جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « International Responsibility » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

 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.

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.

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.

Obligations of states to fight terrorismAbstractInternational rules and regulations confirm the two main points: a comprehensive struggle and a ban on any interactions and support for terrorist groups; but today, some political imperatives have led to widespread widespread interactions with certain terrorist groups behind the curtain of some states, which is a stimulus to redress the responsibilities of governments towards roles. And their assignments in the process of international life against other actors. With this interpretation, we re-examine the general responsibility of the governments towards the phenomenon of terrorism, and, in addition, we will observe the additional and special responsibilities of the states against other actors in international relations. Considering the danger of these groups for global peace and security and international prohibitions, we continue to see the material and spiritual support of some states from the terrible phenomenon of terrorism, which makes international responsibility a matter for supportive governments. The ability of the international community to take responsibility for these governments and the drafting of this responsibility under the draft international governments' engagement is debatable.Keywords: international responsibility, terrorist groups, governments,

Maintaining sovereignty and borders is a norm and value for most countries, and governments, considering the conspiracies and conspiracies of other countries, take any measures to protect the security of the country and the privacy and security of their citizens. But today, due to the advancement of technology in the field of military weapons, some countries intend to use drones for espionage and reporting purposes, and for military purposes in general, by violating international laws and customs and entering the country illegally. The soil of other countries leads to the shattering and undermining of international security and stability. This action will lead the aggressor country to protest and retaliate and, if necessary, to defend itself legitimately by a third government. Violation of the privacy of any country is condemned in any way and under any circumstances, and this encroachment on the aggressed country creates legitimate rights such as formal warning and protest, summoning the ambassador of the hostile government, destruction or looting of weapons, claiming damages, legitimate defense. And use military action, complaints to the Security Council, and prosecution in international courts to realize their lost rights in the international community.

The use of chemical weapons has a special place among the crimes of Saddam Hussein's regime due to the extensive damage it caused to the victims. The relentless and repeated use of chemical weapons by the Baath regime in the 1980s is an international crime that will never be wiped out from the memory of history. There are still many chemical victims who are struggling with death as a result of the crimes committed by the Baath regime. In this regard, we should never neglect the actions of governments and individuals who have played a role in the chemical weapons of the Baath regime. In addition, it should not be forgotten that there is a close relationship between the aggressive act of the Baath regime in the military attack to The Islamic Republic of Iran and the use of chemical weapons by this regime. In fact, the lack of proper reaction of the Security Council to the Baath regime's military aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran has played an undeniable role in persuading other individuals and governments to chemically equip this regime and incite it to use such deadly weapons. According to international conventions and customs, there is no doubt about the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons in the 1980s.For this purpose, either it must be proven that the private company was trying to exercise government authority or it must be proven that the company has acted under the control and by the order of the relevant. In addition to these cases, the commitment of governments to guarantee human rights rules makes governments responsible for the actions of private companies.

Expanding influence in Transnational corporations made them an attractive international law subjects. One of the most important legal issue of these companies are always the environmental law violations. Multiple violation of the environmental law in the past years, bolded the need to clarity international standards governing their environmental behavior as well as their responsibility for violations. this article uses a descriptive-analytical method to answer the question that in the framework of international law, what are the rules governing the environmental behavior of these companies and what is their international responsibility? In response, it is argued that although international law has been able to establish environmental minimums (soft legal rules) in relation to these companies, the two issues of environmental requirements and the responsibility for violating these requirements are still challenging. In terms of international responsibility for breaches of environmental obligations, the general rules of international law are applicable. Considering the importance of the Caspian Sea and its environmental protection, the issue of oil pollution of this sea by transnational companies contracting with the Republic of Azerbaijan is also briefly examined as an issue.

The international responsibility of governments is one of the most fundamental institutions of international law, which has long occupied the members of the international community and has established close ties with all branches of international law. The international community has been constantly experiencing diverse and emerging legal situations in recent decades. Therefore, the cases that hold all governments accountable to the international community are not limited to certain cases. The outbreak of emerging epidemics, including the new coronavirus, is one of the emerging problems that requires international cooperation from governments to address them globally. In the present article, analytically and descriptively based on library studies and international documents, the international responsibility of governments to the international community within the framework of the legal entity of secondary obligations and the international responsibility of governments to unrestricted actions within the framework of pure responsibility And their compliance with the responsibility of governments in combating epidemics has been analyzed and as a result it has been argued that cooperation in the fight against epidemics is a commitment to the international community and negligence on the part of the government is negligent. If, it will bring international responsibility.

Given the importance of water security and food security and its direct relationship with human rights and human dignity and the impact of climate change on these two issues, the main question is whether the government can be held responsible to the international community for affecting food security and water security through climate change? It seems that governments can use the concept of liability for environmental damage to seek redress for climate change, including the right to adequate food and water. In this paper, with a descriptive and analytical method, after examining the solutions envisaged in international documents to deal with climate change, the challenges of the International Liability Agency due to climate change and solutions to address these challenges are examined. Given the importance of water security and food security and its direct relationship with human rights and human dignity and the impact of climate change on these two issues, the main question is whether the government can be held responsible to the international community for affecting food security and water security through climate change? It seems that governments can use the concept of liability for environmental damage to seek redress for climate change, including the right to adequate food and water. In this paper, with a descriptive and analytical method, after examining the solutions envisaged in international documents to deal with climate change, the challenges of the International Liability Agency due to climate change and solutions to address these challenges are examined.

One of the important issues in the border relations between Iran and Pakistan has been the influence of terrorist groups within Iran's borders and numerous terrorist acts and insecurities that these groups have had. Given the international responsibility of the Pakistani government for these insecurities in the border areas of Iran and Pakistan, the aim of this study is to assess the international responsibility of the Pakistani government for terrorist acts on the Iranian border in accordance with international law, regulations and procedures. The research method is descriptive-analytical; and library resources, documents, and valid international jurisprudence have used to gather information. The findings show that it is difficult to attribute the international responsibility of the Pakistani government to "directing" and "supporting" terrorists, as it is difficult for the Pakistani government to achieve "effective control" over terrorist groups. On the other hand, if it is established that the Pakistani government was aware of the terrorist attacks on the Iranian border, it was also able to prevent the attack, but it neglects to do so and has failed to warn Iran to prevent terrorist acts. It can be concluded that the Pakistani government has taken responsibility for the activities of terrorist groups because it violates international obligations, as well as UN Security Council resolutions on the duty of governments to consciously prevent anyone to use their territory in a way that would jeopardize the rights and security of other countries has been violated.

Mena catastrophe was happened in 2nd Mehr month at 1394 solar year and it caused to killing more than 7000 pilgrims from 36 countries and 464 killed persons were from Iran who they went to Hadj ceremony in Saudi Arabia territory and this event was precede and beyond usual subject and also passing time can’t forget it. Mal- management and inefficiency of Saudi Arabia in Hadj implementation according to historical experience cause to repeating pilgrims offense and legal effects in international arena. It is necessary to investigate Mena catastrophe with intentional case or Saudi Arabia government inefficiency; and another states international demanding about offense nationalities against it is studied with legal guidelines ant it has draft capability in international preferences. Saudi Arabia didn’t act about blood precious and killed persons damages. So in current study, we tried to investigate Saudi Arabia government responsibility and it’s recognition terms with demanding right against Iranian offense pilgrims and determination legal preferences to claim and pretend.

The present article seeks to answer the question of what are the legal responsibilities arising from the non-fulfillment of certain international obligations by governments, towards other governments and also towards the people? Findings indicate that according to the International Covenant on Human Rights, in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the provision of health care by governments is not limited to nationals and peoples in their own country, but a commitment to international cooperation in this field. Is particularly important; On the other hand, with the spread of the corona virus and the outbreak of the emerging and deadly disease Covid 19 in the world, governments have begun to provide compulsory treatment services to people, especially those with the disease; The necessity of services is contrary to human rights rules. The provision of these services, in addition to violating some individual and collective rights, has in practice led to the violation of some of their international obligations, but given that these measures are optional and temporary, governments can not talk about the impossibility of full implementation of their treaties in international forums. To justify the violation of their international obligations because the effects of the Corona crisis on the inability to implement treaties are different. By emphasizing the rule of "force majeure" in Article 23, the subject of international responsibility of states, they prevent the admission of guilt resulting from the failure to perform the treaty and absolve themselves from the responsibility of breach of obligation.

The issue of the relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States is one of the most important political, economic, and social issues of the region and the world in the last four decades. The Amity Treaty was signed in 1955 between Iran and the United States to protect a healthy, peaceful relationship without economic and political tensions. Although the MOU has been the source of do's and don'ts for the parties, in many cases these obligations have not been applied or have been violated by the parties, regardless of whether or not they have violated the terms of the treaty. It became possible to bring justice and jurisdiction to this organization. Now, although the United States has announced its withdrawal from the treaty and this decision has affected the proceedings of the International Court of Justice, it is possible for the Iranian government and its persons to comply with their obligations in the event of a breach of the treaty until the treaty expires. It does not preclude the claim for damages resulting from a breach of its obligations. As a result, the Court's performance in its rulings reflects the Court's approach to narrowly interpreting the Convention, on the basis of its jurisdiction, and has adhered to its decisions and findings in matters of form and jurisdiction; as the Court's view is that irreparable damages are not merely financial, but also damages to human lives.

Today, environmental protection is very important because the biosphere system depends on this protection and effective support. In this regard, any disregard for this matter may turn out to be a minor dimensional risk in an irreplaceable dimension. Therefore, environmental protection is possible through international cooperation and interactions. In the light of this cooperation and in view of the transboundary nature of environmental damage, any obvious breach of international responsibility of the country and governments must be taken into account. Hence, according to the existing treaties and common rules, effective measures should be taken to inspire international criminal responsibility for environmental crime. Hence, adherence to the provisions of the International Responsibility Plan for Governments, as well as the clarification of the restitution dimensions of Article19, is one of the most important issues that have been addressed in this study. In this regard, with the aim of identifying the nature and extent of international environmental crime, we are going to explain how to Regional and International Cooperation in Encouraging Criminal Responsibility of Governments in Respect of Environmental Crimes.

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.

In the twentieth century, with the formation of human groups under the name of insurgent and militant groups, these groups have been bound by many rules of international law on the one hand, and on the other hand, due to the increasing formation of these groups in the world arena, the need to pay attention to non-governmental actors. It attracts attention under the heading of insurgents and militants. In the current international context in which many governments pursue their goals in pursuit of their goals and limit their direct intervention, this has increased their impact on global equations. Preventing organized crime and militant groups from gaining access to weapons significantly reduces their ability to commit international crimes and is itself a form of situational prevention of organized crime and terrorism. The 2013 Arms Trade Treaty is the most comprehensive arms trade document that aims to regulate the conventional arms trade and the role and responsibility of governments. And the commission of international crimes has imposed obligations on its members, including the commitment of governments to cooperate in the implementation of these obligations. The system of responsibility also contains important rules regarding the assistance to governments that violate international law, for which the possibility of raising the issue of international responsibility has been considered.

The purpose of this paper is to examine and assess the UN's international responsibility in the Yemeni crisis, which has been carried out through library methods. The main question of the article is how to explain the responsibility of the United Nations on the issue of Yemen in accordance with the rules of international law and the regulations related to the international responsibility of international organizations? The findings show that in the Yemeni war, Saudi Arabia and its allies have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Crimes other than those of the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council has not taken the necessary steps to end the war and immediately stop the violence in Yemen, to act in support of the attackers on Yemen and violators of international law, and to impose comprehensive sanctions on Yemen. It has issued a resolution, which, due to the siege and widespread sanctions, has led to horrific international crimes as well as widespread famine. In addition to maintaining international peace and security, the United Nations has a responsibility to determine the fate of the nation in Yemen, given the sensitive situation in Yemen

The State which commits wrongful act entails the international responsibility for it. This issue is recognized as one of the fundamental principles of international law. Typically, international responsibility is established as a result of commission wrongful act(s) by a State, but in certain circumstances, apart from the State conducted a wrongful act; another State(s) may be responsible as well. The "Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001" refers to these terms as "Aid and Assistance" and "Coercion". In general, these two concepts can be called "Assistant to commit an internationally wrongful act". The main issue regarding the assistance in internationally wrongful acts is how it is realized, the various forms of the assistance, and hence the limits of responsibility of the assistant. In fact, the main challenge of the present article is to present the hidden aspects of the responsibility of the assistant of the wrongful international acts and to analyze the impact of the precluding the wrongfulness of act which committed by State on the denial of the responsibility of the assistant.

The international arms trade is considered a strategic and very important trade in the current world because having powerful weapons is always one of the goals of governments and armed and paramilitary groups. This issue itself has led to the emergence of profitable markets for buying and selling weapons. The issue of arms trade has an undeniable relationship with international peace and security, therefore its systematization has been the focus of governments since the 19th century. The 2013 Arms Trade Treaty is the most comprehensive document related to the arms trade, which aims to regulate the conventional arms trade and the role and responsibility of governments. Preventing governments that violate international rules and organized criminal and paramilitary groups from obtaining weapons significantly reduces their ability to commit international crimes and is considered a form of situational prevention of organized and terrorist crimes. This treaty, in order to control the arms trade, to prevent them from diverting to illegal markets and committing international crimes, has imposed obligations on the members, which include the obligation of governments to cooperate in the implementation of these obligations. The responsibility system also contains important rules related to the aid and assistance to governments that violate international law, which has considered the possibility of raising the issue of international responsibility for them.

The present article seeks to answer the question of what are the legal responsibilities arising from the non-fulfillment of certain international obligations by governments, towards other governments and also towards the people? Findings indicate that according to the International Covenant on Human Rights, in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the provision of health care by governments is not limited to nationals and peoples in their own country, but a commitment to international cooperation in this field. Is particularly important; On the other hand, with the spread of the corona virus and the outbreak of the emerging and deadly disease Covid 19 in the world, governments have begun to provide compulsory treatment services to people, especially those with the disease; The necessity of services is contrary to human rights rules. The provision of these services, in addition to violating some individual and collective rights, has in practice led to the violation of some of their international obligations, but given that these measures are optional and temporary, governments can not talk about the impossibility of full implementation of their treaties in international forums. To justify the violation of their international obligations because the effects of the Corona crisis on the inability to implement treaties are different. By emphasizing the rule of "force majeure" in Article 23, the subject of international responsibility of states, they prevent the admission of guilt resulting from the failure to perform the treaty and absolve themselves from the responsibility of breach of obligation.