مدرسه علوم جنایی

دوستان عزیز؛ برادران گرامی؛ نور چشمان؛ .... از سر درد می گویم رها کنیم این نشست ها و همایش های تکراری و زیانبار را. نشست و همایش برای این مسائلِ کاملاً بدیهی و مسلّم نیست. تلف نکنیم وقت مردم را .... . نیروها را این گونه هدر ندهیم. بر همگان روشن است که تنقیح و تدوین، امنیّت حقوقی و امنیّت قضایی و ده ها گونه امنیّت دیگر می آورد. به جای این کارها، یک تیم از متخصصان جمع کنیم و قانون ها را کدبندی کنیم و تنقیح و تدوین نماییم. به اندازه ی کافی همایش برگزار کرده ایم و کتاب و مقاله نوشته ایم. همان ها را بخوانیم و بدانیم کافی است. از قبلِ انقلاب فقط داریم حرف می زنیم و همان مطالبِ تکراری را می گوییم. این هم از وضعِ تنقیح و تدوینِ قوانینِ ما. برایند و خروجیِ این همه همایش و نشست و ... چه بوده است؟ بعد پنجاه سال از آغاز اندیشه ی تدوین و تنقیح در ایران، هنوز یک نسخه کُد واردِ جامعه ی ما نشده است! حرف زدن آسان است، عمل کنیم! جامعه از ما «کُد» می خواهد. صد سال است قانون و مقرّره در این جامعه تزریق می کنیم و کوهی از قانون و مقرره درست کرده ایم که اکنون خودمان هم نمی دانیم کدام ناسخ است و کدام منسوخ و .... این دردِ بزرگی است.

هم صدا می شویم با همه ی آن آزادگانی که در دانشگاه های سراسرِ جهان، «مسؤولیّتِ اجتماعیِ جهانی» (Universal Social Responsibility: USR) خود را از یاد نبردند و به میدان آمدند تا برای حمایت و صیانت از آنانی فریاد بزنند که دیگر نه فریادی ندارند و نه فریادرسی! آن آزادگان آمدند تا بگویند که «نظریّه ی عدالت» تنها زینب بخش کتاب های درس و کلاس های دانشگاه نیست؛ بل که عدالتِ حقیقی را باید در میدانِ عمل و متنِ جامعه ی بشری دید.

برادر گرامی آقای دکتر کوره‌پز سلام‌علیکم امیدواریم با توجه به دانش و تجربه گران‌سنگتان در عرصه پژوهش‌ و خلاقیت‌ خدادادی‌تان، در گروه سیاست گذاری جنایی و عدالت کیفری پژوهشگاه قوه قضاییه بدرخشید.

Abstract The view that the essence of the crime as a socially dangerous act is infringing on legally protected public relations was dominant although it was not the only in the theory of Soviet criminal law. Assault is considered to be the act either causing damage to this relationship or implying the possibility of causing damage. The composition of ecocide in the criminal code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter-CC) (Art. 358) in its legislative design is formulated as a formal material. On the basis of a comparative analysis of international law and Russian criminal legislation in the proposed wording consequences in the form of "mass destruction of flora or fauna, poisoning the atmosphere or water resources" as an alternative to the criminal consequences, but also formulated the concept of "other action" as an alternative acts constituting the act of ecocide (Constitution of the Russian Federation).

Legal Analysis of Ecocide in the Russian Criminal Law Grechenkova Oksana Yurevna Bondarenko Lubov Viktorovna Valuiskov Nikoli Viktorovic تحلیلِ حقوقیِ اِکوساید در حقوقِ جناییِ روسیّه

Abstract The conflict in Ukraine is not only taking a heavy toll on human lives but also significantly impacting the environment and wildlife. Many natural areas have suffered extensive damage, and numerous animal species face even greater threats. It is concerning that many ecosystems may never recover their former biodiversity. This environmental disaster, culminating in the destruction of the Kakhovka dam, prompts questions about whether such actions can be denounced as acts of ecocide. This article aims to provide an overview of the ecological and legal landscape regarding allegations of ecocidal acts committed during the Ukrainian War. To this end, the first section of the paper will outline a non-exhaustive list of potential ecocidal crimes that occurred during the conflict in Ukraine. Subsequently, we will examine the opportunities and limitations associated with applying the concept of ecocide as a crime during the war in Ukraine. Finally, we emphasize the necessity for reforming environmental law to incorporate the concept of ecocide as a crime.

CAN CRIMES OF ECOCIDE COMMITTED DURING THE CONFLICT IN UKRAINE BE LEGALLY PUNISHED? Sophie Joubert آیا جنایاتِ اِکوسایدِ ارتکابی در جریانِ جنگِ اُکراین از نظر حقوقی قابلِ مجازت اند؟

Abstract The legal framework of the International Criminal Court does not contain any provision concerning animals. This stands in contrast with the frequency with which they appear in both trial and reparations proceedings. The silence of the legal framework is problematic insofar as the ‘animal turn movement’, which questions the classical understanding and treatment of animals as objects, has permeated into both the international and domestic legal spheres. This article wishes to initiate a discussion on the treatment of animals before the Court by examining whether they could qualify as victims under Rule 85(a) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. While the short answer to this question is an unequivocal ‘no’, the conclusion reached is not the purpose of the analysis. The analysis shows that animals cannot qualify as ‘victims’ because they are not human beings. Yet, they comfortably meet the other two criteria, namely, (a) suffering harm, which (b) results from the commission of crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction. Thus, this article argues that — at least — granting animals the same treatment as human beings is no more objectionable as a matter of legal principle than granting them the status of ‘things’. This calls for a prompt discussion of the regulation of animals within the Court.

اصطلاحاتِ حقوقی: "Pacta sunt servanda". پَکتا سُونتِ سِرواندا 1. Agreements must be kept. 2. Treaties or contracts are binding upon the parties that entered into the treaty or contract. 3. The principle can be traced back to religious origins. In the Koran, it has been stated that “Be true to the obligations which you undertake”. 4. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (signed 23 May 1969 and entered into force on 27 January 1980) states “(Pacta sunt servanda): Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”