ABSTRACT
The aim of this article is to examine the responsibility of the flag state for crimes committed by warship’s crews in foreign ports and differentiate between crimes committed by crews inside and outside the ship due to official and unofficial duties. Is the state responsible for crimes committed by crews in its official capacity in foreign ports, or for crew crimes s in unofficial duties? Many legal experts consider a warship as a manifestation of the authority and floating territory of the flag state, attributing the actions of its crews to the state. The framework of international responsibility considers the actions of state employees and groups affiliated with the state as state actions, holding the state internationally responsible for crimes committed by this category of individuals under certain circumstances. International judicial practice and opinions from international courts support the notion that the state is responsible for crimes committed by its crews, including members of the armed forces, especially naval crews. If a crime occurs outside the warship stationed in a port or if the effects of a committed crime extend beyond the ship, the state is responsible for crimes committed by its naval crews in foreign ports, whether these crimes are due to official or unofficial duties. The only difference in state responsibilities lies in the method of compensation and how the state is held accountable towards the affected state and the international community. This article aims to investigate the international responsibility of the state for crimes committed by naval crews in foreign ports due to official and unofficial duties inside and outside the ship, using a descriptive method and library sources.  This article seeks to analyze descriptively how the state's international responsibility for the crimes of warship crews in foreign ports as a result of formal and informal duties.
 
1. INTRODUCTION
If a warship intentionally or unintentionally violates the rules related to health, immigration, environmental issues, or the laws related to public order of the receiving country when entering the territorial and internal waters of the host country, then in fact the current act or omission has escaped from him. which can be the origin of a secondary obligation called responsibility for the respective government in front of the affected government, or if it seizes or destroys a ship in the high seas without a court-friendly reason, then in fact it has done what is considered a violation of an obligation and The origin of responsibility will be for the flag-owning government, and the government belonging to this warship is responsible to the international community and the affected government and must be held accountable, even if the warship has violated its duties and power (Divsalar, 2012).
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
This article uses the descriptive and analytical method and follows a systematic, objective and quantitative description of the content, and by describing and evaluating the documents and events, it examines the dimensions of the state’s responsibility for the crimes committed by warships (vessels) employees in foreign ports. The method of collecting library information is the use of authentic articles, books and websites related to the research topic, which have been collected and classified by means of data collection and analyzed by the author after evaluation and verification
3. RESULTS
The wrongful act of a warship employee, who is considered an employee of the flag state, if it is outside of his official duties, cannot be attributed to the government and is not considered a violation of an international obligation, because this person is an ordinary person and his act is also a violation of an international obligation. It is not considered, and none of the two clauses of Article 2 of the state’s responsibility plan, i.e. the ability to be assigned to the government and the violation of the state’s international obligation, are not included. It cannot be attributed to the government, because the guilty person did not commit a mistake in his official capacity as a government employee, and as an ordinary person, he committed a mistake that had nothing to do with his duty, and his action is not a violation of an international obligation, because the act of an ordinary person cannot cause Violation of international obligations, because a person is not subject to international law, so this person will only be responsible for his personal mistake as an ordinary person, and in case of loss and damage to other people, only the employee himself is responsible for compensation. and the government that owns the flag of the ship will not bear any responsibility for the wrongful act of such a person, and it goes without saying that in such cases it is not an international issue, because usually the people who are inside a ship are all nationals of the same country and the law governing their relations is the same (Sanadgol, 2014).
The cases in which the international responsibility of a state based on the omission of a verb is cited are as numerous as the cases of responsibility based on positive verbs, and there is no difference between the two; For example, the International Court of Justice ruled in the case of "Corfu channel" that it is sufficient for Albania to be held responsible if that state knew or should have known about the presence of mines in its territorial waters, and in this case third countries have no He had not given a warning (Ebrahimgol, 2022)
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The issue of the government's international responsibility for employee crimes is one of the most important issues and challenges for governments. Governments are always held responsible for the crimes of their employees who act as government representatives based on custom and international laws and conventions. States shall be liable for the crimes committed by the personnel of warships, whether such crimes are committed in the course of the official duties of the crew or outside of their official duties. If the crimes committed are due to official duties, the responsibility of the government is direct and the government is responsible for compensation, but if the crimes committed outside the official duties of the employees and due to the negligence and laziness of the employees, the responsibility of the government will be indirect and the government He can reduce his responsibility by some actions such as punishing the perpetrator or handing him over to the authorities of the injured government for punishment.
REFERENCES
Ebrahimgol, A., 2022. International state Responsibility. Shahr Danesh Publications. (In Persian).
Divsalar, M., 2012. Examining the international responsibility of the Iranian state in the case of blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Ms.c thesis, Chalous Azad University, Iran. (In Persian)
Sanadgol, E., 2014. Responsibility of the flag state for warship’s crew crimes in foreign ports in international law viewpoint, Ms.c thesis, Chalous Azad University, Iran. (In Persian).