The legitimacy of international criminalization rules and the effectiveness of their interpretation

Abstract

The principle of legality in international criminal law raises many controversial issues, because compliance with a basic principle of the general principles of national law conflicts with the nature of the rules of international criminal law, and is also inconsistent with the dominance of the theory of sovereignty in the scope of international relations. The rule of inadmissibility of analogy and the rule of adherence to narrow interpretation - which are two pillars of criminal legality - have different connotations in the international scope, such as those related to the discretionary power recognized by the criminal judiciary in interpreting the provisions of international law. This is due to the lack of stipulation of all the detailed elements in the treaties and within the texts of the statutes of international criminal courts, and also because they are derived from customary international law, so that the powers of the judiciary are broader since the interpretation does not deal with the texts but with the judicial practices that are based on verifying the elements of reliance and obligation when referring to them. As a result of the need for the customary rule to be updated, standing on the content of the effective rule has become a mechanism for interpreting legal texts related to criminalization at the international level, so that it is easy to apply in a way that achieves international security and peace and preserves the basic values ​​​​provided in international customs and principles of justice and principles General principles of public international law and principles of national penal laws.