جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "اقدامات احتیاطی" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

Considering that neither customary international law nor international treaties have specifically addressed the legality of autonomous weapons from the point of view of international humanitarian law, the law on autonomous weapons should be analyzed under the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. The first purpose of this study is to explain the autonomous weapons and then to analyze the legality of such weapons through the lens of international humanitarian law. The basic question of the paper is whether the deployment of autonomous weapons is legal in light of technological and legal limitations? On the other hand, the paper also seeks to examine the legalization of autonomous weapons. In fact, the findings of our study will show that although autonomous weapons currently violate international humanitarian law, they have the potential to be more consistent with the principles of international humanitarian law in the future.

Garnishment and temporary order raised in the margins of the main action and the plaintiff's right to obtain the demand in the event of a ruling in his favor at the end of the proceedings, are protected from damages due to the defendant's inability to implement the court order or his subsequent actions. The existence of many similarities between these two institutions raises the question in the mind, what is the reason for introducing two institutions for financial seizure of the defendant's property in Iran's legal system? Studies show that just as these two entities have similarities, they also have distinctive features that clearly identify the place of implementation and the border between the two, including: in order to issue a temporary order against the garnishment, in all cases, it is necessary to obtain a security to compensate the possible damages of the defendant; Or that the fulfillment of the garnishment always refers to the financial confiscation of the defendant's property, while the temporary order does not exclusively refer to this case, and it can also refer to the performance of the action or the refusal to perform the action, and most importantly, the power to "enforcement court ruling" is the ultimate purpose of garnishment, while the power to "deal with the main lawsuit" is the meaning and purpose of the temporary order. This research with a descriptive-analytical method seeks to justify the action of the legislator in predicting two separate institutions by extracting the similarities and differences between these two institutions in order to guarantee the possibility of executing the decree issued in the future.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as a series of rules which aims to protect civilians against the effects of hostilities has prohibited expressly the use of civilians as Human Shield. But voluntarism in human shield poses some question of law. In fact in some situations, civilians may put themselves in front of military objective by their will, which is a controversial issue. Some scholars consider the Voluntary Human Shield as taking direct participation in hostilities by civilians which deprives theme of the protections IHL grants to civilians. But the opponents view refuses this interpretation. This article rejects the idea of Voluntary Human Shield, as direct participant except in very specific situations where criteria of "direct participation" are met.