javad salehi
Abstract
Seizing state of pirate in the high seas tends to submit to the regional state based onthe piratetransfer agreement. Criminal justice can be done to him by applying the principle of universal jurisdiction to a third state. Meanwhile, the seizing state has also been detained based on universal jurisdiction, ...
Read More
Seizing state of pirate in the high seas tends to submit to the regional state based onthe piratetransfer agreement. Criminal justice can be done to him by applying the principle of universal jurisdiction to a third state. Meanwhile, the seizing state has also been detained based on universal jurisdiction, and his submission presents serious challenges. In this respect, this article's primary purpose is to examine the pirate transfer agreement's function with the criteria laid down in the UNCLOS and the principle of universal jurisdiction based on the descriptive-analytic method. The research's central question is, what are the pirate transfer agreement's function with the principle of universal jurisdiction and the provisions of the UNCLOS? The study's findings show that the seizing state, in light of the universal jurisdiction principle provided in article 105 of the UNCLOS, is required to exercise full criminal jurisdiction from arrest to punishment. But seizing state handles the first part and entrusts the second part to the regional state with which the seizing state has arranged the pirate transfer agreement. This division stems from the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. It prescribes by article 100 of the UNCLOS in connection with states' specific obligation to cooperate in the fight against piracy on the high seas. But it does not comply with the principles of personal, territorial, and protective criminal jurisdiction in other offenses and territorial seas.
