جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « منع توسل به زور » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

The role of international arbitration in maintaining world peace and security has been largely through the peaceful settlement of international disputes as well as the development of arbitration precedents regarding international law governing the settlement of international disputes. Today, the growing role of non-state actors as new subjects of international law has become increasingly important. In addition, international and non-governmental organizations have played a constructive role in the gradual development of international law. In this study, by examining some important international arbitration cases, we seek to answer the question of How the International Arbitration has been influential in resolving disputes between governments and non-governmental actors and non-governmental actors with each other, in maintaining world peace and security and in developing international law. After analyzing the practice of international arbitration, the author comes to the general conclusion that when diplomatic efforts to resolve disputes are fruitless, the best and most effective solution is to refer to arbitration. In fact, the arbitration can resolve the dispute at an early stage and prevent it from escalating into hostilities. Accordingly, at the end of this research, suggestions addressed to the diplomatic system are also presented.

Following the ban on the principle of non-use of force, governments turned their attention to sanctions - economic coercive measures - as the main means of achieving their foreign policy goals. The desirability of the use of unilateral sanctions by countries now stems from the idea that it is a middle ground between diplomacy and the use of force, and is also a simple and peaceful tool for changing the behavior of governments The method of this research is descriptive and analytical and the method of collecting library and documentary information. The purpose of this research is to investigate economic sanctions with emphasis on its legitimacy from the aspect of human rights. The question is, what is the status of unilateral economic sanctions in terms of human rights documents? According to the investigations of this research, its findings show: (1) Unilateral sanctions are a violation of treaty, customary international law, as well as a violation of the rule of ius cogens. (2) Although in some cases the doctrine of international law in retaliation is invoked for the legitimacy of unilateral sanctions, these sanctions cannot be considered reciprocal action under the theory of international responsibility of the state. It must therefore be argued that unilateral sanctions are completely contrary to international law especially the fundamental documents of human rights.

The international law of cyberspace is still in its initial stage of development and formation and the relevant international institutions and authorities are consulting on various issues related to the cyberspace. However, all the actors in this field have reached a consensus regarding such principles as the principle of freedom of information, the right to privacy, the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries, as well as the principle of prohibiting the use of force in cyberspace, and the binding regulations and documents have been approved and implemented in a global scale in this regard. The nature of the cyberspace needs to be studied and analyzed enough to be able to apply the legal rules of the real space to that space. In this regard, concepts such as the civil responsibility, the criminal responsibility and, especially, the international responsibility and their instances and proofs in cyberspace must be analyzed and adapted. This issue has been covered by the present article.

Military force of Turkey and Turkey-backed Syrian forces attacked Northeastern Syria on 9 October 2019. The concept of "safe zone" has been used in different terms in International Humanitarian Law. In this article, the legal status of the formation of a safe zone on Syria's Northern borders with Turkey is examined in the light of international law. The main question of this study is that under what conditions, the safe zone is acceptable in international law. Given the fact that the Syrian central government was opposed to the Turkish military invasion and the creation of the zone, and that there was even military conflict between the parties, and regarding the lack of authorization of the Security Council to establish a safe zone in Syria, Turkish military invasion and establishing such a safe zone was contrary to Article 4(2) of the United Nations Charter. On the other hand, Turkey's attempt to resettle Syrian refugees in the claimed safe zone, displaced from other parts of Syria, is being done to the detriment of the Kurdish population of Northeast Syria, and is in violation of international human rights and International criminal law.

The theory of jus cogens entered into the international positive law by virtue of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. According to its article 53, there are three criteria for identification of a peremptory norm which are (i) being a norm of general international law, (ii) non-derogability, and (iii) recognition and acceptance of non-derogability by the international community of States as a whole. Furthermore, belief in the peremptory status of the ban on use of force is widespread but an evaluation of the prohibition on use of force based on the above-mentioned criteria demonstrates that the prohibition on use of force could not be considered as a peremptory norm since such nature has not been sufficiently recognized by the States. furthermore, it is derogable and apologetic under Security Council’s authorization to use force and self-defense, respectively. In contrast, the prohibition on aggression is indeed non-derogable and without any exception and also its peremptory nature has been implicitly recognized by the international community of States as a whole. Thus, it appears that the peremptory norm of international law on use of force should be the prohibition on aggression.

It is clear that the establishment and continuity of International public order deponds on observance of the fundomantal principles and norms of the International society. Peaceful coexistence and realations and rejection of war and violence are the most important and most significant of these basic principles. At the same time efforts of various nations under the rule of a tyrants to liberation, has found nature demostic, many of the armed conflicts Which works naturally seek international as well as have many questions And attracted the attention of many lawyers and efforts have been made to the doctrine of "responsibility to protect" to be answered ; In this study, we sought to answer the question that is whether the Jihad in the Shiite is compatible with the responsibility to protect doctrine in international law. In this comparative study, we briefly review the rules governing the prohibition of the use of force and also explain the concept of primary jihad and the responsibility to protect we, have concluded that despite the differences in structure and territory, from the theoretical and philosophical and since it is one of the most important application is the primary jihad to liberate the nation that under tyranny and dictatorship, dignity, honor, life and property exposed to over run their domination, so with the responsibility to protect doctrine is applicable

The function of general assembly and Security Council to oppose international terrorism and achieve to humanitarian aids are outcomes of peace. The formation of international justice characters which gloried to last decade of 20th century, has high importance for achieving the global peace. Nowadays constitution of international criminal court (ICC) is a strong factor to guaranty the right of self-determination. Prohibition use of force has been mentioned in Paris pact between two world wars before the conclusion contents of charter of United Nations.Addition international governmental and non-governmental organizations and international institutions have a great role in globalization of international legal system.I have surveyed the obligations of states before international community which merge their solidarity. Also in this article different dimensions of process and factors which are obstacles to armament conflicts, has been investigated.Exclusive jurisdiction arose from Westphalia system has been changed to nation-state. Finally increasing tendency to “we the people of United Nations” through development of international law-making conventions in recent years, achievement to stable peace shall be facilitated as more as attention to human rights and role of human being.An international rule of law observance brings enunciation to progress, pacification and peace for mankind community. Connection between sovereignty and peremptory norms of international law on one hand and the other hand explaining mean of peace and global legal system have affection on together and problem of breach of human rights norms leads to violation of peace have been analyzed.

The fight between Russia and Georgia over separatists South Ossetia in August 2008 (known as the South Ossetia crisis) once again highlighted the significance of the principle of the prohibition of the use of force outlined in the Charter of the United Nations. This article examines legality of Russia's claim to protect its nationals' right of self-determination by using its military force. We will also discuss reactions of other states as well as the UNSC to the Russia's military intervention.