جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « international responsibility » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

Recognizing the norms and regulations of international law and guarantying the international activists’ commitments necessitate a provisioning of international responsibility system for them. Using the descriptive and analytical methods and library data, the present research studied and explained the Islamic jurisprudential fundamentals of and political challenges for the governments’ and NGOs’ international responsibilities. The research findings showed that despite the lack of discussion on the subject in the Islamic jurisprudence, several jurisprudential regulations – such as the negation of hardship, the rule of prohibition of helping to commit a crime, the prohibition of detriment, as the most important ones - can be used as the fundamentals to justify the governments’ and NGOs’ international responsibilities. Despite this, there are several political challenges – the governments search for profits, their intervention in establishing the international laws, and political considerations effects on the election of judges for the international trials, as the most prominent ones - for the governments’ and NGOs’ international responsibilities.

The International Court of Justice, in the case of Certain Iranian Assets, by considering the scope of international obligations of the United States, including and in partcular the head of Article 3 of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, has confirmed that the fundamental dispute between the parties is about the recognition of the legal status of foreign companies. The present essay by applying a descriptive-analytical method and through observing the precedents of the international judicial and arbitration tribunals and the Draft Articles of the International Law Commission on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, has proven that the actions of the United States Section 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Law and Section 601(g)(1) of the Foreign Government Immunities Act in particular and their enforcement by their national courts are according to the customary internatonal law attributable to the United States and consequently this country has violated its treaty obligations. Thus, both elements required to establish the existence of an internationally wrongful act have been met and accordingly the responsibility of the United States has been . The Court, in line with the request of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has ordered compensation in favour of Iran as a result of such responsibility.

International responsibility, as one of the most basic international legal institutions, creates rights and obligations for members of the international community, especially governments, which provides the basis for the establishment of the rule of law in the international community. In this regard, he first discussed the nature of human rights, the right to access medicine and vaccines, and examined the obligations and role of international community cooperation in dealing with and controlling global diseases, including Covid-19, and then examined the international responsibility of governments towards Violation of obligations related to access to treatment and vaccines for global diseases for people under their sovereign authority has been discussed and subsequently the international responsibility of governments in the field of dealing with newly emerging diseases, including Covid-19, is discussed.

The present research has been scrutinized, analyzed, and investigated using a descriptive and analytical method based on documentary studies with a survey tool.

International Health Regulations (2005) along with some rules of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (1994), the core of the obligations between international organization of governments to control and deal with global diseases, including covid-19, and on the other hand, paying attention to the importance of the cooperation of governments in dealing with global diseases, commitment It is against the international community and neglect and negligence on the part of the governments in this field, including treatment,

Certainly ISIS in Syria carried out terrorist operations that can be classified at the same time as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. But the problem here is whether the actions of ISIS can be, as a failed insurgent group, attributed to the Syrian government. The study showed that the criminal and non-governmental acts of ISIS are not attributed to the Syrian government, and thus Damascus is not internationally responsible for them. Exceptionally, however, if the Syrian government fails or falls short in suppressing and prosecuting ISIS or granting amnesty to its members, their behavior can be attributed to the Syrian government and, the economic, administrative, and judicial violations that ISIS carried out on the lands under its control in Syria can be attributed to the Syrian government if the conditions of Article 9 of the draft articles on international responsibility are met. The basic issue is that, given the overthrow of the so-called ISIS rule and the non-existence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, who is the authority that would be responsible for the acts contrary to international law committed by that self-appointed government during its span? Therefore, the issue at hand is the international responsibility of the ISIS government, which no longer exists, but the criminal responsibility of ISIS members is another category and is not the subject of this research. While many papers have been written on criminal liability, but the issue of international responsibility due to the illegal actions of ISIS has not received special attention.

Genetic engineering as a technology with potential and actual abilities and capacities can play a fundamental role in removing some obstacles in the production of agricultural, industrial, and medical products. But we should not ignore the possible dangers of genetic engineering on human health and the environment. In this regard, various biosafety conventions, protocols, laws, and standards have been developed and approved in the world to provide a solution for the production, trade, and safe use of genetically modified resources. One of these documents is the "Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur" supplementary protocol. The purpose of this research, which was carried out with a descriptive-analytical method, is to express the international responsibility of governments for transboundary damages caused by genetically modified resources with a view to the supplementary protocol of Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur. The findings indicate that the supplementary protocol, as a part of the legal order created in the international law system, can resolve conflicts in that system. As long as the primary commitment of the Supplementary Protocol, i.e. to make a fundamental change in the implementation of the public law approach to liability for biodiversity damage, is realized even while respecting the domestic laws of the members that reflect their specific economic, social, and legal circumstances, the aim of the Protocol is at least This has been achieved and to solve this criticism, we can resort to the existing solutions regarding the interpretation of multilateral environmental agreements.

Marine environmental international law is one of the trends in international law that tries to oblige governments to comply with the necessary laws and measures needed to maintain biological resources, organisms and the health of the seas. The presence of rich oil and gas resources in the sensitive and strategic region of the Persian Gulf and its environmental characteristics have recognized this region as one of the most important strategic regions in the world, which is exposed to severe environmental pollution and destruction. . The creation of these pollutions should result in civil responsibility for the polluting country under the title of international responsibility, which was the purpose of establishing an organization called RAPMI. In this article, an attempt has been made to deal with the issue by combining the articles of the Human Rights Commission and the 1978 Kuwait Convention, that if a government causes environmental pollution to enter the Persian Gulf due to oil and gas extraction, its responsibility. How is the country compared to other countries? This responsibility, which can be called the "responsibility of international marine environmental rights, needs to hold more international gatherings and meetings in order for it to become more and more realistic.

The expansion of the range of benefits of self-propelled marine vessels simultaneously with the development of technology and related knowledge has increased the need of governments and actors active in the maritime field to develop and formulate rules and regulations about this maritime tool. On the other hand, the unknown area of responsibility of self-driving vessels for violating international rules has increased the necessity of identifying the legal regime of this instrument in the realm of international law of the seas. Therefore, in this research, which was carried out in a descriptive-analytical method along with a field study, in addition to the legal definition of marine self-propelled vessels, the basic question has been raised that the basis of assigning responsibility to self-propelled marine vessels is based on what element? In this context, it was found that the legal regime of self-propelled marine vessels is different depending on the purpose and operations defined for this tool on the one hand and whether the self-propelled vessels are "under the surface" or "on the surface" on the other hand, and in line with the explanation of this legal structure The role of the International Maritime Safety Organization is very key. It was also found that the international responsibility for compensating the possible damages resulting from the activity of this category of vessels is of the type of "responsibility for internationally prohibited actions" and is based on the level of control and autonomy of this tool from the ability to be extended to the operator, owner or controller of this tool. It looks distinct.

On Tuesday, 19 April 2022, the Greek Coast Guard seized a Russian-owned oil tanker named Pegasus in the waters off the Euboea Island.  It had adopted the Iranian flag and changed its name to Lana just before the Greek action. The seizure of the ship was initially carried out under European Union sanctions against Russia in connection with the attack on Ukraine. However, pursuant to a request by the US Department of Justice - which claimed the tanker’s oil cargo was Iranian and subject to US sanctions- the seizure was continued and a part of the cargo was delivered to the United States. After the seizure of Luna/Pegasus, Iran tried to release the ship through diplomatic and legal measures, but these measures were unsuccessful due to Greece’s refusal. Thereupon, on 27 May, Iran seized two Greek oil tankers in the Persian Gulf called Prudent Warrior and Delta Poseidon. The purpose of this paper is to examine the legality of Iran's seizure of the Greek oil tankers from the point of view of international law, specifically in terms of the law of countermeasures. Using a descriptive-analytical method and collecting information from library and documentary sources, the paper finds that in response to the actions by Greece and the United States, Iran had the right to take countermeasures within the framework of international law, and its seizure and detention of the two Greek tankers did not entail international responsibility.

The immunity of the state has a strong basis in customary international law. But the nature of these rules is not exactly obvious. Lawyers have different points of view on determining immunity as procedural or substantive rule. Twice the International Court of Justice had the chance to evaluate the nature of state immunity and its probable conflict with substantive rules. The first time, in the case concerning Yerodia arrest warrant (Congo v. Belgium) in 2002 and the second time, in the case concerning the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening) in 2012. The question of this paper is whether the distinction between the procedural rule of immunity and a substantive jus cogens rule as is used by ICJ has a legal basis or can it be legally challenged? It will be argued that the ICJ approach in using the distinction can cause problems like descending the position of jus cogens and impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes. Thus, the ICJ should be more cautious in using such a reasoning.

following the seizure of the oil tanker of the Islamic Republic of Iran by Greece, which took place on the orders of the US Department of Justice, international responsibility is realized. The two elements of attribution and breach of obligation, which are elements of creating international responsibility, are evident in relation to the actions of two states. On the other hand, the retaliatory action of the Islamic Republic of Iran can be justified according to the provisions of the international law of the seas and also based on the assumption of the claims made by the Greek government in the context of the retaliatory action. The consequences of the international wrongful act carried out by Greece and the U.S.A. should also be stopped and compensation for the damages should be paid in full to Iran.

The present research was carried out using a descriptive-analytical method.

In the case of the seizure of the oil tanker known as Lana, which used to operate under the name of Pegas and was carrying an oil cargo belonging to Iran, the Greek government illegally seized the ship while it docked in the coastal waters of Greece and then transferred its cargo to the American ship at the request of the US Department of Justice. The international wrongful act is considers as a breach of international obligation of Greece and the United States of America which causes the international responsibility of both states.

Along with the facilitation and development of communication and interaction between countries, border crimes have also been expanded. Human trafficking is one of the most important crimes that takes place in border areas. The purpose of this article is to analyze the international responsibility of countries in dealing with border crimes with an emphasis on human trafficking.

Given that this article seeks to describe and analyze the international responsibility of countries in dealing with border crimes, in terms of its objectives it is of an applied research type, and in terms of the method of collection and the nature of the data, it is a library and qualitative study. The current research seeks to answer the following question: what are the international responsibilities of countries in dealing with human trafficking crimes at international borders?

The findings indicate that victim protection, prevention, criminalization and determination of punishments such as confiscation of property and extradition of criminals are among the most important international obligations of governments in this field. Some of the governments' obligations are related to actions such as criminalizing human trafficking in the domestic arena, and some of them imply the governments' obligations in the international arena, which is about guaranteeing the implementation of legal gaps in this field.

The obtained results show that the commitments of governments in the international arena require two important components. First of all, the realization of governments' obligations in dealing with border crimes and human trafficking requires regional and international cooperation, without which, it is not possible to deal with this type of crime. Second, the necessary efforts should be made to include human trafficking in the context of an organized and widespread crime in the statute of the International Criminal Court, and this kind of guarantee of the necessary implementation of the governments' obligations in this regard should be provided.

 With the development of new military technologies and the supply of laser weapons and military equipment to the context of international and non-international armed conflicts and the inconsistency of international legal rules and regulations to control and limit the use of said technologies, the witness of concern in the international legal community We are. The use of laser weapons in international and non-international armed conflicts is a violation of the Fourth Additional Protocol of 1995 to the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, in which the use of laser weapons that result in blindness and vision impairment is prohibited. Rule 86 of customary international humanitarian law also prohibits the use of laser weapons. Based on Article 36 of the 1st Additional Protocol of 1977, the governments in the production and use of new weapons and equipment should ensure that they are not prohibited from the perspective of international rules and laws. Using the aforementioned weapons in armed conflicts is a violation of international obligations. The main goal of this research is to verify the international responsibility of governments in using laser weapons in military operations. Therefore, by using an applied research with a descriptive-analytical method to collect the data obtained through library studies and field investigation, we have sought to realize this goal. The result of the research showed that the use of laser weapons is a violation of the above-mentioned international obligations, and considering the conditions of hostilities and the declaration of the governments.

With the advent of new weapons of different nature and type of use on the battlefields in recent regional and international conflicts and the increasing development of weapons of the autonomous, intelligent, UAV and non-lethal weapons, most activists and thinkers in the field of armed conflict To study the feasibility of observing the principles and regulations governing international humanitarian law, as well as the responsibility of the states that own and use these types of weapons, and to study and analyze theoretical and practical issues in this field. to describe precisely doubts have been risen for some that the rules and principles of the philanthropy international law is completely obsolete and inefficient in adapting the new ways of conflicts. But the fact is Yet with the notable advancements in the field of technology, these rules and principles are still in use. In fact, the origins of these rules, which are the public conscience, as well as the flexibility of humanitarian law rules make it possible to adapt to new conflicts. Although new software wars, like any other emerging phenomenon, have created legal challenges for manufacturers and tensions between countries, these tensions can be reduced by regulating specific regulations. Although the general principles governing armed conflict may suffice, in this area we need to update the rules governing them so that a precautionary approach can be taken to prevent tensions between the owners of these weapons and the limits of their use in accordance with international regulations and in the light of international responsibility. Specified the type of aggravated responsibility.

Consecutive droughts of the last three decades and the role of government's economic and social policies in harvesting or making artificial changes to natural resources and their misuse. It has caused the destruction of vegetation and as a result the destruction of the earths texture and finally the scattering of dust particles in the sky. In the hot and dry regions of the earth, especially in large areas of the Middle East, has created an acute environmental crisis that has caused numerous damages to the effected communities. Since the last half century, especially since the early 1970s, there have been positive developments in the field of International Environmental Law due to the holding of numerous public conferences which has led to the non-binding declarations but common statements, that have Erga-Omnes and Jus-Cogens rules. In this article, we have decided to examine these rules in a library manner and the basic question of whether it is possible to create a process for governments to commit to some environmental rules based on the responsibility of governments in order to reduce the harmful effects of this phenomenon in the Middle East, the participation of regional governments. The Middle East, especially its southeastern countries, should be explored in order to hold a conference and approve the "Regional Convention to Combat the Dust Crisis in the Middle East".

For nearly seven years, Saudi Arabia and its allies have waged a war on Yemen, resulting in massive civilian casualties, especially among children, and widespread damage to educational facilities in the country. According to the principles of international law, targeting educational facilities as part of cultural property constitutes a violation of humanitarian law, including the four Geneva Conventions. However, the extent to which this violation entails the international liability of the Saudi-backed coalition in the global arena and whether the foreign actors intervening in Yemen are liable for targeting educational facilities or not are the main questions of this research, which have been investigated based on the norms of international law. The research findings suggest that since international liability law is derived from the notion of equal sovereignty of states and the nature of the international legal system, it seems that the issue of third-state liability for aiding or abetting or otherwise participating in an internationally wrongful act is a well-established concept in international law. Therefore, the Saudi-backed coalition bears international liability for destroying educational facilities and should be held accountable for their wrongful acts according to international mechanisms.

War is an unpleasant phenomenon that, despite the international community's policies to prevent its occurrence, sometimes countries get involved in armed conflicts. Realizing the reality of the impossibility of eliminating this reprehensible incident, international organizations had to pass documents to humanize the face of armed conflicts by separating military from civilian targets and the possibility of compensating for the damages caused by attacks on civilian targets; responsibility towards the parties involved in the war. In the international documents, the government or the aggressor group is referred to as the head of the authorities to compensate the damage, that in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, Although Hamas is known as the initiator of the war and according to international standards, it should try to compensate Israel, but the actions of the Israeli regime as an avenger are much wider and it is far from justice and fairness to exempt the Israeli regime from responsibility in addition The conflict, which has continued with disregard for international humanitarian law, has caused war crimes such as targeting the lives and property of civilians and impacts on the region's environment; that the fairest way is to follow the theory of legitimate war, under which we can hold both systems responsible for compensating the losses incurred.

One of the inalienable effects of international responsibility of States is the full reparation of the consequences of wrongdoing. Unlike restitution and compensation, which are mainly used to compensate material damage, satisfaction has been considered as an appropriate method of compensating non-pecuniary damage by State practice, case law and especially the ILC. The study of these procedures shows that satisfaction is generally obtained through processes such as apologizing, declaring the act as a wrongful act, punishing the perpetrators, and so on. On the other hand, financially satisfaction faces serious challenges, but the studies of this article show that it is exceptionally accepted in case of severe and systematic moral damage to non-State entities. The February 9, 2022 judgment of the ICJ in the case of Congo v. Uganda was an opportunity for the Court to resolve the ambiguities of satisfaction. However, as this article will show, this ruling has deepened these doubts, and the Court has reached findings for which no record is available.

There is an important difference between the international responsibility of States in formulating a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a human rights treaty and other types of international responsibility. The difference is that such a violation makes the reserving state responsible not only to the objecting members, but also to the international community as a whole. The main question of this descriptive-analytical research is what distinguishes the international responsibility of states in formulating a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty from the acceptance of such a reservation - especially in human rights treaties.

The result of the present research shows that the responsibility of states in formulating a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a human rights treaty can be seen through the flexible structure of Articles 19 and 20 of the International Convention on the Law of Treaties. While Article 19 prohibits states from formulating a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty at the stage of signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, Article 20 does not take this prohibition into account at the stage of acceptance of the reservation by other states.

Aviation cyber security is becoming a very serious subject. The air industry is a complex, advanced, multidimensional with an international scope industry is distinguished became its complexity among industries. One of the most important and vital issues of aviation is to ensure the accuracy of navigation systems and air traffic control, which has a direct impact on flight safety. The article is prepared to explain and evaluate the rules of cyber security regime in the field of international aviation law and the responsibility of governments and international organizations in sight of the existing rules of international responsibility plan and through this to examine the conditions and effects of each.

This article was written by descriptive-analytical method in terms of collecting library data and reviewing documents.

The International Cyber Security Regime is a mechanism for cooperation between governments and cause trust and security, and the protection of aviation infrastructure is a top priority for governments. The aviation industry is facing novel threats, and there are various cyber security concerns at airports and in-flight aircraft, and the need to "smarten up" airports is being seriously felt due to increased connectivity of systems and processes and protection of navigation systems. The development of security rules and regulations is one of the strategic goals of the International Civil Aviation Organization and its member countries, in order to ensure sustainable aviation security measures.