After pasting 50 yaers, and with many efforts, international criminal court was estabilished in 1998. But stil some operational domains is in The ambiguity. One of The essentioal point of These, is The relation between International Criminal Court and United Nations especially UN Security Council, about The Crime of Aggression, however this court have own contractual fundation but an official relation between those organizations seems to be fundamental. Althoght in a contract, this subject is payed but it is related to The administral and technical subjects but essensial subjects are not exactly definable. In this article, tried to consider The relation between ICC and essencial elements of The UN about exercising jurisdiction over The Crime of Aggression to determine which organization is qualified for defining and exercising jurisdiction over this international Crime.

During The negotiations of representatives of different countries on The approval of The statute of The International Crime Court (ICC) There was great controversy not only on The definition of “The Crime of Aggression”, but also on The manner of making The ICC competent to have jurisdiction over this Crime. Western countries, particularly The permanent members of The UN Security Council held that The duties related to keeping The peace and security of The world and determining any “act of Aggression” were exclusively entrusted to The Security Council and insisted that The competence of The ICC in jurisdiction over “The Crime of Aggression” must be dependent on prior determination any “act of Aggression” by The Security Council. This was of course unacceptable for most oTher countries who believed The competence of The Security Council in such matters was not exclusive. Some representatives referred to The competence of The UN General Assembly and believed that whenever The Security Council is reluctant or unable to determine any act of Aggression, The ICC may ask The General Assembly to address The issue and determine if any act of Aggression has occurred by The accused’s country. AnoTher group relied on The capacity of The International court of Justice (ICJ) and said it was The competent authority to determine acts of Aggression. There is however a third group The members of which believe The political responsibilities of The Security Council are quite different from The judicial character of The ICC and say that determination of an act of Aggression by The ICC is The very essential condition for its independence in judicial proceeding and its efficiency.

This article discusses The political initiatives of certain states to establish a special tribunal for The prosecution of The Crime of Aggression which was allegedly committed within The Ukraine situation. The article raises questions about The feasibility of establishing such a court, given that The International Criminal Court (ICC) has within its mandate The possibility to try an Aggression case. However, in this article it will be explained why The ICC is not a viable option in this regard, while a new Ukraine tribunal also creates various legal obstacles. The article suggests that The political motivations behind this proposal should be balanced against These legal obstacles, including procedural obstacles related to The Crime of Aggression and functional immunities, and how proceedings should be conducted in The presence or absence of The accused. The article concludes that a thorough assessment of These legal and procedural considerations must be made before deciding to establish a special Ukraine tribunal.

according to The principle of The complementarity, The national courts have priority in prosecuting Crimes committed within The International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction. On The subject of The Crime of Aggression which recently The circumstances of The prosecution have been provided in The international criminal court, exercising (practicing) The mentioned principle has been faced obstacles and limits specially in The national (domestic) proceedings. Some of These limits are because of The quiddity of The Crime Aggression and its perpetrators that in spite of being committed by a senior member of a government, necessarily it follows The act of a government and it is committed against anoTher government. Some oTher obstacles are because of The provisions of exercising The jurisdiction to The Crime of Aggression which in addition to ratifying The amendments to The Rome statute held in Kampala (2010), it includes cases such as The absence of issuing declaration excluding The jurisdiction of The international criminal court and The interferences of The United Nations Security Council. While studying The principle of The complementarity of The international criminal court, this paper carefully examines The obstacles and limits of The national trials of The States Parties to The Rome Statute in exercising The Crime of Aggression.

During decades of occupation, Israel's actions, including annexation of The West Bank, are considered a Crime of Aggression, with consequences for Israel both in terms of international responsibility law and criminal responsibility. In this article, we discuss The criminal responsibility of The Israeli authorities in this regard. This article, based on a descriptive-analytical method, first describes The events and Then analyzes The annexation of The West Bank in The light of The provisions of The International Criminal Court in The light of The Crime of Aggression. The present article focuses on The possibility of raising The issue in The International Criminal Court due to The annexation of parts of The West Bank to Israel. According to The paper, The substantive and procedural conditions for investigating The Crime of Aggression in connection with The annexation are provided in The International Criminal Court, and The Court can examine The Crime of Aggression alongside war Crimes and Crimes against humanity.

There was serious controversy in The 1996 negotiations on The drafting of The ICC Statute on putting Aggression on The list of Crimes under The jurisdiction of The tribunal, which in turn stemmed from disagreements over The terms of Exercise of The ICC’s jurisdiction. The Review Conference's amendments in 2010 and Assembly state parties 2017 introduced specific rules regarding ICC’s jurisdiction for Aggression that differ from The usual jurisdiction of The Court in respect of oTher Crimes within its jurisdiction. It also lacks a clear and precise explanation for ICC’s specific jurisdiction over The Crime of Aggression, which has sometimes led to disagreements among jurists. Therefore, this paper will examine The ambiguous points of this jurisdiction regime in The Statute as well as The difficulty of applying ICC’s jurisdiction over The Crime of Aggression after July 17, 2018.

After more than 70 years since The last and so far The only prosecution of The Crime of Aggression in an international judicial body, The International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over Aggression was activated in 17 July 2018. It took nearly two decades since The ICC Statute adoption in 1998 for The states parties to agree on a definition of Crime of Aggression and a method to activate ICC’s jurisdiction over The Crime. In The revision conference of 2010, The states parties reached an agreement regarding The definition of The Crime and some jurisdictional matters. In spite of pressure from permanent members of The Security Council, The ICC jurisdiction was not subjected to prior approval of The Council. NeverTheless, to exercise its jurisdiction, The aggressor state must be a state party to The Statute and accepted The ratifications. FurThermore, if a state party does not accept The amendments, The Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a Crime of Aggression committed by that state party’s nationals or on its territory.  This mechanism is a great challenge to The ICC and people who hoped ICC could hold national leaders accountable for The illegal use of force against oTher states.

After more than 70 years since The last and so far The only prosecution of The Crime of Aggression in an international judicial body, The International Criminal Court’ s jurisdiction over Aggression was activated in 17 July 2018. It took nearly two decades since The ICC Statute adoption in 1998 for The states parties to agree on a definition of Crime of Aggression and a method to activate ICC’ s jurisdiction over The Crime. In The revision conference of 2010, The states parties reached an agreement regarding The definition of The Crime and some jurisdictional matters. In spite of pressure from permanent members of The Security Council, The ICC jurisdiction was not subjected to prior approval of The Council. NeverTheless, to exercise its jurisdiction, The aggressor state must be a state party to The Statute and accepted The ratifications. FurThermore, if a state party does not accept The amendments, The Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a Crime of Aggression committed by that state party’ s nationals or on its territory. This mechanism is a great challenge to The ICC and people who hoped ICC could hold national leaders accountable for The illegal use of force against oTher states.

AbstractThe aim of this study was to investigate The validity, reliability and factor structure of The "How I Think" questionnaire to assess cognitive distortions in Iranian students. The present research design is descriptive and psychometric studies. The statistical population of this study included all male high school students in city Dezful in The academic year 1399-1400, from which 316 students were selected by multi-stage random sampling and completed The How I think and Bass and Perry Aggression Questionnaires (for Convergent validity). Factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha and Pearson correlation were used to analyze The data using SPSS and AMOS 20 software. The results of factor analysis showed that The questionnaire consists of six factors and has good fit indices. The convergent validity of this questionnaire indicated a satisfactory correlation between The dimensions of The scale "How I think" with The Aggression Questionnaire (p <0.01). Cronbach's alpha and Split- half coefficients for The whole scale and its dimensions ranged from 0.66 to 0.92.The conclusion is that The Persian version of The "How do I think" questionnaire for measuring cognitive distortions in Iranian students has acceptable psychometric properties and can be used as a valid tool in research, educational and clinical situations.