The US military operation to assassinate General Soleimani, contrary to its claim, does not comply with the elements and conditions of self-defense and is an internationally wrongful act. The subject of this article is assessing the possibility of prosecution of criminal responsibility and civil responsibility arising from this wrongful act before the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. Despite Iran and US are not parties to the Statute of International Criminal Court, Iran could create the possibility of exercising jurisdiction by the court over the case through inviting Iraq to accept the ad hoc jurisdiction of the court. But, even in these circumstances, the assassination of General Soleimani cannot be pursued within the framework of one of the four crimes under the jurisdictional of the Court. It is possible to pursue US civil responsibility for this wrongful act by resorting to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons 1973 (1973) to which the Iran and US are the parties. This Convention, which prohibits the commission of certain crimes, including murder, against internationally protected persons, has provided a dispute settlement mechanism that will eventually lead to the International Court of Justice.

Although terrorism is not an emerging phenomenon, it has only been a few decades since it has become one of the most controversial international, regional and domestic debates due to its extent and characteristics. One of the important and challenging examples of this phenomenon is state terrorism, which is sometimes committed with the justification of preventive defense; The case that was stated regarding the assassination of General Soleimani by the US government. Despite the development of conventions and the enhancement of the jurisdiction of international judicial assemblies, there are huge differences between countries regarding the examples and dimensions of preventive defense or the dimensions of "aggression".The findings of this research, with a descriptive-analytical approach, show that the international criminal policy, both in the form of conventions and in the form of the jurisdiction of judicial authorities, has many challenges regarding the punishment of the perpetrators of the assassination of Sardar Soleimani  And it is concluded that according to the Convention on "Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Committed against Internationally Protected Persons", and referring to general laws such as the United Nations Charter, the Resolution on the definition of aggression, the Convention on Special Missions and customary provisions, the assassination case of General Soleimani and his companions can be Followed.

Terrorism is not only a threat to all societies, but also an attack on values that define the international community – the rule of law, respect to human rights, protection of civilians, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. With its shared experience, UN has played a significant role in assisting countries for building up their capacities to prevent terrorism. Through a general review, this article describes the continuing and widening efforts of the United Nations, particularly the General Assembly, to promote a fully international response to terrorism,including the conclusion of certain important international conventions.During the past three decades, member states have advanced their counter-terrorism work through the General Assembly on both, the legal and the operational tracks. The Assembly’s norm-setting work has been marked by recent successes in adopting international conventions aimed at suppressing terrorism financing, bombings and access to nuclear material.At first, the evolution of UN literature concerning the measures for combating the terrorism has been reviewed, then we have discussed in details the various items of the five international conventions ofcounter terrorism.The conventions as:- 1973. Convention On The Prevention And Punishment Of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons - 1979. International Convention Against The Taking Of Hostages - 1997. International Convention For The Suppression Of Terrorist Bombings - 1999. International Convention For The Suppression Of The Financing Of Terrorism - 2005. International Convention For The Suppression Of Acts Of Nuclear Terrorism As conclusion, a progressive development of the UN efforts,could be stated regarding the combating the terrorism.

The extensive grounds of terrorist’s unpunishment, specifically in the newly-founded and governmental crimes, has affected the frequency of these terrorist acts and has led to the increasing development of their anti-human practices in regional and global levels. The unprecedented order and official terror of internationally protected persons, including the commander of the Quds Force by the US president, is the example of a crime that has violated treaties, customary rules and international legal principles and the new forms of terrorism, which could be imitated  by other states’ presidents, threatens the peace and stability of the international community. Considering that the terrorist act was committed in the territory of a foreign country with the aiding and abetting of alien’s nationals, the victim's country is not easily able to prosecute the commanders who ordered and perpetrators of that incident. This is due to the fact that the terrorist act has occurred outside the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran and therefore the principle of territorial jurisdiction, which is the basis for the determination and recognition of the competent courts and law, cannot be enforced. Overcoming this fundamental obstacle and finding legal solutions to achieve the governing rules and the competent authority by exploring the jurisdictional aspects of international institutions is a challenge that has been addressed in this article through a descriptive-analytic method of study. Strategies such as applying the principles of substitute competence, using the capacity of the relevant states’ cooperation, legal capacity-creating based on the measures tested in the world community, constitute applicable responses for solving the problem.

During a military operation on Friday, January 3, 2020, the US government killed Major General Qassem Soleimani near the Baghdad Airport. The US Department of State announced that this operation has been conducted by the order of President Donald Trump. This act sparked a vast reaction at the international level. Specifically, the Iraqi government expressed its opposition regarding the operation on the territory of Iraq to the UN Security Council. The US operation in martyrdom of Major General Qassem Soleimani is a gross violation of international law. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, this act is regarded as the crime of aggression and its perpetrators are prosecutable by International Criminal Court. In addition, the US action against martyr Qassem Soleimani violates the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Offenses against Internationally Protected Persons of 1973 dispute of the parties on which can be presented before the International Court of Justice. This article attempts to examine this incident in terms of international legal aspects through reviewing the analyses presented as regards it. While outlining the illegality of the United States' operation in martyrdom of Major General Qassem Soleimani and his associates, available remedies will be suggested as well.

US action in assassination of senior Iranian and Iraqi military officials, including the martyred General Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, is a clear example of State terrorism and violates the most important rules of international law, including the right to life, prohibition of use of the force, respect for sovereignty of the States and the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs of other countries. The Trump administration has also violated US domestic law by failing to comply with the Senate. One of the harsh revenge measures emphasized by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution can be a victory in the legal war and litigation in the courts. So, the main question in this article is, what is the legal basis for pursuing this case? The result of the descriptive-analytical study of the authors, by using the case study and utilizing library resources, shows that the most effective legal mechanisms are litigation before international court of Justice (ICJ) under the convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents (1973), as well as trying to establish a hybrid court, in particular by concluding an agreement with UN General Assembly or organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). However, these measures require consideration of political and legal consequences of each method and before that, the Iraqi authorities' political will to cooperate with international organizations is the main condition for any action.

The obligation to prosecute or extradite is a primary obligation that is mainly included in treaties aimed at combating impunity. The initial basis for fulfilling this obligation is the State in whose territory the accused is present. In this case, the concerned State should either respond positively to the possible extradition request of another State regarding the accused or initiate the prosecution of the accused. However, the question that may be raised is that if a State party to the relevant treaty other than the State that holds the accused, can it be said that due to the absence of the accused, there is no possibility of a trial, or at least it can be considered conducting preliminary investigations in order to extradite? In fact, what is the ratio of the investigation by the State of the victim and the State where the accused is present? In this article, by examining the study of the International Law Commission and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, and with a special focus on the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Missions, it is suggested that, on the one hand, conducting preliminary investigations is a condition for requesting extradition and on the other hand, the delay in prosecution and trial will also be considered a violation of the obligation to prosecute.

In international responsibility law, effective act or omission of injured person don't affects on creation of international responsibility and such conduct shall only be considered in the determination of reparation and amount of that, unless it can be treated as consent to commitment of a certain act by another state which shall prevent the creation of international responsibility as one of the circumstances precluding wrongfulness. also, it shall be entirely exempted the state when conduct of injured person was absolute cause of internationally wrongful act and eventually prevents attributability of this conduct to the State. Injured conduct  will also be considered in diplomatic protection, international liability and invocation to responsibility by a state other than an injured state. In addition, international practice With the development of this concept, duty of injured person to mitigate after the internationally wrongful act and assumption of risk is also considered grounds for reducing the amount of reparation.

Environmental displacement might come in variety of forms (forced or voluntary; permanent or temporary; and internal or international). Not only is it impossible, but also irrelevant, to categorize displaced persons based on their motives, and separate environmental factors from economic incentives. So, the protection of environmentally displaced persons should be based on their needs and vulnerabilities, rather than their incentives and displacement driving factors. There exists currently no comprehensive internationally-binding instrument to deal with environmental displacement. Some, have suggested, for this purpose, the extension of 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. Others have advocated drafting a new convention. We argue that a new convention will not succeed to collect the necessary will and support in the current political arena, where States, more often than not, try to limit their established obligations towards migrants and refugees. On the other hand, any effort to extend the 1951 Convention might endanger the whole refugee protection regime. We suggest that promotion of States obligations to respect and protect human rights in urgent situations, with due consideration of responsibility to protect (R2P) developments, could fill-in the protection gap as currently exists vis-a-vis the environmentally displaced populations.

State right to exert diplomatic protection of its nationals, who have been harmed in other countries, is an incontestable subject matter, provided that they prove their nationality, exhaustion of local remedies, and commit internationally wrongful acts. However, the possibility of diplomatic protection of those with dual nationality in other subject country and resort to human rights of the protected individual is among issues that have been well-established in international practice. Detention, trial, and condemnation of Mrs. Nazanin Zaghari, an Iranian-British Subject, in Iran and UK diplomatic protection of her, and the probability of UK litigation in ICJ once again raised the question of dominant nationality of protected individual and resort to human rights as a basis for diplomatic protection. In this survey, conducted by a descriptive-analytical method, Britain justifications for diplomatic protection of Mrs. Zaghari on the basis of dominant nationality and human rights have been investigated and it has been criticized based on national regulations of Iran in the context of nationality and the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights and estoppel. Additionally, political negotiations with Britain to solve the dispute or Iran withdrawal from the protocol on compulsory admission of ICJ jurisdiction annexed to Vienna Convention on Consular Relations before filing a lawsuit before ICJ can be considered as possible solutions.