سید یاسر ضیایی

For thousands of years after the settlement of the Israelites in Canaan, the region hosted asmall Jewish population by the twentieth century. Claims of persecution, displacement, andhistorical ties to the land gave rise to the formation of a movement termed “World Zionism,”aimed at establishing a Jewish State in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration, issued by Britainin 1917, emphasized the necessity of creating a “Jewish National Home,” and the Leagueof Nations Mandate Agreement was subsequently concluded on this basis in 1922. Britain’scontradictory promises to Jews and Arabs led it to refer the Palestine question to the UnitedNations. Negotiations in the UN General Assembly resulted in the adoption of Resolution 181,known as the Partition Resolution, and the establishment of two States, Jewish and Arab, in1948. However, the creation of these two States appeared to violate the rights of the Palestinianinhabitants. Thus, in addressing the question of the legal consequences arising from theestablishment of Israel on land belonging to the Palestinian inhabitants, this study scrutinizes thehypothesis that the formation of Israel involved violations of certain rules of international law,rendering the United Nations and complicit states internationally responsible for this wrongfulact. To substantiate this hypothesis, a descriptive-analytical methodology was recruited. Thelegal framework applicable to Palestine included the Mandate system, the Mandate Agreement,and norms of international law, such as the UN Charter and human rights law. An interpretationof Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and Article 76 of the UN Charter indicatesthat sovereignty over mandated/trust territories must be vested in the “indigenous inhabitants”of those territories. Such sovereignty must be exercised over theentire territory. Moreover, thecreation of religious or racial states in the region constitutes a breach of the obligation of non-discrimination. Consequently, the establishment of Israel entails the international responsibilityof the UN and complicit states in the UN General Assembly. The legal consequences of thisresponsibility would includerestitution in integrum, reparations, non-recognition, and non-cooperation to ensure the return of “the entirety of Palestine’s sovereignty to its Palestinianinhabitants.”

Protection of the children is one of the most important concerns in international human rights law. Child marriage is recognized as one of the forms of child abuse. The first step for elimination of child marriage is legal definition of the child. Lots of treaties have tried to determine the minimum age of a person before which he or she cannot marry. This article examines the criteria for recognizing an individual as a child and consequently child marriage in the international human rights system and domestic laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Treaties relating rights of the child do not clarify a specified minimum age for marriage except the Convention on the Rights of the Child in which a child is defined as a person below the age of 18. This criterion is based on an age-oriented approach and is aimed at homogenization of girls and boys. In contrast, in the law of Iran it is based on an interest-oriented one and it is relied on a multiple-criteria approach comprised of legal (physical or sexual) maturity, mental growth, religious maturity and guardian consent which has resulted in a more rational and defensible approach.