Specific developments are taking place in the world; "Populism or demagoguery" in its general sense is increasing in political decisions about social-foreign issues, and despite claims that populists are the real voice of the people, populism neither provides a more credible version of democracy, nor a corrective measure to re-align democracies with public opinions. Populists seek to ensure their stability by removing the four main pillars of democracy, including judicial independence, the political rights of disadvantaged groups, gender equality, and freedom of the press from their positions of power. Since implementing the "Principle of Universal Jurisdiction" in the legal system of countries is an example of judicial independence and achieving justice in international criminal law (domestic and international), and given the increase of international crimes and human rights, less need or less willingness on the part of governments to use this trans-regional principle is observed. This uncovers that populism is seriously undermining justice, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The main question is "How universal jurisdiction has been turned into a populist or demagogic institution in international law?" and "What factors have led to the slow implementation of the principle of universal jurisdiction in countries over the past decades to date?". These questions could be answered by analyzing the concepts of universal jurisdiction, its related laws in some countries, as well as evaluating the populism view in the political decisions of governments regarding implementing the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle which allows every country to bring to justice perpetrators of grave crimes no matter where the crime has been committed and regardless of nationality of perpetrators or their victims. The doctrine of universal jurisdiction asserts that some crimes are so heinous that their perpetrators should not escape justice by invoking sovereign immunity or inviolability of internationally recognized borders. Despite numerous positive developments in national practice, significant limitations remain which hinder the exercise of universal jurisdiction. These limitations are not necessarily inherent in all cases of universal jurisdiction and could be overcome with sufficient political will.

Credit of foreign court sentences means a sentence issued by foreign courts including (international and domestic courts of countries) against public crimes with the credit of universal jurisdiction based on the positive conflict of jurisdiction whether according to conviction or acquittal. If universal jurisdiction is concerned about a crime, even though that crime have a punishment (Moharebeh or corruption on earth), our country`s courts do not have the right to address the issue again. However, when an Iranian who has committed a universal crime while was investigated and punished by a foreign court, if this person is found in Iran, with respect to personal jurisdiction, Iranian courts can investigate him. Also, a person with a universal crime can escape punishment by relying on his ignorance of some crimes or his ignorance of the subject. It seems that, in the case of acceptance of non-validity of Iranian's courts about universal jurisdiction if the committed crime has been subject to punishment and the person has withstood the sentence outside Iran, and that sentence is not compatible with Shriah concepts such as lack of forgetting punishments, but with respect to international interest, this problem can be solved by depending on alternative sentences.

The Complementarity nature of the International Criminal Court raises a number of Pertinent issues with regard to the establishment of legislative and judicial frame works of investigating and Prosecuting international crimes on the national level, although the Rome Statute does not Provide conclusive guidance with respect to a number of questions, including the establishment of universal jurisdiction. The express preference for domestic prosecution in the Statute will lead to an increase in national prosecutions for international crimes and it may lead to an in crease in the exercise of universal jurisdiction by states in future years.The Combination of universal jurisdiction and International Criminal Court is a system which seems to be effective for ending the impunity.

Piracy is the oldest crime with universal jurisdiction to prosecute its perpetrators. In recent years, with the many changes that have taken place in the manner and place of piracy, as well as the way countries approach the issue of jurisdiction and prosecution of international crime defendants, the continued establishment of universal jurisdiction over piracy has been questioned. Therefore, given the doubts that have arisen about the possibility of continuing the exercise of universal jurisdiction over piracy in the last decade, can this principle still be applied to piracy? This research tries to answer the above question by descriptive-analytical method and using library resources. Considering the critical developments that have taken place in various dimensions of pirate attacks, including the use of new weapons and also the relocation of attacks (from the high seas to inland seas and coasts), it can be said that piracy was the first crime in the international arena for that universal competence has been established, but this principle can no longer be applied and applied due to the changing atmosphere of the international community and the elimination of the main reasons that justified its implementation in the past, and alternatives must be sought for it.

Universal Jurisdiction is a Powerful Tool at Service of International Justice. This Principle, which under this, States have the Option –,and Sometimes the Obligation –,to Prosecute Criminals, Regardless of Where the Crimes may have been Committed or of the Nationality of Perpetrators and the Victims, has evolved in Various Aspects. although the the Concept of Universal Jurisdiction Arose because of the Protect of International Trade, ths has now become anInevitable Necessity to Support Human Values. although legal Systems View of this Jurisdiction is different, but for Reasons Like, the Necessity for Protecting Common Interests, Protecting Human Values and the Victims Access to Justice Which has been expressed in the Justification of its Justification have brought it Closer to Universal Accepance. Thus, in this Paper, it has been Tried to Investigate the Source and Legitimacy for the application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction in the National Courts to Prosecution of International Crimes.

Background and objective: After the assassination, which led to the martyrdom of General Soleimani and his companions, among other issues raised in international and domestic circles is the jurisdiction of the courts and the way of prosecuting the perpetrators. State terrorism, the immunity of the state, the immunity of the heads of state, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and the like, are the main studies that have been conducted by experts and researchers after this terrorist attack. Among the issues that have been neglected in this regard is the prescriptive jurisdiction of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the criminal prosecution of the commander and perpetrators of the assassination of General Soleimani. The purpose of this research is to examine the prescriptive jurisdiction of the Islamic Republic of Iran to prosecute the perpetrators of the assassination of Sardar Soleimani from the perspective of international criminal law.Methods: In terms of its objectives, the present study is of an applied research and in terms of methodology it is analytical-descriptive.Findings: According to the findings of the research, based on international documents and especially the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Political Agents (December 14, 1973) and the membership and accession of all three governments involved in this case, and according to the provisions of this document, the aforementioned document and the international support of General Soleimani, the act committed is considered a criminal act, and the Islamic Republic of Iran has the legal authority to prosecute the perpetrators of the crime committed from the perspective of international criminal law.Results: According to the results obtained, the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the legal authority to deal with this case based on real jurisdiction (absolutely) and on the basis of negative personal jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction (if the perpetrators are present or extradited to the country). It can prosecute the perpetrators of this symbolic act through its judicial courts, and if any of the perpetrators are found, including by appealing to the Interpol police, extradition, etc., can be imposed.

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.

International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first permanent body established in pursuance of implementing criminal justice and fight against impunity and was assigned with the critical function of prosecution and conviction of perpetrators of the most heinous international crimes. Having been enforced in 2002, the Rome Statute is the constitutional document of the Court which was drafted and adopted with the goal of ensuring effectiveness and efficiency of this primary international body. Provisions related to jurisdiction of the Court are among the most important parts of the Statute and were the subject of many controversial issues during the negotiations of the Rome conference, after the establishment of the Court, and even now. One such issue is the preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction the Court and the existence of jurisdictional gaps in the Statute in the confrontation with the international crimes covered in that document. This article tries to, first, appropriately elaborate on the preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction formulated in Article 12 of the Statute, second, to explain the arguments for and against expanding the mentioned preconditions, and finally, to submit an argumentative assessment of different views concerning whether such expansion is possible.

The rationale behind universal jurisdiction is to combat impunity and prevent third States from becoming safe havens for those who have committed international crimes; that is, when the alleged suspect is not a national of the State, the alleged suspect did not commit a crime in that State's territory or against its nationals, or the State's national interests have not been affected. The present article, with the descriptive-analytical method, and with the aim of explaining the status of universal jurisdiction in the contemporary international law system in general, examines the formal requirements of applying this principle in the legal systems of Germany and Sweden. The findings of this article show that in both legal systems of Germany and Sweden, there is unanimity regarding the application of the principle of absolute universal jurisdiction. In addition, the scope and application of this principle are often similar in these two States. However, in the legal system of Germany and Sweden, the prosecution and trial of alleged suspects of international crimes entail the fulfillment of formal requirements.