فهرست مطالب زهرا دولت خواه

Libyan crisis in 2011 posed many questions regarding the kind and method of reaction made by international community against current international humanitarian crises, especially in the Middle East and North Africa, due to the rapid and decisive reaction of the Security Council in the framework of the doctrine of responsibility to protect and NATO’s military intervention in this country. The opposing goals and interests of great powers in each of these crises and their efforts to ensure their national security and interests and to maximize their relative power and more importantly, the deterrent role of their old rivals in the target country or countries, have led to selective approaches to humanitarian crises including those of Libya and Yemen. In this article, Authors try to study the doctrine of responsibility to protect and meanwhile, to explain the approach taken by great powers, especially the permanent members of the Security Council, to Lybian and Yemeni crisies.

The present century due to new concerns and challenges regarding international human crises and increase in world expectations to adequately, timely and purposeful respond to them, witnesses more signifiant developments compared to the past century. The instrumental use of the concept of human rights to intervene in the internal affarirs of other countries by great powers to ensure their own objectives and national intersts and also deep and serious differences regarding the manner, time and legitimacy of military intervention by the international community have made humanitarian intervention a controvrsial solution for human crises. In this regard, the ratification of responsibility to protect doctrine at the UN 2005 World Summit and its recognition as an accepted international norm, suggests an important step taken by the international community for adopting an approach to solve international human crises. Although the practical test of this doctrine in Lybian crisis and efforts made for applying this model to Syria provoked once again harsh criticisms against great powers, particulary the permanent members of the Security Council, this article while taking a look at responsibility to protect doctrine, tries to conduct a comparative study of approaches taken by P5 to crises in Lybia and Syria.

International community’s concerns about inhuman effects of conventional weapons in different countries, especially in crisis-hit African nations, and the possibility that criminals, illegal armed groups and terrorists may use such weapons against civilians, including women and children, prompted serious efforts for the adoption of effective international mechanisms. Extensive consultation among countries finally led to the adoption of various international conventions and treaties on small and light weapons, anti-personnel mines, and cluster bombs. However, growing concerns over illegal trade and smuggling of conventional weapons in different parts of the world prompted some countries and nongovernmental organizations to launch a campaign in this regard. As a result of their extensive lobbies and efforts, the Arms Trade Treaty was drafted without serious talks among countries and only based on the viewpoints of a limited group of states. Since a consensus was not reached in the UN Conference on Arms Trade, this treaty was finally approved through voting at the UN General Assembly in March 2013, with its main goal being the introduction of common international standards to control all forms of import, export and transfer of conventional weapons. The present research discusses underlying grounds for the formulation of the Arms Trade Treaty while assessing the process of the ratification of this treaty by international community to enforce global controls on conventional weapons.

International concerns about proliferation of nuclear weapons following the Cold War and possible smuggling of nuclear material as well as enrichment and reprocessing technologies by illegal groups, have given rise to efforts to invoke effective international measures. Meanwhile, nuclear-weapon states with dominant political, military and economic power play a more important role in this respect to shape the international norms and regulations. While maintaining their nuclear monopolies, such states have decided to promote establishment of a world bank of nuclear fuel in order to ensure international supply of nuclear fuel to countries without a nuclear fuel cycle. Endeavors and lobbying by nuclear states to discourage development of local nuclear capabilities by other countries through offering various alternatives finally prompted International Atomic Energy Agency to give the green light for the establishment of the nuclear fuel bank in 2010. The present paper discusses background of the international nuclear fuel bank while focusing on the existing barriers and future outlooks.

Sanctions are used in contemporary international relations to settle disputes and achieve certain political goals. More than often, they reflect discontent of powerful members of the United Nations Security Council Extensive investigations followed whose findings were presented to the Council in a 574-page report which alluded to “perpetration of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.” Despite severe protests by Israel, theUnited States, and some European countries, the report was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly paving the way for submission of the report to the Security Council and filing a lawsuit with The Hague Tribunal as possible next steps.This paper discusses various aspects of the report from the viewpoint of international humanitarian law before scrutinizing international responsibilities of the Zionist regime on the basis of information contained in the report.