جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "territorial integrity" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

In this research, it is devoted to the study of "the application of the rule of negation of mustache from the viewpoint of Shiite and Sunni scholars".The findings of the research indicate that the rules and principles of the Imami jurisprudence and the jurisprudence of the four Sunni sects regarding the issue of the rule of negation of the mustache, the principle of adherence to agreements and treaties, the rule of invitation, the rule of intimacy and brotherhood in relation to Islamic countries, peace Izzat Madar, the principle of preserving the system, Dar al-Islam and Jihad, and the viewpoints and points of view and the quality of reasoning were mentioned along with the mention of their evidence, and to reach the views of the jurists of the two religions, drawing rules and principles for it is very helpful.The results of the research showed that the Sunni experts said about the concept of negation of the mustache, the meaning of the negation of the mustache is the negation of proof and argument for the unbelievers on the Day of Judgment. Some said that it is negating the power that can destroy the government and the faith of the believers. Some said it is negation of enemies' rule; provided that they do not advise each other to falsehood, and give up evil deeds, and repent of their sins, and some have expressed another meaning. In Shia, according to Ibn Abbas and Yasa Hazrami,

The conflicts between minority groups and the central government are considered to be one of the current threats to international peace and security. Employing the descriptive-analytical method and studying three cases of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh and Kosovo, this paper seeks to analyze the performance of UN in settling the identity-based territorial conflicts. The authors believe that the reason behind the failure of UN in settlement of Cyprus and Karabakh crises is that the Security Council has always supported the rights of Cyprus and Azerbaijan to maintain their territorial integrity without mentioning the possibility of the realization of right to remedial secession. In fact, the Council has always given an unconditional guarantee to central governments and thereby has lost its pressure tool on these states to grant appropriate privileges to secessionist groups in order to persuade them to abandon their secessionist demands. On the contrary, through implicit recognition of remedial secession as the last resort and after the deadlock of negotiations, this organization has had a relatively successful performance in Kosovo problem and impeded the continuation of an endless crisis. It appears that the report-card of this Organization in this regard is neither black nor white; it is grey and this leaves us in a world of fears and hopes.

The sovereignty of the Zionist Regime [Israel] over the Golan Heights - which was part of Syrian territory before it was occupied by Israel - was recognized by the President of the United States, in a proclamation on March 27, 2019. While this proclamation can be examined from many perspectives, this paper will attempt to consider its legality and consequences from an international-law viewpoint. Based on the findings of this research, which was carried out in a descriptive-analytical way, this action by the United States violates customary international law which prohibits recognition of situations arising from the use of force. It contradicts resolutions of the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, especially Resolutions 242 of 1967 and 497 of 1981. It also violates Syrian national sovereignty and territorial integrity. From the point of view of international law, not only this proclamation will fail to formalize the separation of the Golan from Syria, it will entail the international responsibility of the United States. As such, the US government is obliged to end the said illegal situation as soon as possible and remedy the Syrian government for this decision.

This paper examines the legitimacy of the unilateral separation of the Crimea from Ukraine in accordance with public international law, with respect to the right to self-determination and the right to remadial secession. It is examined in detail that, beyond decolonization, the right to self-determination does not include a general right to external self-determination. In non-colonial situations, there are two theories of unilateral secession and remedial secession. By examining the Crimea case in the light of each the cases, we conclude that unilateral secession is generally permitted under international law, but the unilateral secession of Crimea from Ukraine is an exception and prohibited under international law. Because it is the result os Russian military intervention in the peninsula and a sort of widespread violation of international law. On the other hand, by examining the practices of gevernments and judicial and semi-judicial bodies, we find that remedial secession is not yet a part of customary international law and the doctrine is also cntroversial. Assuming Crimea cannot be cinsidered a viable secession due to the diversity of the peninsula population and lack of “people” and lack of evidence of human rights violations or organized discriminatory behavior by Ukrainian authorities.

The concept of the right to determine one‟s own future in international law has evolved since the 1950s; especially in relation to the right of sovereignty, territorial integrity, separation, independence and autonomy; and this evolution is still in effect. This study examines the evolution of the concept of the right to determine one‟s own future according to the judicial system of the International Court of Justice, including such cases like the colonization of South West Africa (present Namibia) (1949-1971), West Africa (1975), East Timor (1995), the construction of the retaining wall in occupied Palestine (2004) and the Declaration of Kosovo‟s Independence (2010). There has been a change in the meaning of the right to determine one‟s own future so that today the mere ability to accelerate the processes of decolonization refers to recognizing the right of the inhabitants of non-autonomous territories to be independent, the possibility of declaring unilateral independence and separation under certain conditions, holding a free and genuine referendum to gain this right, and identifying the commitment of third-party governments. However, the judges of the International Court of Justice have not yet taken advantage of the available opportunities to clarify the idea of determination of one‟s own future, given a definition of people (ethnicities) and the conditions which a government should have delineate the commitment of third-party governments and the position of the international law on unilateral declaration of independence and separation.

Today, independence and territorial integrity of the country as a universal principle and interest will be emphasized .United Nations, international law and the constitution, strongly support such a view. According to various principles of the constitution, national unity and territorial integrity, independence, Islamic Republic of Iran is considered a necessary condition. For this reason, the ninth constitution of liberty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of our inseparable and maintaining it is the duty of the state and nation by nation knows. Iran's territorial integrity and international borders, the highly respected and public support and its abuses, constitutes an infringement of the public authority. On the other hand, the acceptance and recognition of the rights of ethnic groups and tribes in the country, shall not impair the sovereignty or secession from the local area. The third season of the Iranian constitution inspired by the principles of Islamic Thought, a variety of fundamental freedom sand protecting people's attention has .Detailed explanation of the relationship between freedom, independence, unity and territorial integrity can avoid the appearance of arbitrariness and dependency analysis, effective and lead society towards achieving happiness.

The overwhelming view concerning the unilateral secession under contemporary international law is that، in international law، there is no rule in regard to secession. some international lawyers concentrate upon the principle of respect to territorial integrity of independence and sovereign states and maintain that unilateral secession is unlawful. Meanwhile a moderate and relatively new approach has been proposed by some international lawyers so called “Remedial Secession Doctrine” that according to it، although international law supports territorial integrity of independence and sovereign states in international community، in special circumstances، a state cannot rely on its territorial integrity. The principle of Self-Determination of peoples prevails over Territorial Integrity and so، secession of a part of territory of a state by a people comprising a part of the population of the territory would be possible. Basis and foundation of such argument is relies on inverted reading of the “safeguard clause” embodied in the United Nations General Assembly resolution 2625 that repeated in 1993 Vienna declaration and program of action. this characterize the existence of the Right to Remedial Secession in National and Regional Judicial Decisions.