Context & Objective: The systematic assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists between 2009 and 2020 represents a multifaceted assault on national sovereignty and scientific development. Despite the clear criminal nature of these targeted killings under international law, political obstacles within international institutions—including the structural limitations of the International Criminal Court and the veto power of state sponsors in the Security Council—have created a persistent culture of impunity. This research addresses a critical gap in legal literature by exploring the practical application of the principle of universal jurisdiction within the Iranian domestic legal system. The study seeks to answer whether activating such jurisdiction provides a viable judicial pathway for prosecuting the architects and perpetrators of these crimes and identifies the specific legal and operational hurdles involved in this process.
Method & Approach: This article employs a doctrinal methodology to argue that the activation of universal jurisdiction is a legal necessity. The research draws upon a comprehensive range of sources including international treaties, customary international law, global judicial precedents, Islamic jurisprudential principles, and Iranian domestic statutes. By bridging the gap between theoretical universal jurisdiction and the practical prosecution of targeted assassinations, the study analyzes the transition from the ambiguous characterization of "terrorism" to more robust international criminal categories.
Findings: The central finding of the research is that these assassinations satisfy the constituent elements of an organized attack against a civilian population, thereby qualifying as clear instances of crimes against humanity. This recharacterization provides a firm legal foundation for the exercise of universal jurisdiction under both customary international law and Islamic principles such as ifsād fi’l-arḍ (corruption on earth) and the doctrine of ḥifẓ bayḍat al-Islām (preservation of the Islamic political system). At the domestic level, the research identifies that Article 9 of the Islamic Penal Code establishes the necessary statutory capacity to exercise jurisdiction. Furthermore, the study determines that functional or occupational immunity does not shield perpetrators because the commission of international crimes cannot be classified as a legitimate official act protected by state immunity.
Conclusion: Ultimately the article proposes a comprehensive judicial-legislative roadmap designed to terminate the culture of impunity within the Iranian legal system. It recommends the establishment of specialized judicial units for international crimes and the potential adoption of a comprehensive law to clarify absolute universal jurisdiction. The research concludes that while political and diplomatic challenges remain, the domestic pursuit of justice serves as a vital strategic tool for documenting state-sponsored crimes and asserting national sovereignty. By acting as a last bastion of justice, Iranian courts can contribute to the development of international law and ensure that perpetrators of grave crimes do not find a safe haven from accountability.