جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « حق تعیین سرنوشت » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

One of the hallmarks of a favorable normative system is the building/existence of congruence among symmetrical rights, duties, and responsibilities. The right of self-determination is a fundamental human right in various legal and ethical domains. This paper is focused on establishing compatibility between this fundamental right and its subsequent duty and responsibility. Man has the natural and social mechanisms to determine his own destiny. Is it appropriate to give him the right of self-determination in the moral and legal laws, which may cause him to ruin himself and others? Is it unreasonable for righteous rulers to determine human beings’ fate to improve their well-being? On the other hand, considering their fallibility, is it not possible that they become dictators who may ruin themselves and others? Then, can humans be held responsible for their own destruction? This paper aims to answer these questions in a descriptive, analytical, and critical manner. The answer implies a compatible system of thought, mainly based on the distinction between the moral and legal aspects of the three aforementioned concepts.

RST, emerging in the framework of the external right to self-determination of groups characterized as people, is among the most controversial newly developed concepts in international law in general and international minority rights law, in particular. By examining the views of this theory’s proponents and opponents, the footprints of philosophical schools of international law, particularly the two schools of natural law and legal positivism, are seen behind the arguments made by the proponents and opponents. Proponents of this theory can be classified as the adherents of the natural law school and its fundamental principles. Its opponents are considered to be followers of the legal positivism school. Opening the door for entrance and influence of moral values and principles to international law, the adherents of natural law theory regard RST as a last resort for saving the oppressed against an oppressive state and deem it permissible and legitimate. The legal positivism school’s followers, emphasizing the will and interests of states, reject this theory in the framework of positive law and contemporary international law, which is generally and mainly based on the state's consent. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and relying on the related books and articles, this study aimed to assess the RST in the light of natural law and legal positivism schools.

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.

From the perspective of international law, the conflict between resistance groups and the occupying power is subject to the rules of international humanitarian law governing international armed conflicts. The current exploratory-analytical research has attempted to explain the basis and sources of this right by relying on the idea of “Natural Rights” and in the light of international law, exploring its effects. Based on this, in the light of natural rights and specifically the right to self-determination as one of the peremptory norms of international law.
The concept of "occupation," despite its seemingly simple appearance which denotes the presence and domination of foreign forces in a country, is a complex concept that has been defined in different meanings such as acquiring homeland or domination and imposing military authority on land belonging to another. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a conflict does not affect the application of humanitarian law; however, the legal order cannot ignore the inherent qualities of human beings such as belonging to their land and property and consequently respecting the defense of the land.
Within this framework, the question arises: do the people of the land that have been attacked and aggravated without being members of the armed forces of their country have the right to armed resistance against the aggressor and occupation, and under what conditions is it applicable and what consequences does it have? Therefore, the present descriptive-analytical study tries to answer these questions by relying on legal principles and then on the sources of international law. Additionally, the focus of this research is on the exercise of this right concerning the occupied Palestinian territories.
In the present study, the authors first studied the basis and foundation of “the right to resistance" and in light of the doctrines of natural rights have considered natural rights as the basis for resistance. For this purpose, after a brief introduction of natural rights and their position in the philosophy of law, the right to resistance to natural rights with a historical approach has been measured and evaluated. Accordingly, this paper claims that the restoration of the right to resistance as a natural right in the traditional natural rights and thought of the ancient and middle ages is difficult because to accept the right to resistance in the system requires acceptance of preconditions such as "individualism" and "artificial state or man-made State"; now that both of them have a strong position in the ancient world. In other words, the citizen will have the right to resist the government, which has been involved in the creation it through a social contract. Moreover, the prevailing thought in the ancient and middle ages is not accepted by this doctrine and the enquiry into philosophical thought of that section shows that the state, like some of the previous and innate phenomena such as the family, is considered as a natural institution that existed before the individual and essentially no right to "create" and "durability" of the State. In addition, he has an underlying "individualist" right to resistance, according to which a human being, as a human being and as a moral agent of the creator of the state, can resist the trust entrusted to the state through supervision, reform and even rebellion, and in this way, the right to resist, and he will claim his right to self-determination.
Writers in the light of the thought of philosophers such as Locke and Kant and relying on doctrines and natural law such as the nature of man and desire for independence, self-authority, "trust relationship" between the people and the ruler, and especially the right to self-determination, deserve the right to resistance. According to the above-mentioned thoughts, the right of revolt against the government of the civil uprising can be proved for the citizen, therefore it can be said that inherent right of State to self-defense do note preclude the right by the people of the occupied land, against the occupying government.
In a simple manner, as in the school of natural rights in the form of individual and as a nation in a collective way, they have the natural right to self-determination and against the occupying government as a violation of this right, they have the right to resist. The first protocol of 1977, has been recognized as an international armed conflict the conflict between resistance groups and occupying power and numerous documents of the United Nations General Assembly and other international entities have endorsed this right. Therefore, it can be said that arming civilians is sometimes the last remedy to preserve the territorial integrity of a country. However, the theory of self-defense does not cover the resistance or resistance groups organizations fight against occupation. The right to resistance can only be inferred from the concepts of human rights and the natural right to self-determination; although the channel and the conditions of applying this right are subject to humanitarian law.
With these words, the occupying power does not have the right to resort to self-defense except in its territory - not the occupied territories - and the right to resist is a tool and approach to end the occupation, which is at first a violation of international law itself. And secondly, the rules regarding the duty to terminate occupation, are still legally incomplete. Third States have an obligation to not protect the occupying State and not to recognize the situation of occupation and its results. However, exercising the right to resist is not without responsibility. Resistant forces can have individual international criminal responsibility, and on the other hand, in certain situations, the resistance group may be attributed to the relevant government and cause the government's international responsibility. Therefore, the effort of the resistance group to respect humanitarian law is important both for maintaining the position and legitimacy of the group and determining the nature of the conflict, as well as in terms of the related effects and responsibilities and from causing more harm to the civilians in the occupied territory.

The liberation of al-Quds has been a fundamental goal of the Islamic Revolution since the establishment of the Islamic government in Iran during the years following the uprising. Consequently, the Islamic Republic of Iran and its citizens have consistently endeavored to take steps in various dimensions to support this aspiration. The "National Referendum Plan in the Land of Palestine" is defined as a legal initiative in this regard, based on international law language and referencing international documents and legal terminology.
This plan or proposal, formulated based on international legal principles and utilizing a four-stage mechanism, seeks to provide a legal framework for the realization of the establishment of a Palestinian state, asserting the "right to self-determination" and formulating the legal rights of Palestinian refugees and displaced persons under the headings of "right of return." An analysis of the amalgamation of concepts and documents suggests that the language of the proposal is grounded in international law. The choice of this language can be attributed to the widespread adoption of the "international law" discourse.
The proposal, by asserting Iran's historical claim in supporting the resolution of the Palestinian Question by Palestinians, introduces the referendum as the optimal available option to end the current tense situation. Referendum, as a method for determining future leadership, is one of the most common approaches recognized initially in domestic law and subsequently in international law as a "legitimate" method for the establishment of a country or government.
This article addresses the fundamental issue of the challenges faced by the Iranian proposal from the standpoint of international law and examines the subjects that warrant attention for its revision and enhancement. Employing an analytical and descriptive approach, the paper delves into the challenges and imperatives for reconsideration in the aforementioned proposal.

The primary challenge that the proposal has insufficiently addressed is the concept of "the two-state solution." This idea, considered a rival theory to the Iranian resolution of the Palestinian Question, has gained acceptance and dissemination by governments and international organizations at large. The proposal should articulate the reasons for deviating from alternative solutions, both legally and practically, while elucidating its own concept. The notion of establishing two states conflicts with various aspects of international law, such as opposition to the right to self-determination, right to land and territory, division without legal basis, division without competence based on the United Nations Charter, disregard for actions conflicting with the subject and goals of agreements by the Israeli party.
Furthermore, recent public sentiments regarding the acceptance of the two-state solution among the Palestinian and Israeli populations highlight the fact that individuals involved in this proposal on both sides lack belief or hope in the reality and operational feasibility of this idea. The article aims to shed light on these challenges and considerations for the revision of the Iranian proposal in a comprehensive and insightful manner.
Iran plan systematically avoids addressing the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), currently holding the official government of Palestine, despite the indispensable need to consider recognized international legal structures to advance solutions for the Palestinian predicament. It appears that the Iranian proposal must contemplate a mechanism involving the collective participation of Palestinian organizations.
The utilization of international legal terms without equivalents (such as national referendum and genuine Palestinian) or with vague interpretations (occupation) constitutes the third legal challenge of the Iranian proposal. Iran considers all Palestinian territories as belonging to the Palestinian people, describing Israel's presence anywhere on this land as an "occupation." However, the term "occupied territories" in international law literature and the documentation of various governments refers to Israel's presence beyond the boundaries defined in the partition plan known as the 1967 borders.
Despite possessing all the legal strengths, like all international proposals, the Iranian plan necessitates a revised and enhanced version. It is indisputable that the issue of Palestine, in addition to its international legal dimensions, encompasses various political, economic, military, and social arenas, as acknowledged by the author. Therefore, rewriting the proposal, while acknowledging non-legal realities, remains imperative from an international legal perspective.

This article suggests that Iran, in its plan revision, should move towards garnering public consensus and conveying the Iranian proposal to the collective endorsement of governments sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. This approach is reinforced by Iran's repeated declarations, in various General Assembly resolutions, expressing disagreement with certain clauses while overall supporting the Palestinian side.
Furthermore, given that the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and international human rights mechanisms are poised for extensive actions concerning Palestinian issues, the new Iranian proposal must draw on legal literature shaped by these judicial and international human rights developments. The International Court of Justice has been requested for the third time regarding the "Situation of Israel's Actions in Occupied Territories (After 1967)" in advisory opinion, with the verdict on the verge of issuance. Additionally, South Africa, a party to the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, has initiated litigation concerning the occurrence of genocide by Israel during the October War.

Advances in technology and advancing in the digital age and cyberspace have led to the emergence of new rights for individuals. One of the new issues is the right of children to be photographed in cyberspace; where children - as one of the most vulnerable sections of society - are exposed to all kinds of victimization through the violation of their rights. In this regard, it is necessary to protect children and make protective laws due to being in an unequal situation. Dissemination of children's images due to persistence in cyberspace causes much harm to children. Invasion of privacy, affecting their right to self-determination, sexual abuse of images, violation of the right to mental health and psychological damage are among the effects of abusing children's image rights; which are all against his interests. The present study seeks to provide legal solutions by examining the importance of the status of this right and its violations and by using descriptive-analytical method and comparative approach. Findings indicate that the systematization of cyberspace along with the close supervision of governments requires performance guarantees in case of violation; This vacancy is clearly visible in the domestic legal system of Iran.

One of the most basic principles of human rights is the right of people to determine their own destiny. The importance of this right is such that its doctrine is considered the basis of all human rights. In fact, in order to achieve other human rights, the realization of the principle of the right to self-determination is very important. The research method is descriptive-analytical. In response to the question, what are the developments in the right to self-determination in the advisory theories of the International Court of Justice in the case of Kosovo and the Chagos Archipelago? It can be stated that the right to self-determination has two aspects, including the external aspect, namely the right of the people to determine their international status and the internal aspect, the right of the people to choose the system of government, participation in community decision-making and protection of minority rights. . In Kozo's case, the court's ruling implicitly has political elements and has raised legal challenges to the relationship between the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity. However, although the International Court of Justice continued to blur the line between the right to self-determination and territorial integrity by not determining the conditions for being a state, Kosovo still retained the right to win. In relation to the Chagos Archipelago, the International Court of Justice has called on all UN member states to cooperate with the United Nations to complete the process of decolonization in Mauritius, as the right to self-determination is a universal obligation. It cannot be reduced to a reciprocal task.

International law is a set of principles and rules that, in a complex order, outline the framework of stable and organized international relations. One of these principles is the "principle of non-interference", which its semantics depends on understanding other fundamental concepts of international law, such as; The principle of sovereignty of states, the right to self-determination and the principle of equality of states and their current developments. For this reason, this article seeks to provide a definition of the principle of non-interference in the current order of the international community in a descriptive-analytical manner and focusing on the principle of sovereignty of states, while expressing the logical relationship between the mentioned principles. The results of this research show that this principle can be defined and interpreted in at least three semantic areas. 1. Governments should not interfere in the internal affairs and political subdivisions of other governments on the basis of respect for national sovereignty and the right to self-determination. 2. In this sense of the non-interference principle, the refusal of the international community to intervene in the internal affairs of states is subject to the observance of citizenship rights and the exercise of sovereignty in accordance with the will of nations with the right to self-determination by the citizens of society under government.3. Considering the necessity of exercising equal sovereignty of states in international relations, the principle of non-interference, in addition to the basic meaning of "prohibition of the use of force" against countries,

The right to self-determination could be applied in situations aiming to prevent crimes against humanity that are subject to the responsibility to protect. Generally, governments that violate the right to self-determination of their people, including minority groups, are more prone to committing these heinous crimes. The doctrine of the responsibility to protect seeks to establish a responsible government toward its citizens; The protection aspect of the doctrine has been discussed in this research, which does not necessarily include intervention. Adhering to human rights standards and exercising the right to self-determination in the framework of the responsibility to protect is a foundation to prevent situations that can lead to atrocities and widespread violations of human rights. Thus, this can be considered as the link between the right to self-determination and the responsibility to protect. Literature Review The right to self-determination of people has been an important subject of much legal research as a fundamental principle of international law. On the other hand, the responsibility to protect is also among the attractive topics of international law as a new doctrine. The two notions have been separately discussed by researchers such as Antonio Cassese, Jörg Fisch, Yasmine Nahlawi, and Stacey Henderson. It can be claimed that the subject of this article which is an updated version of the corresponding author’s master’s thesis, is an innovative topic in the international law literature and has not been explored before.

Firstly, a descriptive research method has been used for this research i.e., the characteristics and aspects of the right to self-determination and the responsibility to protect have been discussed separately. Secondly, based on the legal research method, the governments’ experiences in different situations have been observed to reach the final research result regarding the commonalities of these two notions. 

From the international law’s point of view, the internal aspect of the right to self-determination is an erga omnes rule, and its external dimension has been accepted as a jus cogens rule.However, it should be noted that a separatist interpretation of the right to self-determination has no place in the current system of international law. International legal doctrines, governments’ stances, and international documents always emphasize on the importance and priority of the principle of territorial integrity. Further, international peace and security requires that separatist interpretations not be supported.

Today, respecting human rights and, most importantly, the right to self-determination is a global matter and the international community should contribute to its realization. The right to self-determination can be realized indirectly under the doctrine of responsibility to protect. In other words, the right to self-determination can be applied as a means of preventing the occurrence of crimes that are subject to the responsibility to protect doctrine, and in this regard, the international community can assist and take measures and put them on its agenda to ensure the exercise of this right.The responsibility to protect emphasizes the primary responsibility of governments and the international community to assist other countries in carrying out their sovereign duties and only refers to the element of intervention at the last stage. the international community should come to the understanding that non-interventionist measures and international aid to the governments have a fundamental role and importance in supporting people and strengthening them and are to the benefit of international peace and security. The application of the responsibility to protect in Libya and the remedial secession in Kosovo showed how ineffective and destructive under-developed legal theories can be in practice.On the other hand, the doctrine of responsibility to protect suffers from a lack of clear criteria for intervention which is a problem that the international community should take steps to resolve. In many cases, powerful countries, especially the permanent members of the Security Council, apply double standards towards human rights issues. So, in order to prevent similar tragedies and protect the citizens, the international community should set clear and thorough standards regarding human rights issues and make them binding. However, it should be noted that the concept of cultural diversity should be taken into account In the process of formulating standards because, in issues related to human rights, no fixed standard that could be applied to all.

About five centuries have passed since the emergence of the theory of the «state», and there is still no unified political thought on this controversial concept. The state, as the vehicle to exercise power in political society, is an extremely evolving and renewable concept that has taken various forms, from the secular examples of the West to the legitimate forms in the minds of Muslim scholars, over the years and within epistemological frameworks. Moreover, without shadow of a doubt, Imam Khomeini›s theory of «Walayat Faqih» is a dominant discourse underpinning state formation in the era of the Islamic Republic. However, although the idea of an «Islamic Republic» in the form of religious authority theory has existed for decades, there are still ambiguities and challenges to it. This study, within the framework of an analysis of the theoretical bases of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Constitution, seeks to answer the question of how this political system could consolidate the right of self-determination with Islamism. By considering the political structure of the republic and public opinion in terms of the formation and continuation of the political system, the author believes that the Iranian Constitution retains the right to determine its fate by preserving the essence of Islam. In other words, the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a realization of the Muslim people›s willingness to put Islamic values, ideals, and rules at the forefront of government and can be interpreted as a religion-oriented democracy.

freedom of people in determining their own destiny is a value first raised during the French Revolution in the form of a general concept called “the right of the people to determine their destiny” and was later pointed at internationally in different ways by statesmen such as Lenin and Wilson. This right was developed to discard of the old approach in the international arena i.e., the state-oriented tendency in international interactions.According to the old approach, the international community was made up of states which essentially pursued the political interests of their leaders. In fact, the relations between the governments resulted in the relations between the ruling groups who considered the interests of their citizens only when they were threatened by foreign powers or only when the protection of the citizen’s interests was directly related to the interests of the country's leaders. On the contrary, self-determination means that individuals and nations have a say in the international arena. Governments with sovereignty can no longer oppress nations freely and can't take over territory without considering the wishes of the beneficiary population. People should also play a role in domestic and foreign relations. Self-determination, as a democratic principle, requires the consent of the governed meaning the people must always have the right to freely choose their rulers.Therefore, institutionalization and gradual legalization of this right, especially after World War I, gave a new concept to domestic and global relations. This right, which was first created in order to support the nations under colonialism, gradually extended its scope of protection to human groups under the domination of racist regimes, as well as the protection of religious, linguistic, and in general, all cultural minorities, and ultimately all peoples and nations. Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the United Nations Charter states one of the goals of this organization is to establish friendly relations between nations with respect for equal rights and the right to self-determination. This goal is also repeated in Article 55 of this document.In addition to recognition of this right in the United Nations Charter, the well-known Declaration On the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, also known as the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 approved by the General Assembly in 1960, while calling for the end of colonialism and the domination of foreign nations, emphasized that the nations have the right to determine their own destiny and to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development.This concept is also repeated in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. These documents were approved in 1966 by the General Assembly Resolution A/2200. It is noteworthy that the Human Rights Committee's General Interpretation No. 12 of Article 1 of the Covenants also mentions the right to determine the destiny of nations and highlights its importance to guarantee, and effectively respect, individual human rights. The principle of equal rights and self-determination for the people is also stated in the Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970[1]. All the above-mentioned documents indicate that the principle of self-determination is an internationally recognized right.According to international law, the Afghan nation has the right to self-determination. Therefore, they have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development, in front of the ruling body from an internal perspective and also, from an external perspective, in front of other nations in the world. Furthermore, respecting this fundamental human right is considered a general obligation for all members of the international community, the violation of which entails responsibilities for transgressors. Therefore, with the establishment of the Taliban government, the question arises as to whether the right to self-determination of the Afghan people has been properly exercised, and have other governments fulfilled their commitment to the rights of the Afghan people in this regard? The current research has explored this issue using the descriptive-analytical method. At First glance, it appears that the self-proclaimed government of the Islamic Emirate has not only violated the right of the Afghan people to choose their political structure but is imposing its power on the Afghan nation by widely violating even more of their human rights. Despite all this, it, unfortunately, has the explicit and implicit support of some members of the international community, contrary to their erga omnes commitment.[1]. Full title: Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 59 of the Iranian Constitution mentions the possibility of refer to popular vote through referendum on very important issues. One of the examples of this direct legislation is to enact laws about crimes and punishments; until today, the Iranian legal system has not referred to the referendum in general and to the legislative referendum in criminal matters in particular. It may be argued that given the impact of Islam on some crimes and punishments in Iran, Basically, referring to the opinions of the people on the mentioned issues should have a religious restriction. However, governments like Italy have used legislative referendums about criminal issues; according to Article 75 of the Italian Constitution, a referendum can repeal a parliamentary law, and this rule has been implemented at various times, even in criminal policy. In this study, using a descriptive-analytical method and after examining the principles of referring to public opinion in criminal matters from an Islamic perspective and presenting the features related to the Iranian and Italian systems, we will reach the conclusion that holding a referendum to determine criminal policy in Iran, provided that certain conditions are respected, not only has no legal and religious prohibition, but getting ideas from the Italian procedure can be considered a significant help in achieving the following issues: Improving the quality of governance of the Islamic Republic, increasing the level of mutual trust between people and the rulers and finally adapting the situation of crimes and punishments to the current concerns of society. This does not mean that the state should not monitor the implementation of referendums to avoid non-rational decisions by the people.

The International Court of Justice's boldness in condemning U.S. military and paramilitary activities in Nicaragua (1986) has been regarded as a turning point in an evolving confrontation between the great powers and the UN judicial body. Now, in the third decade of the eradication of colonialism, the International Court of Justice has made another historical decision against another great power, declaring the illegality of the UK's continued presence in Chagos Archipelago. In addition to the political aspects of Chagos's Advisory Opinion, there remain several legal issues which deserve attention. This research analyzes two important legal issues in this regard. The first issue is to examine the ICJ methodology in determining the existence of the right to self-determination as an international customary rule. The author argues that ICJ has done this by contraction of the objective element of customary international law (CIL) and expansion the significance of the subjective one.

The right to self-determination is amongst the most fundamental rights enumerated in human rights law. In the human rights approach, the wise man has free will and autonomy and the right to self-determination. according to the constituent power theory, the sovereignty of generations of a nation in self-determining cannot be limited in the political - legal structures created by the will of the nation. In this research, it is sought to identify the nature of the right to self-determination in the Constitution of Iran. In this regard, two points were considered: a view based on the supremacy of religion on the political will of the nation and the other one is based on the non-limitation of the will of the nation on right to self-determination. The first viewpoint is not consistent with the readings of the right to self-determination under human rights law. Although the second point is based on the human rights approach, in practice, due to the fact that constitutional principles and political structure of Iran is faced with some challenges, it is necessary for them to be resolved. Otherwise, the right to self-determination is admitted only in theory and there will be no practical effect.

Democracy is a way of governing based on collective decision-making resulting from the will and authority of people which emerges from two principles of " Public Oversight" and " Equality of Participation in Political Affairs". It should be noted that these two principles are closely related to human rights, and as human rights expend and improve, so does their scope. It is worth noting that today at the beginning of 21st century AD, though democracy is the common political system, despite all the progress it has made, it is not a universal system and authoritarian or quasidemocratic regimes are found in various countries, which in many cases, through human rights violation even some times systematically affect internal peace and security and in extreme cases, they affect international peace and security. But considering that the concept of peace and security is implicit in democracy definition, and democracy is a concept in its own right which includes a system of human rights advocated by the international community, and on the other hand, the main goal of international community and its pillars is to achieve lasting peace, the study and evaluation of the approach of international law toward this methods of governing is very important, in fact, the question can be asked: democracy as one of the norms and binging principles for the government or not? The present study, using descriptive-analytical method, and by examining the performance and approach of international institutions and bodies, including “Genera Assembly” and ... They are having Investigated this issue.it is assumed that, however, there isn’t still a formal rule in international law to require the countries to have democratic governments, and democracy has increasingly imported into the area of soft and inconsistent international law. in other words, today international law is not indifferent to the issue of democracy.

Right to self-determination as a dynamic human “right”, is one of the original elements of human society, in the history of international relations and now. This right challenged humanity in choice right way of perfection and growth to achieve nearness of God by relying the absolute freedom and modern rationality. Islam by introduce the basics of the “right” that has natural and divine nature, expresses the principal basis by relying its original resource. This article assumption is that the origin of all human “rights” especially the right to self-determination is from the religion that gives rights to the man as God’s successor. So it analyses sources of this right and its foundations such as monotheism, human dignity, human nature and equality, also its dominion, features and universality in Islamic approach. The article shows that this concept in Islamic approach is a twin right and obligation and has internal and foreign dimensions.

The right to self-determination is one of the fundamental human rights that has been recognized and endorsed by the international community under each of the three generations of human rights. This shows the great importance and credibility of this right in the human rights discourse. The concept of people’s sovereignty in determining their own destiny and its place in the beliefs of each nation is one of the issues that can be effective in dividing political systems and the distribution of rights and freedoms. Hence, right to self-determination is a fundamental and inalienable right is rooted in a person’s inherent dignity. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the people play a significant role in determining their own destiny which is symbolized by the presence of the people in the elections.Therefore, considering the role of the people in determining their own destiny. In the present study, we tried to answer the question of what is the right to self-determination in the Islamic Republic of Iran by emphasizing the 1400 presidential elections, using the descriptiveanalytical method and using library documents.

The right to sovereignty over one's own destiny is a fundamental and undeniable right rooted in the inherent dignity of man. In a democratic system, the recognition of the founding power - the will of the nation - and the superstructural nature of the sovereignty of the people in determining their own destiny are considered to be a principle that must necessarily be established in an sphere outside the established norms of law that governs all established institutions that not be arisen from nor be limited to them. Therefore, the constitution that is the product of the will of the nation cannot limit the will of its founder. In this article, through a descriptive-analytic method, we have dealt with this question whether considering some articles of the constitution as irreplaceable principles damages the right of the people to sovereignty over their own destiny? The research hypothesis is that the unchangeable principles of the constitution are contrary to the sovereignty of the people in determining their destiny, because the constitution will not be capable of countering the political will of the people and restricting the founding power that is the basis of the constitution. It is for this reason that the constitution must continually conform to the political will of each generation, and the real sovereignty rests on this principle that the will of no generation be imposed on other generations. Thus, it seems that recognizing the unchangeable articles in the constitutions should be considered as their notable significance in the view of founding power and their fundamental role in the construction of the constitution without which the nature of the structure based on that constitution would be changed. This cannot be regarded as ignorance of the the principle of self-determination, because the will of the majority of the society has the ability to change the existing constitutional order and create a new one at any time.

There is a relation between Self-Determination right and democracy international law, as a supportive principle that protects human rights. This relation is a complicated and multi-lateral one because of the large diversity of human rights. Civil and politic rights are inseparable and necessary parts of the concept of democracy, so politic and civil self – determination will be provided within the framework of a democratic government structure. The relation between social and economic self – determination and democracy is not inseparable, like that for civil and politic self – determination. Because of having a role in actualizing civil and politic rights, economic and social rights are directly included in the range of democracy concept. So self- determination and social and economic development are provided within the framework of a democracy government as a necessary pre – requisite for political and civil self – determination. People of cultural communities, while whose distinct culture is recognized and respected in legislative, administrative and … institutions, are considered to have the same and non-distinct politic, civil, economic, social and cultural rights as the citizens of that society. They are regarded as the members of cultural communities who should have distinct culture rights