veto power in the UN Security Council, on the other, face a serious challenge in filing a lawsuit in the International Criminal Court. Special tribunal can be set up, and in this regard, it is necessary to take into account the experience of the international community in establishing the last special tribunal in 2013, which deals with the crimes of the president of a country (Chad) Has been, benefited. The present article aims to find a mechanism through which the feasibility of filing a lawsuit in the International Criminal Court and the establishment of a special court can be used to deal with the Impunity of the crime in question.

Modern piracy poses a significant challenge to global stability, jeopardizing international order and creating insecurity on the world's waterways. While reminiscent of traditional piracy, contemporary piracy manifests in distinct forms that diverge from its classical antecedent, particularly in terms of violence, the breadth of activities, methods employed, and underlying motives. Currently, the jurisdiction over these offenses rests with domestic courts. Despite the concerted efforts of the international community to prosecute perpetrators within these courts, both governments and international law have encountered considerable obstacles in achieving success. A particularly contentious issue is the jurisdictional complexities faced by governments during legal proceedings. In light of various United Nations Security Council resolutions, the concept of universal jurisdiction has evolved, albeit subject to diverse interpretations. The Islamic Republic of Iran has adopted specific procedural frameworks to address this issue. In accordance with Iranian law, both universal and territorial as well as personal jurisdictions are invoked to combat the immunity associated with modern piracy. The provisions articulated in Articles 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 of the Islamic Penal Code unequivocally indicate that the Islamic Republic of Iran possesses substantial jurisdiction over individuals accused of modern piracy. Nevertheless, it is evident that legislative capacity remains underutilized, particularly concerning the existing gaps and deficiencies in the definitions and punitive measures related to piracy within the Islamic Penal Code. This has inadvertently resulted in piracy being perceived as a subset of other criminal offenses. Nonetheless, Iranian courts, grounded in the principles of universality, territoriality, and personal jurisdiction as delineated in the aforementioned Articles of the Islamic Penal Code, do indeed possess the requisite authority to adjudicate piracy cases.