كنوانسيونهاي ضد تروريسم و مساله صلاحيت دولتها در تعقيب و مجازات متهمان به ارتكاب اعمال تروريستي

The Counter-Terrorism Conventions and the Problem of Jurisdiction Rregarding Prosecution and Punishment of Terrorist Offenders

One of the legal problems in combating terrorism is the establishment of jurisdiction over terrorist offenders.At present there is no obligation upon states to extradite the offenders or to try them. The obligation of extradition arises out of an extradition treaty. Political offenders are exempted from extradition and territories of some states have become a safe heaven for terrorist fugitives. The counter- terrorism conventions which have the similar structure seek to regulate or extend criminal jurisdiction of the contracting states over different forms of terrorism. All of the anti-terrorist conventions including universal and regional are founded on the principle of aut dedere, aut judicare.it means that the signatory states are obliged to prosecute offenders whenever extradition has not been granted. The offences enumerated in the conventions shall be deemed as extraditable offences and when it is required ,the conventions shall be used as a surrogate extradition treaty. This system of enforcement has not been succesful in controlling terrorism.No compulsory enforcement system can be found in any of the counter- terrorism conventions. When state parties refuse to do their obligations regarding extradition or prosecution of offenders ,there is no effective mechanism to compel these delinquent states. Present treaties are too easily ignored by signatory states who often consider treaty obligations to political consideration. Therefore ,it becomes necessary to develop a more effective legal system to ensure justice and to coordinate policy regarding this universal problem.