جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « تروریسم » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Criminal responsibility in the international arena has many forms. Individual criminal responsibility, criminal responsibility in the light of joint (collective) criminal activity, and responsibility of commanders and superiors are three common forms of criminal responsibility. In fact, in this field; the general principle of individual criminal responsibility according to the nature of international crimes has been accompanied by exceptions that criminal responsibility resulting from joint criminal activity and criminal responsibility of commanders and high-ranking officials are two examples that are imposed in international criminal courts in order to impose criminal responsibility. They are cited as perpetrators of international crimes. The present study, which was written in a descriptive-analytical method with the aim of "examining the criminal responsibility of the perpetrators of the assassination of Sardar Soleimani based on the three forms of international criminal responsibility", comes to the conclusion that: the criminal responsibility of the perpetrators of a terrorist act leading to martyrdom General Soleimani and his companions, in the form of all three forms of criminal responsibility, i.e. 1- individual criminal responsibility, 2- criminal responsibility in the light of joint (collective) criminal activity, and 3- the responsibility of commanders and superior officials, and depending on the way of participation and interference or The lack of involvement of the perpetrator in the material operations determines the form of criminal responsibility

In the current age, one of the most important challenges of the international community is the phenomenon of bioterrorism, which has been used by some non-state actors in addition to states. Given the destructive effects and irreparable damage that the bioterrorist actions of non-state actors have on human life, the present article examines the legal aspects of this issue. In this regard, in the first part of the article, the concept of non-states actors and their approach to the use of biological weapons were explained. In the second part, the approach of the international law system to the use of biological weapons by non-state actors is examined, and finally in the third part, the approach of governments regarding the bioterrorist actions of non-state actors and their responsibilities in this field are explained. The findings of this article indicate that some non-state actors tend to use biological weapons to commit terrorist acts for a variety of reasons. Although several international instruments on terrorism and bioterrorism have been adopted so far, these instruments have not been able to prevent the bioterrorist activities of these groups. In addition, many governments in their domestic legal systems do not have adequate legal mechanisms to counter the bioterrorist activities of non-state actors, or for economic and political reasons are reluctant to counter the bioterrorist activities of these groups.

Due to the various characteristics of cultural heritage, any attack on it draws the attention of the international community. This can be seen in the reactions of the United Nations (UN) to the destruction, looting, and trafficking of the cultural heritage of countries such as Iraq, Syria and the other countries committed by terrorist groups. What is important here is the United Nations Security Council's reactions to this issue. It seems that, in terms of securitizing cultural heritage, the procedures taken by the Security Council for the protection of cultural heritage have included requiring internal measures (affecting the domestic law of countries) and referring to the humanitarian aspects of cultural heritage. Paying attention to the Security Council’s performance with regard to cultural heritage can be effective since the Security Council, as the main pillar of the UN, has the primary duty of maintaining international peace and security and its decisions are binding for the UN members as per the UN Charter. To this end, this paper, by adopting a descriptive and analytical approach, tries to examine and explain the procedures of the United Nations Security Council for the protection of cultural heritage. Based on the findings of this paper, we conclude that United Nations Security Council’s resolutions have been effective in protecting cultural heritage.

The assassination of Martyr Haj Qassem Soleimani is one of the most heinous and heinous terrorist acts committed by the United States, endangering international criminal justice, human rights, and international peace and security as issues of international criminal law. . The US approach in this attack is similar to the actions used by Israel to assassinate Palestinian commanders and Iranian nuclear scientists, and is becoming a dangerous procedure due to the lack of a deterrent at the international level. . Such crimes, on the other hand, are contrary to international instruments and bilateral and multilateral treaties concluded between states. In the present study, the main purpose of which is to investigate the inconsistency of the terrorist act leading to the martyrdom of Sardar Soleimani with the bilateral commitments and international documents of the US government, it was concluded that, firstly; The US drone strike from Iraq's Ain al-Assad base, which was premeditated and carried out deliberately, is in violation of bilateral commitments between Iran and the United States, as well as the US-Iraq agreement. The human rights obligations of countries are explicitly enshrined in international instruments and the Charter of the United Nations, which are designed to promote international peace and security and to protect official authorities. Thirdly, this criminal act is contrary to the resolutions issued by the UN General Assembly, and in particular to the Security Council, and the commitments that these countries call on countries to combat terrorist acts. Fourth, even assuming a state of war, the US attack on the convoy of Sardar Soleimani and his entourage is contrary to its humanitarian rights obligations

The incendiary attacks by the Hamas group from the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023, towards the border areas of Israel, known as "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm," and Israel's robust military response to these attacks once again brought the issue of the occupied Palestinian territories to the forefront of the world's media. These attacks involved a combination of terrestrial, aerial, and naval assaults, with thousands of rockets launched towards Israel, resulting in significant damage to Israeli positions, including the loss of approximately 1400 lives and the capture of 240 individuals. In response to Hamas' operations, Israel officially declared war one day later, expressing its intent to engage in military conflict to eliminate Hamas and end their control over the Gaza Strip. Subsequently, Israel launched forceful and disproportionate offensives against the Gaza Strip, resulting in numerous civilian casualties. As of December 9, 2023, the casualties from these attacks have exceeded a staggering 17,700 tons, as reported by the Palestinian Ministry of Health. It is also important to note the extensive destruction of numerous buildings caused by these attacks.
From an international legal perspective, a significant aspect of the military operation on October 7, 2023, is the legality of the military actions undertaken by both Hamas and Israel against each other. Hamas has portrayed its military actions, particularly the October 7 operation, as a response to Israel's presence as an occupying force, aligning with the Palestinians' right to self-determination. On the other hand, Israel justifies its actions and attacks on the Gaza Strip as acts of self-defense. Both parties consider their actions lawful based on these grounds, which they view as crucial justifications. This article aims to explore, through a descriptive-analytical approach, the international law perspective on the use of force in the October 7 operation and the military actions of Hamas and Israel against each other.
According to the statement issued by the United Nations Secretary-General following the attack, the lack of opportunity for Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination prompted Hamas to initiate military action to create a conducive environment for such exercise. Considering the founding charter of Hamas and statements by its officials against the Israeli occupation, the decision to conduct military operations on October 7 can be justified under international law as a manifestation of the right to self-determination. While some scholars, legal experts, and countries like Israel and the United States may view Hamas' actions as terrorism, Hamas' distinct approach towards the occupying force sets it apart from terrorist organizations. Hamas has demonstrated a level of influence and effective control over the population it represents, even if not all Palestinians endorse its methods and political objectives. However, exercising the right to self-determination does not grant a group the freedom to choose the type, method, and means of military operations. Therefore, the evaluation of Hamas' armed operations targeting Israel should consider the requirements outlined in Additional Protocol I to the four Geneva Conventions (1977).
Regarding Israel's justification for military operations in response to the October 7 attack, the claim of legitimate defense is contentious. While it could be argued that if Palestine were recognized as a state by Israel and non-state actors like Hamas were capable of armed attacks, Israel would have the right to defend itself under Article 51 of the Charter, the reality is that Israel does not recognize Palestine as a state. The prevalent view in international law, including the Security Council, is that self-defense is not applicable when an occupying power controls another entity. Even if Israel's self-defense justification were accepted, the conditions, including proportionality, for justifying severe international crimes are not met.
Israel's reliance on Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention for self-defense to establish order and security in occupied territories is also questionable. As Israel's presence in the territory is temporary and lacks sovereignty, this provision cannot be invoked when the occupier faces the people's struggle for self-determination. The actions of the occupier must adhere to international human rights and humanitarian law, which prioritize the right to self-determination as a fundamental human right.
The designation of Hamas as a terrorist group by Israel does not hold legal weight in international law. The determination of a group as a terrorist organization is the prerogative of the United Nations Security Council, not individual countries. Even if a group resorts to intimidating tactics, it may still be considered a liberation group, especially if it actively opposes foreign occupation.

The spread of terrorism outside the borders of countries led to the formation of a type of terrorism, known as transnational terrorism. Today, the development and advancement of communication and information technologies and the use of them by terrorist organizations and individuals has created a situation were dealing with this form of terrorism has become a new challenge at the international level, and numerous international organizations and institutions has also involved the international community in this confrontation and providing effective solutions. Interpol is one of the organizations that, by having supervisory institutions at the international level, can take effective measures in the field of curbing this form of terrorism,

This article is written in a descriptive-analytical way.

The findings indicate that terrorist groups with goals, activities and organizational forms that are beyond their origin can be called "transnational". Therefore, terrorists can be transnational in three ways: goals, actions and organizational form. In dealing with the transnational terrorism network, Interpol has adopted methods that include: a- Identifying suspected terrorists; b- Preventing the travel of people suspected of terrorist activities; C- tracing the financial resources of terrorists; T- The use of two monitoring networks including the mobile network database and the fixed network database. Interpol member states that have adopted the connection to mobile and fixed networks and have also used it to screen people and documents at border crossings and other key points,

The rule of the state immunity which originated from the principle of sovereign equality of states, has a long history in the international law as a customary rule. For a long time, national courts were not competent to hear claims against states under any circumstances and the immunity was absolute. As the contemporary international law was developing, the international community gradually accepted some exceptions to this rule, which were included in the 2004 UN Convention on the Immunity of States and Property. Meanwhile, some states including Canada, recognized new exceptions in their laws, considering their own interests and their citizens’interests. Amending the State Immunity Act 1985 in 2012 and passing the “ustice for Victims of Terrorism”law in the same year, Canada started to grant competence to the courts to file a lawsuit against Iran, claiming Iran’ support for terrorism and human rights violations, which subsequently led to the violation of Iran’ immunity in different cases. Using the library method and the descriptive-analytical approach, it will be evaluated whether the claims such as being a supporter of terrorism and human rights’violation, could be considered as a new exception to the immunity of states in the international law and permit the national courts to start hearings related to complaints against states and do judicial proceedings. In this regard, by examining the case of Iran v. Canada in the International Court of Justice on June 26th, 2023 and considering the unity of the criterion of the previous judgments of the Court, including the case of Germany v. Italy (2012), it is plausible that the Court will not accept the new exception.

Terrorism has always been a threat to the lives and security of the Filipino people. The existence of various terrorist threats in this country inevitably necessitated a codified mechanism to deal with terrorist threats. The country's 2007 Human Security Act was enacted to combat terrorism and was intended to combat militants in the southern Philippines. Critics of the law argue that the amendment was necessary to pave the way for the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of terrorism, which led to the passage of the 2020 Anti-Terrorism Law. Compliance with the Philippine Constitution is currently being challenged by various domestic and foreign groups and has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. But the government, and especially the president himself, was determined to pass the law quickly and did not show any leniency. Some Philippine government officials believe that the review of this law shows that there is a guarantee of compliance with human rights standards in its place and this in itself can be considered a strong reason for the law to comply with international human rights instruments. But a careful examination of the law can ultimately lead the analyst to the conclusion that, despite the lawmakers' consideration of compliance with human rights standards, which appear to have been largely successful, the issue of long-term detention can be considered a flaw for it.

Conceptual discussion is very important in all branches of human sciences. This discussion is of double importance in criminal law, especially in the field of public safety and comfort. Since this field is closely related to Khamsa materials, and some of these concepts have conceptual inadequacies and ambiguities; Based on this, the explanation of this category of concepts is an unavoidable necessity both theoretically and practically. Brief recognition and explanation of concepts such as terror and terrorism, and bioterrorism, war and corruption in the land and insurgency, political crime, assassination, coup d'état, and their difference and separation from each other are among the concepts that familiarization and explanation of them, both in terms of It is important both theoretically and in the practical aspect of law making, as well as in the position of judging and applying examples. This research analyzed some of the most important concepts in an analytical-descriptive way. First, these basic concepts were explained and described. Then attention was paid to the brief analysis of the attributes and dimensions, angles, territory and them. As a result of this research, the discussed concepts were disambiguated, and with the knowledge obtained of the elements and nature of each, their differences and distinctions were recognized and explained.

Economic sanctions have become increasingly prominent policy instruments since the beginning of the 21st century. Major global players, such as United States of America, European Union, and the United Nations, mostly use punitive economic measures to prevent state violence and other state actions deemed intolerable. Sanctions have been a major tool in crises including major human rights violations, terrorism, military aggression, proliferation of nuclear weapons and commercial disputes. Emphasizing on economic means distinguishes struggling against terrorist acts from other measures. Therefore, the economic and military power of states in process of dealing with such actions and the use of various economic tools such as the implementation of economic sanctions make curbing terrorist acts and protecting international security possible. Therefore, along with other effective action and reaction strategies in confrontation with terrorism, the most important strategy is to adopt sanctions approaches or prescribe economic sanctions when facing terrorist acts. Thus, regarding effective struggle against terrorism, economic sanction not only does not lead to violation of human rights, but also it is considered as a strategy to restore lost human rights.

The international community today generally accepts the fact that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations is one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, and that any terrorist operation, regardless of its motive, time, place and perpetrators, is criminal. The region of West Asia and the Middle East, especially Afghanistan, has been the center of terrorist operations in recent decades, and at the same time, this region has witnessed numerous international and non-international armed conflicts, and in some cases these two phenomena are intertwined to cause , What is the relationship between terrorist operations and armed conflict? Terrorist operations are subject to which legal system in cases where they are part of violence related to armed conflict? Will it be governed by international humanitarian law and international criminal law, or is it a criminal act that, although in the context of an armed conflict, is subject to the domestic law of the countries concerned and subject to the international obligations of governments in the fight against terrorism? Or will it be subject to both categories of legal regulations at the same time? Using library data and international procedures, this article has tried to prove the hypothesis that terrorist operations related to armed conflicts can be an example of multiple criminal titles at the same time and also be subject to domestic law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. and cause the international responsibility of the relevant government or governments and the criminal responsibility of individuals.

whereas many cases of terrorist crimes and terrorist financing have international dimensions, the serious and effective fight against these crimes faces two challenges: on the one hand exercising jurisdiction and choosing a qualified court on the other. It is not possible to deal with these dangerous crimes without resolving the issue of contradiction of criminal jurisdiction of countries, as well as qualification of domestic or international courts to deal with these crimes. The present article has been written by descriptive-analytical method and based on written documents and sources and its information has been collected through library study. Based on this research, it seems that for the counter-terrorism campaign and it’s financing to be more effective, accepting the principle of universal jurisdiction is necessary, and it can be a way to prevent criminals escaping, although there is no prohibition on governments using other principles of jurisdiction. In addition, resolving the issue of the qualified court for investigating these crimes is possible by relying on the existing domestic and international juridical literature. This is because, in addition to being able to take advantage of the capacity of domestic courts, governments can use the capacity of the International Criminal Court or case and regional courts to prosecute offenders and to provide global justice and security through Collaboration and under special circumstances, especially when the crime of terrorism or its financing is transnational or international.

The proliferation of international decision-making authorities have led to developments in terrorism as regards its concept, extension, relationship with the law of armed conflict as well as human-rights law. The authorities have taken significant steps to define terrorism. For instance, the Security Council has defined terrorism for the first time, and has affirmed the possibility to recourse to self-defense against terrorist activities. Compared to the ICJ, the approach of the Security Council seems to be more advanced. Indeed, the Council has established a law-making function for its self. This is unprecedented in terms of international law and the practice of the United Nations. With respect to the necessity of observing human rights for persons accused of terrorism, the judgments and resolutions of different authorities articulate that UN member states are not free to take any action in the name of fighting terrorism. It will be argued that the proliferation in international decision-making authorities, such as the ICTY and the ICTR, as well as regional authorities such as the European and American human rights courts, has had a positive impact on the concept of terrorism in line with human rights standards.

Nowadays the terrorist acts as global acts have spread as to involve all the world. Terrorist acts in September 11 2001 was a start point to vilolent reactions in the world and was the beginning of intense encounter and resulted in passing the strict statutes in countries which changed the boarders of criminal law but could not prevent these kind of actions. Emerging ISIS, as the modern version of violence and bestiality, may be a good reason to prove this idea. This fact indicates that the suppression would not be a reliable way to combat the terrorism and the soft view of criminology can be used as parallel to empower the hope for combating terrorism. This survey has been done analytically and has had a look to some of the theories of criminology and finally has achieved to this conclusion that by providing the uniformity and avoiding alienation, the bases of dialogue and civil protest could be established and the violence would be replaced by civil protest.

The rule of immunity of states and their property from the jurisdiction of domestic courts is a rule of customary international law and exceptions are set out in customary international law as well as in the 2004 United Nations Convention on Immunity but some countries, such as Canada, have begun efforts to add a new exception called terrorism by amending their former immunity law earlier this century. The crash of a passenger plane with P. S. 752 belonging to Ukraine in 3 January 2020 as a result of hitting two IRGC missiles has several legal issues, including the legal and criminal liability of the perpetrators and culprits of the accident, how to compensate damages, violation of obligations under international conventions, has created the international responsibility of the Iranian government and the possibility of litigation by survivors in domestic courts or litigation in the International Court of Justice. Subsequently, some survivors of the plane crash filed a lawsuit in Ontario and a sentence was handed down to Iran, citing the deliberate firing of a missile and its terrorist nature. In the area of government immunity, as well as the draft of the 2004 United Nation Immunity Convention and the attempt to implement the vote issued by the survivors, the rule of government immunity has faced a new challenge.

America considers itself the defender of human rights and has justified its interventionist policies of the last few decades with titles such as the protection of human rights in the Middle East region. However, it seems that these interventionist policies in the Middle East region cannot be justified only by the Western narrative and the use of extensive propaganda to defend the correct interventionist actions because there are truths related to human rights violations in the Middle East by America that are not often said; Therefore, the need for a detailed examination and analysis of this category caused the present research to try to analyze the human rights situation in the Middle East in the light of American interventionist policies in the Middle East region from 2001 onwards with a more detailed analysis. The research is descriptive-analytical and collected with library documents.The research studies finally showed that the US interventionist policies have led to the strengthening of human rights violations in the Middle East. The findings indicate that the actions of the United States have resulted in many cases of human rights violations in the shadow of the spread of insecurity in the Middle East region, the flow of weapons, the deaths and displacement of millions of people, and the support of crimes against human rights by regional allies.

So far, many actions have been taken against Iranian officials and scientists with the aim of assassinating them and martyring them. Based on this, the American government martyred Sepahbod Qassem Soleimani near the Baghdad airport during an operation in 2020. This action was carried out by the order of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, in the form of a drone attack on the territory of Iraq, which violated many international regulations.On the other hand, the Iranian government took measures to counter it, which are part of these measures in the form of legal and judicial measures, which were examined in this research to finally clarify Iran's judicial policy in this field.

Regarding the false claim of the United States that there is a security agreement with Iraq, it should be acknowledged that with reference to Article (3) of this agreement, it is clear that the authorization of terrorist acts or any military operations by the United States on the territory of Iraq, which is in clear contradiction In compliance with the laws, international customs, conventions of the Iraqi government and the spirit that governs it, it is invalid and free from any legal burden. The actions of the Iranian government in the form of judicial measures are divided into two categories: prosecution in international courts (International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court) as well as lawsuits in the domestic courts of the Iraqi government and the domestic courts of

Today, terrorism is considered as one of the main challenges for the security of societies. By carrying out violent terrorist behaviors, terrorists actually have a high criminal capacity and talent on the one hand, and on the other hand, they have the ability to commit violent behaviors. Committing numerous terrorist crimes has caused the risk-orientating of criminal policy-makers in the field of crime control and a paradigm shift in criminal law. In other words, the dangerousness of terrorists, especially religious terrorists, has caused the suspicion of criminal policymakers and their lack of confidence in the reformation and treatment of this category of criminals. In the risk-oriented approach, the goal is to provide social defense by eliminating the perpetrators of terrorist crimes as “others” who are not “us” and are dangerous to citizens. Thus, the spread of the culture of crime control and repression under the pretext of providing security, the context of moving away from the rule-based criminal justice system and the development of the extreme form of the social defense school in the form of providing the defense of the society through dehumanization, caution and preemption and the others in various forms, such as security measures, indeterminate punishment, rehabilitation and finally post-punishment monitoring are the results of the risk-oriented approach of substantive criminal law against terrorism.