جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "international humanitarian law" در نشریات گروه "علوم سیاسی"

In international law, the right to resistance is closely related to the right to self-determination and the right to occupy territory. The right to self-determination of the people is objectified through the struggle against colonialism, land occupation and racist regimes. On the other hand, the "Right to Resistance" is a human right and an inherent right to defend oneself against military aggression and occupation, which is rooted in religion, philosophy, and history. The current research, which was conducted with a qualitative approach and a descriptive method, seeks the question that; what is the relationship between the right to resist occupation and the right to self-determination, and how is the realization of these rights in the occupied Palestinian territories? The results of this research show that according to the numerous resolutions of the United Nations, international legal practice and the four Geneva conventions, people under occupation have the right to fight to determine their destiny with all the tools at their disposal, including the use of weapons in the form of "right to resistance". Therefore, the resistance groups on behalf of the people under occupation in Palestine (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) have the right to use military force against the Zionist usurping regime within the framework of the occupation rights and international humanitarian law; However, in contrast to this regime, as an occupying power, it only has support duties and does not have the right to legitimate defense against the armed actions of the liberation movements.

International law has generally been unable to precisely regulate the rules of cyber operations thus far. This is due to the complexity of cyberspace, the nature of the technology, and the need to adapt existing laws to technological developments. Many previous international rules, such as those related to armed attacks, war, or human rights, do not directly apply to cyber operations. Instead, some general principles and concepts may apply cyber operations. Therefore, there are no precise rules regarding cyber operations, and many existing international concepts and rules may not be readily applicable to cyber operations. This is a significant challenge in the field of international law, which has led to the need to develop new rules and standards for this domain as technology progresses and cyber operations continue to grow. One of these concepts is the conduct of cyber operations and cyber-attacks by one state against another under the principle of legitimate self-defense. This research, while identifying cyber-attacks, examined the question of whether, from the perspective of international law, cyber-attacks against a country in a state of acute self-defense, where the very existence of the state is at risk, are permissible or prohibited. The research conducted is descriptive-analytical, the author hypothesized that states may use this type of attack in self-defense due to the specific characteristics of cyber operations, including high and irreparable destructive power.

Human rights are known as one of the pillars of the international legal system. Compliance with this right has a direct impact on the status of other rights in the international scene. The issue of respecting human rights is the concern of many people in the world. Today, the right to have a healthy environment is considered one of the human rights, because without a healthy environment, there is no possibility of survival, and without a healthy environment, the issue of international peace and security will suffer fundamental crises, but today we see that many countries with Environmental violations pose a problem to the planet. The formation of environmental crises is not confined within borders and can quickly affect other countries, for this reason, environmental crisis cannot be seen only in the domain of sovereigns, and the creation of a crisis by an offender can be seen as Violation of human rights is considered collective, also in the situation of war and conflict, international humanitarian law has paid attention to the issue of the environment and its preservation, in a situation where many requirements are subjected to harsh military conditions, these rights require some lines Red is like protecting the environment, for this reason, the question arises as to how the environmental issues and attention to them are in human rights and international humanitarian law. Accordingly, in this research, environmental crises and their place in human rights and International humanitarian law has been studied with a descriptive and analytical method. The results show that paying attention to basic and fundamental human rights emphasizes the need to protect the environment, but due to the violations of the governments and the lack of strong executive guarantees, this is not achieved.

In the legal arrangements after the UN Charter, the United Nations Security Council has been considered as the only legal authority that is allowed to resort to sanctions or coercive measures, despite the fact that the performance of this Council has been political and unfair in many cases, based on the seventh chapter of the Charter, the sanctions imposed by Article 41 aimed of maintaining international peace and security, they are considered collective and coercive in nature and are binding on all member states. The opposite of collective sanctions of the UN is unilateral sanctions by which, one government tries to force another government to change its policies. In response to the main question that what is the legal position and legitimacy of unilateral sanctions of the United States, this article, which was carried out with a descriptive analytical method, takes into account the hypothesis that the unilateral sanctions of the United States violates universal human rights, international humanitarian law, and the principles and objectives stated in the charter, the principle of equality of governments, the principle of non-interference, food security, the right to health and education, the right to development, the right to life and other fundamental human rights of a sanctioned country.

The evolution in international security theories causes changes in international legal-normative foundations and this causes different levels from interpretation to change and repeal of laws, which at least creates a different interpretation and rather different from the previous interpretations. And the maximum is the copying of previous laws or changes in the meaning of common laws, therefore it requires that the theories proposed in the field of international security be studied in order to evaluate the ratio of theories and laws, their mutual influence and impact on each other. and the formation of new processes of norming and legislation in the international environment should be understood correctly. Based on this, the main question of this research is that what consequences does the theory of impact-oriented operations create in the realization and application of international humanitarian rights and, consequently, in guaranteeing the national security of areas involved in armed conflicts? To answer this question, a descriptive-analytical method was used, and the summary result of this research is that the theory of influence-oriented operations, through overcoming and imposing its will on international law, intends to affect the process of legislation in the international arena and This will ultimately endanger the flow of security and peace both in the national and international spheres.

Sovereignty is a fundamental and consolidating element in the formation and continuation of modern nation-states in international relations. This concept, over time, has undergone a substantial transformation in such a way that in the contemporary period, absolute sovereignty has become a relative sovereignty with responsibility. In this context, the original and common concept of intervention and its relationship with sovereignty in international law has also undergone new changes. So, by a narrow interpretation of sovereignty, some concepts such as Humanitarian Intervention and the Response to Protect doctrine (R2P) have appeared in international law. Meanwhile, crises in some states such as Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc., with the confrontation of multiple regional and supra-regional powers interests, the paradox of sovereignty and intervention in new international law has become more apparent. Hence, this article attempts to examine the question of how contemporary international law has responded to the paradox of sovereignty and intervention. Therefore, the purpose of this study, which are presented in a descriptive-analytical manner using library and Internet documents is to examine the approach and rules of current international law in the relationship between sovereignty and intervention. The findings of this study show that in the light of international communications and the formation of collective human conscience and increasing responsibility of states, especially under the influence of global cyber conscience, the restriction of sovereignty in favor of intervention has been strengthened and joint sovereignty among nation-states and transnational actors in line with the interests of the great powers has been appeared.

the entry of non-governmental Emtities is one of the important indicators of contemporary wars that causes unbalanced structure of conflicts. In recent decades, rapid advances in weapons technology increased the gap between the warring parties in terms of military capabilities, the upsetting of the balance of power and divided them into strong and weak. As a result we have witnessed the innovation of Asymmetric, Non-structured war methods based on Unconventional using ofArmed tools and tactics, such as resorting to terrorist acts. The emergence of these methods has expanded the scope of military conflict to civil society and reduced the complience of the parties to basic principles of international humanitarian law as the only legal means to protect the lives of civilians and propert against military attacks. in the nature of today's wars and the shift to non-governmental conflicts with ethnic, religious and identity goals has led to the development of the battlefield and the entry of civilians as fighters, which has greatly blurred the line between military and civilian. Finally, the lack of international consensus on the definition of terrorism and its examples, the political approach of countries and sometimes,Hiring of terrorist groups, the monopoly of the application of humanitarian law principles on war situations while some terrorist acts take place outside the battlefield. .. are some of the factors that have intensified this challenge.

The aim of the present study is a comparative study of the typology of the principle of separation in Islamic verses and hadiths and international treaties. Using descriptive-analytical method, it was shown that the principle of segregation, meaning the separation of military from civilian, is one of the most important principles of Islamic teachings and international law. While international humanitarian organizations presented it to the international community much later, in the contemporary period, in the form of international agreements. The types of the principle of segregation include segregation between individuals, possibilities, trials, weapons and methods of use in war. The verses that prohibit corruption and the destruction of property and generation, the rule of minister, justice and the denial of sin, refer to the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction and, in other words, to the principle of separation of permitted and unlawful weapons. Although the times of the prohibition of war and conflict are few in the international community, but in the Holy Qur'an and according to the principle of segregation, it has been dealt with explicitly.

In the States only conception states have absolute legal personality and this matter is valid during the stability of traditional International Law in which the legal personality of non-state actors is secondary and derivative at best. Nevertheless, by transition in the Westphalian order and appearing or becoming self-conscious the non-state actors, the problem of contradiction of their existence and legal subjectivity was appeared and if not unsolved, it has been defined depend on the legal personality of states. Among them, the matter of legal personality of armed non-state groups, may because their mostly anti-state nature, is more discussable than the other actors. The legal personality of these groups is considerable under International Humanitarian Law, more than the other legal fields. However, there are some written literatures in this field, the strength of the current research is being inter-disciplinary and induct the legal personality of armed groups under IHL, by starting from the International Relations’ entrance. The current research focuses on the Shiite and Al-Qaeda affiliated armed groups in Iraq and Syria. In this regards, empirical and interpretative method will imply to explain interpret the legal personality of armed non-state groups. It is expectable that the out-put of this method, in synergy with the inter-disciplinary approach, will be innovation and originality of the achievement on the legal personality of armed non-state groups under IHL

Drones, like other military tools and equipment, are subject to the rules of international humanitarian law. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the legitimacy or illegality of the use of these aircrafts within the framework of the rules of international humanitarian law and the regulations of armed conflict. In this regard, the principle of separation, the principle of proportionality, and the principle of precaution and their applicability to drones will be examined. A look at the rules of international law, especially humanitarian law, shows that the use of drones is not inherently prohibited in general, and that these aircrafts themselves do not violate the principles and rules of humanitarian law. Because drones are considered as war tools and equipment, not weapons, the provisions governing arms control do not apply to them and they are not considered as prohibited weapons. But as tools and equipment of war and in order to realize the methods of conflict, they must be able to comply with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, especially the principle of separation. It is not possible to make a general judgment as to whether drones are generally capable of complying with these rules and the do's and don'ts of the law of armed conflict, and whether any use of them complies with these rules. Rather, it is based on the purpose for which the aircraft is operated, with what capabilities and functions, and in what circumstances and under what control methods.

From the use of drones in reconnaissance and surveillance missions to their use as missile carriers in military operations; There have been different views on their use and application, and some have sought to justify its use or criticize its use. The present study is devoted to examining the positions of the parties on the use or non-use of UAVs for human rights reasons and seeks to express the fact that the use of UAVs for human rights reasons is justifiable and possible . This article will show that UAVs have not only violated human rights, but in some cases have supported and protected human rights, and this shows that the UAV is not just a cruise missile, but a tool that can To serve the purposes of war against human rights or to protect human rights.

New technologies, including automatic and self-propelled UAVs, have always been discussed, whose application and use are subject to one of the rules of international law, and whether current international law is at all capable of responding to advances Scientific and military, and new technologies. The research is based on this assumption and seeks to state that modern technologies, such as UAVs, are subject to international law and require no new legislation or regulation. The study looked at UAVs at three levels of international air law and the Chicago Convention, International Humanitarian Law, and the important rules of these rights and multilateral export control regimes, and the role of UAVs in each of these three areas. And concludes that current international law has the ability to monitor and implement UAVs with current rules in the three areas mentioned.

Cyber-operation is one of the major implications of rapid development of warfare tools and Methods. Such a big change in warfare is the result of stunning technological breakthroughs in Information and Technology (IT) industry.  IT evolution has increased the level of reliance of the economic and social infrastructures on IT devices, tools and networks. Consequently, it has increased their vulnerability and the possibility of such infrastructures to be targeted by terrorism and cyber-attacks, as major methods of asymmetrical war. Throughout recent decade, the issue of countering "cyber warfare" has always been on top of international security agendas. Certain governments have established new units within their own administrations or militaries in order to monitor legal, political and military aspects of cyber warfare and develop their own Cyber Armies.Regarding International law and particularly International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Since its Prime objective is to protect the lives of civilians and civilian objects in times of International Armed Conflicts (IACs), Any discussion of applicability of IHL rules and regulations, especially  the rules of Conduct of hostilities (i.e., Distinction, proportionality and adoption of precautionary measures) as well as the existing interpretations of such rules to cyber warfare, are of utmost importance given the specific characteristics of cyberspace. IHL is based on objective situations of traditional and classical wars, but cyber-operations happen in a virtual environment. Therefore, there is an essential challenge to apply IHL rules of conflict management to cyber-operations. However, lack of applicable rules of IHL in case of cyber-operations may lead states to codify a new body of IHL applicable to cyber-space. Due to lack of any international legal arrangements designed for conduct of cyber-operations, the article strives to take into account the unique features of cyberspace, the way to interpret and apply the main rules of conduct of hostilities in IHL in the context of cyber-warfare and suggest certain solutions.

In March 2015, Saudi Arabia launched a military strike against Yemen in a coalition including: the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain along with Morocco, Egypt, Jordan and Sudan.
According to reports of International organizations, since the beginning of Saudi-led air strikes against Yemen, at least 41,125 civilians have been killed and 70,207 injured.
In this conflict, international humanitarian law must be respected as international obligation in force during armed conflicts to protect civilians. The present article describes how the coalition forces respect the international humanitarian law. For this purpose, in this paper, while briefly explaining the principles of international humanitarian law as the main framework of the discussion, the military actions of the coaltion in Yemen, based on the documents released by international governmental and non-governmental organizations will be studied

Making of drones and their development in recent decades have brought about legal challenges regarding their transboundary uses, particularly for military purposes. Following the events of September 11, 2001, drones have been used as a mean for targeted killing of suspects during operations called “war on terrorism” and such usage is still continuing. Today, drones are even used outside of battlefields and armed conflict zones. This transformation in using drones, is a major threat to application of the principle of prevention of use of force and also respect for rules of human rights and International humanitarian laws. Based on accepted principles and rules of international law, the uses of drones, in peace or war times, are subject to rules and limitations. The main purpose of this article is analysing rules of international law governing the uses of drones, particularly for military purposes. Results of this study reveals that lack of consensus among states and absence of a comprehensive and binding international convention are among the main obstacles in regulating the use of drones. Accordingly, it is necessary to resolve these obstacles through the United Nations (UN) decisions and actions.

Technology development, internet and computer communications and commerce with traversing around has opened a new era of human activities and this undermine the legitimacy of laws is based on geographical boundaries. The new frontier of cyberspace and the real world phenomena have created a great threat in terms of the lack of full implementation of the law is necessary. Using states of the insecure cyber-ground for many of other states to vandalism, sabotage, assassinations, espionage and other crimes have been paved. Action legislation in some countries, depending on the progress in the technology world, the international community also let to think that this mess in cyberspace, though little action in order to soften the space to do this. Published books in recent years have had a dramatic impact on the world’s attention to this issue. The article seeks to answer the key question of what cyber warfare and cyber whether the country can generate destructive acts of aggression and crimes under international government is force, and consequently international responsibility. Find the answers to these questions should be sought in international documents such as the UN Charter, the convention on the law of war and humanitarian law, as well as international on cyber warfare Tallinn regarding cyber war.
Although latter guidelines, in terms of criminalization and offer some solution to some extent is a copy of the Convention of humanitarian right, but it is to a large extent comprehensive, but its guided nature is a major obstacle to its entry into force. However, examining it as a matter of international law appliance, the only international source of cyber warfare, does not seem unpleasant.

Throughout history human life has changed and improved. Along with this developments and changes the way of the war has also changed. Cyber war is one of the most important transformations. By modifying the type of battles، weapons also have changed. With the development of virtual space، governments have set their eyes on cyberspace. State and non-state actors in cyberspace are working together but with no clear identity. In this context، computer attacks are increasing، however، there are no regulations to investigate cybercrimes. Attacks are increasing in cyberspace and they influence not only political conflicts but also impact negatively on the economy of civilians. As these attacks are capable of hitting civilians، so the application of international humanitarian law is mandatoryin this area.

Due diligence implies to minimum standards that disrespect to them lead to responsibility of the state. In fact, International Humanitarian Law is associated with jus ad bellum and includes a set of rules that are govern on the war time and are considered to be protective. But the scope in the Humanitarian Law is not obvious and moreover recognition of doctrine of Responsibility to Protect would amount to the question that whether breach of due diligence bring Responsibility to Protect for state and international community? What is the threshold of state’s responsibility under the International Humanitarian Law? When this threshold lead to responsibility to protect? Our hypothesis in this article is that if states violate from due diligence in respecting human rights, responsibility to protect would create. Therefore, governments to avoid being held responsible, must adhere to their obligations in time of war. In this study we used library and Internet resources with a descriptive- analytic approach.

Parallel to the development of science and technology, wars and conflicts are also become wider and more modernized. Undoubtedly,submarines are among the armaments which are used efficiently in naval wars. The role of submarines in comparison to other war equipments has been more prominent. From the very beginning, their importance against enemy warships and commercial ships is proposed. If submarines seized a commercial ship, their action must have been in accordance with regular procedure of inspection. This case posed serious threats to submarines at least in the water surface. Today some submarines move with nuclear fuel and Carries a variety of advanced missiles. A rule of international law in this case is not responsive at all to new issues of the contemporary world. Despite the complexity of the sub-surface combat, submarines Committed to rescue the injured and shipwreck victims and respect the other rules of humanitarian law International rules governing the conduct of submarine warfare, especially in the twenty-first century, seek to accommodate to the two branches of international law: first the neutrality law and second the law governing the conduct of military operations.