فهرست مطالب سید مهران محمدی

 In order to examine the position of international custom in the judicial procedure, this research has selected one of the cases of the court which has distinctive features and discussed about it. For this reason, this article is devoted to the investigation of the accusations attributed by the prosecutor to one of the commanders of the militia forces in the case of Darfur, Sudan.

 This research is of theoretical type and the research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of data collection is library and has been done by referring to documents, books and articles.
Ethical Considerations: In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.

 The Statute of the International Criminal Court with Article 21 entered the field of international criminal law and limited the authority of judges, which is one of the results of establishing this point of view is not paying attention to customary international law, at least in theory.

 Abd-Al-Rahman's case can be considered as an indicator due to its adherence to the principle of absolute legality and the lack of considerations related to the morally reprehensible nature of the behavior in question. It seems important to pay close attention to the accessibility and predictability of customary norms in order to avoid a return to doctrines of substantive justice that are completely incompatible with contemporary شunderstandings of the principle of legality.

In recent decades, the vast majority of armed conflicts have often taken place within the internal sphere of one state, rather than being related to the geographical scope of several states. The UN Security Council, which has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security in accordance with the Charter, and the end of the Cold War marks a turning point in the Council's approach in this regard. Condemning the actions of the parties to the conflict, UN peacekeeping operations, its role in the development of customary international humanitarian law, and the establishment of international tribunals are some of the activities of the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. This article, with an analytical-descriptive approach, while describing the actions of the Security Council and in answering the question that how these actions have contributed to the development of the law of non-international armed conflict, assumes that although the actions of this council have contributed to the development of this field, the activities of this organ, both in the field of legislation and legal practices and in the creation of international customs, have faced opposing views and have had a volatile trend in the interactions of its political and dusty atmosphere.

 Unlike ad hoc international criminal courts in which judges are guided to prescribe customary rules in proceedings, the International Criminal Court came into existence with distinctive features compared to previous courts, and in Article 21 of its statute, the rights He enumerated the performance and, in a way, created a hierarchy among them. However, contrary to the common practice, whenever we need to conceptualize the sources of international law, we automatically refer to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and international treaties and customs are introduced as the main sources in the Rome Statute. First of all, there is no news about the last-mentioned case. This matter, which was formed by the efforts of some countries and criminal lawyers and in support of and based on the principle of legality, sought to limit the powers of judges in a significant way, and the customary rules, despite all the prominent points, Due to the complexities of its identification and function, this article concluded by examining the provisions of the founding document of the International Criminal Court that despite the wishes of the drafters, these rules still play an important role in the proceedings of the International Criminal Court. Although not explicitly cited as a source.

This article examines the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' labeling as terrorists by the United States in the framework of the international law. In its latest action against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States has listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization. This is the first time that an official body of an independent government from another country has faced such a decision. U.S. officials have accused the IRGC of supporting terrorism in the region, and have cited their action as a lever to increase pressure and bring Iran to the negotiating table. In the present article, an attempt has been made to discuss this issue by providing a definition of terrorism and reviewing international documents and U.S. domestic laws. In addition, a legal analysis of this action is done while providing a description of the conditions created. By calling the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and all its affiliates a terrorist group, the Islamic Republic of Iran has retaliated against the U.S. move. The findings are based on the principle that this action by the United States is contrary to the principles of the UN Charter, and violates the international peace, security and order, and calls for a strong presence of the Security Council as a UN peacekeeper. Also, under Articles 40 and 41 of the International Law Commission on State Responsibility, the United States has international responsibility, is condemned to non-recognition, and must, in principle, be reported to the Security Council.

The US missile strike in Syria has raised various reactions internationally. US allies supported the attack. The opposition, however, has declared it to be contrary to the explicit principles of the United Nations Charter of International Law. The present study surveys how the US missile attack on Syria can be assessed in international law. Is the attack legitimate in international law? If it is legitimate, based on what theory is justifiable, and if it is not legitimate, what are the principles of international law? This article by the descriptive- analytical method, while mentioning the principles of non-intervention in state governance and not using the force, explains the latest developments in Humanitarian intervention in the form of Responsibility to protect theory, and surveys the legitimacy of the US missile strike against Syria in terms of these two theories. The results of the study indicate that the US missile strike in Syria is an explicit violation of the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries and the principle of not using the force. On the other hand, this action is justifiable in terms of neither Humanitarian intervention theory nor the Responsibility to protect theory; because interventions based on the two mentioned theories require the permission of the Security Council that the US government did not have it.