جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « international state responsibility » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Espionage has been exercised throughout world history. By the new advancements in technology and emergence of the phenomenon of terrorism and taking necessary measures against it, however, it has gained its particular complexities and leading to many international disputes. International law distinguishes between peacetime and wartime espionage. In peacetime, it applies principle of separation of national and international jurisdictions and consequently that of State equality. Therefore, any intervention including through espionage entailing aggression against State national jurisdiction is considered as unlawful. The principle of equality of States implies non-intervention by States in each other’s affairs. Nevertheless, in new international legal order there exist certain instances of justified interventions including through espionage such as interventions permitted by the UN Security Council when collective peace and security of the world demands; intervention for self-defence; intervention by invitation; and intervention for humanitarian and human rights purposes. In war time, under certain circumstances, espionage is recognized as a legitimate ruse of war. There is an urgent need to have a world document for codification of provisions governing espionage and its new forms including cyber espionage and espionage violating the individual’s privacy. Espionage has become a global issue and therefore a new treaty can identify the instances of legitimate and illegitimate espionage.

The rapid advancement of technology and the unique characteristics of cyberspace have caused change in many of international law's classic concepts, and in most cases the lack of coherent customary regimes prepared grounds for new interpretation of on classic concepts. Cyber espionage is a relatively new concept in international law, and there is no agreement on legal regime governing it. Ambiguity and fear of y extending principles and rules governing espionage in traditional sence, to the cyberspace, which is generally the domain of soft law practice, has put international law governing this new concept in a state of uncertainty. Therefore, on one hand, the legitimacy of extraterritorial infiltration acts of States through espionage remains controversial, and on the other hand, the use of virtual instruments by States for advancing their extraterritorial infiltration into cyberspace of other States, has fueled ambiguities. The lack of specific international customary and treaty obligations in this regard, paves the way for the application of general principles and rules of international law.This article seeks to elucidate the concept and scope of cyber espionage and the international responsibility arising from it, taking into account, state practice and doctrine, to answer this fundamental question that, which principles and rules of international law govern cyber espionage.

Crimes related to drugs and psychotropic substances are recognized as threats to human rights. They have also a devastating impact on the economic, social and cultural foundations of national societies, as well as, on international order and security. Serious measures have been taken to control and deal with those crimes, yet these actions should be consistent with human rights requirements. Limiting the death penalty to the "most serious crime" is one of the most important human rights requirements in the contemporary world. Since human rights institutions have not considered drug-related crimes as one of the "most serious crimes", the parliament can play an effective role in avoiding the emergence of international responsibility for the Iranian government by limiting the death penalty.

International court of justice has declaredin the genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) that the genocide convention involves the state obligation of non- commission of this crime as well as adoption of individual criminal responsibility. This finding has been criticised by many jurists. They consider such interpretation is indicator of state criminal responsibility and would prolong cycle of group hate and will make disturbance in realization of the transitional justice process . Traditional approach of transitional justice with an exclusively emphasize on the mechanism of the punishment of individual perpetrators of the international crimes as a heritage of Nuremberg trails marginalized others mechanisms including holding state responsibility due to absence of any clear distinction between collective guilt and collective responsibility. But state responsibility for commission of genocide not only in conflict with the goals of transitional justice but also it is contributing to realization of that process, because by recognition of civil responsibility of state on one side it would be compensate any the damages suffered to victims and on other side it imposing collective responsibility on all citizens of convicted state which is result of legal Responsibility for taking part or be silence in commission of crimes and by providing an unifiednarrative on committed crimes rectify weaknesses of the case by case trails byinternational Criminal courts.