مجله حقوقی بین المللی
پیاپی 28 (بهار و تابستان 1382)

Arguing that human rights treaties by their nature are different from other international agreements, this Article deals mainly with such questions as succession of states in respect of human rights treaties and reservations to such instruments. In contrast to other treaties, which are generally “inter-states exchange of interests”, human rights documents are protective instruments according to which states parties undertake to restrain their discretion as regards fundamental rights and freedoms both internally and internationally. This is why adopting different approach to offer a proper theoretical framework as to the above questions seems to be necessary. In addition to author’s classification of human rights treaties into six categories, the idea of automatic succession of states to human rights instruments and invalidity of certain reservations to these treaties are main contribution of this study

Basically there are six types of river boundary delimitation. According to a kind of classification these six types can be divided into three groups:The first is those methods which are not generally based on justice and the consent of one of the parties to the treaty (like one of the banks of river as a boundary). The second group seems to be based on justice and logical reasons; because of that many countries accept them for their river boundaries. (Like the thalweg for navigable rivers and median line for non-navigable ones). But since these methods have some technical defects, the countries concerned are usually faced in practice with some problems and difficulties. The third method is completely different from the others, because the boundary is not a line, but it is an area which would be common between the countries concerned and under the “joint sovereignty” of them. Nowadays, it seems this method would be a suitable one for river boundaries. The present article proposes this method and propounds the different reasons for accepting that.

“State of War” is the most significant consequence of war declaration. “Dār AL- Harb” is considered as the land against which Islam has declared the state of war. Sometimes it may be as the same as “Ma’rekeh” (the theater of war). Declaration and beginning of war influences the entire world and especially puts effects on political and commercial relations which may lead to their suspension, revocation or rejection. In international law, the theater of war is different from the region of war. The theater of war is the region in which the military combat takes place. The totalitarian nature of the modern war leaves no way-out for the impartial or neutral lands. Here, the discussion is over the restriction of region or theater of war. Three issues have been proposed for such a subtle: 1) Determination of military goals 2) Establishment of non-military zones 3) Preservation of cultural relics. Through the distinguishment of Dār AL-Harb from Ma’rekeh and restriction of military regions, Islam rejects the manslaughter of civilians and “Da’vat” (invitation) is the very fundamental basis of Islamic wars. Prohibition of military tactics against women, children and civilians has been quoted in different Islamic and historically documented texts from the early days of Islam. Theater of war has its own legal status and rights in Islam: 1) Right to seize the prisoner of war 2) Right to take booty of war 3) Right to take the enemy’s soldiers’ clothes or personal effects. The second issue is equal to Fructus doctrine (right of enjoyment) in international law. In Islam, booty of war is considered as public property and it is also noted that the warrior “Mojahid” of Islam is religiously free to take possession of enemy’s clothes and private stuff under the permission of Imam, in contrast with the modern international law which is silent regarding such issues. Another difference between Islamic views and international law is the status of murdered. The murdered is called “Shahid” (martyr) in Islam. It is noteworthy to say that Islam categorizes the lands (Dārs) into Dār AL-Harb which is usually as the same as Dār AL-Kofr confronting Dār AL-Islām but the latter is not necessarily Dār AL-Harb. Dār AL- Hayād is the impartial land and has her own rights and there is no such a category in Qr’ānic verses. Another type of Dār is Dār AL-Movāda’eh «The Land of Convenient» which enters into a treaty of non-hostility with Dār AL-Islām and the Shiite confirms it. Dār AL-AHD is the land in which one of the divine religions of Christianity, Judaism or Zoroastrianism is her official religion and sometimes it is called Dār AL-Sulh. Dār AL-Hodneh has not the above- mentioned features but in case of war against her, Dār AL-Islām may loose her interests.