درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The Tigris and Euphrates river basin, spanning Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, is crucial both regionally and globally. Its utilization has become a political and security challenge. The principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, a key tenet of international law, is essential for managing this basin. This research employs a descriptive-analytical approach to explain this principle, identify its conventional and customary sources, and assess the factors affecting its application. It examines the basin's geographical, natural, and environmental conditions to evaluate how the principle is applied. The construction of dams, excessive groundwater use, and extensive irrigation have led to reduced water inflow and severe impacts on agriculture, the environment, and local communities. These issues highlight a weakening commitment to equitable utilization. Urgent cooperation among riparian states is needed to develop a comprehensive plan that ensures fair water use and sustainable ecological preservation for the Tigris and Euphrates basin. Keywords: International Law of Watercourses, Tigris and Euphrates River Basin, Transboundary Watercourses, Equitable and Reasonable Utilization.

In June 2025, the U.S and Israel took extensive military action against Iran which resulted in inflicting severe damage on country’s infrastructure. The primary question of the research is, from the standpoint of international law, whether the actions of Israel and United States of America were legitimate, and what legal response does Iran have. The hypothesis of the research is based on the premise that the aforementioned attacks are illegal and constitute multiple violations of international law, neither falling within the framework of legitimate self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter nor within the framework of anticipatory self-defense. According to the Caroline doctrine, Iran was not planning to attack at any level whether at initial stages or other levels therefore the imminence of self-defense would lose its function and there was no practical and immediate threat against Israel. Therefore, Israel's attack in the form of preventive self-defense also lacked legal legitimacy and constituted military aggression. This research was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and library document review. The findings indicate the attacks constitute a clear violation of Article 56 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions 1977, which prohibits attacks on installations containing dangerous materials, Articles 35 and 55 regarding prohibition of environmental destruction, Article 85(3)(c) which considers such attacks as war crimes, violation of the principle of distinction between military and civilian targets by attacking targets such as the Evin Prison and numerous hospitals, Article 8(2)(b)(4) of the Rome Statute, and Article 2 of the UN Charter regarding peaceful settlement of disputes, while Iran was engaged in negotiations. The article's findings prove that Iran can file complaints based on violations of established principles of international law if the U.S and Israel accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, and can also pursue justice through Declaration under Article 12(3) of the ICC and other legal remedies, as the practice of the ICC shows that its judicial policy regarding issuing arrest warrants for heads of state has undergone significant developments

In June 2025, Israeli airstrikes on Evin Prison in Tehran killed more than 80 civilians, including detainees, staff, and visiting family members. The attack provoked strong international condemnation, notably from France, due to its civilian toll and the absence of a credible military justification. The present article examines the strike's legality under international humanitarian law (IHL), with particular emphasis on the principles of distinction and proportionality as codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Using a descriptive-analytical approach, this paper argues that the Evin attack lacked a legitimate military objective and violated the fundamental requirement of Article 48 to distinguish between civilian and military targets. Israel’s claim of “symbolic” intent falls short of IHL standards and highlights the absence of lawful military necessity. While detention facilities may, in some contexts, be misused as human shields, no such justification existed in this case. The strike appears politically and psychologically motivated, potentially amounting to acts of terror against civilians. In accordance with Article 8 of the Rome Statute and relevant IHL instruments, the attack constitutes a war crime due to breaching the principles of proportionality and distinction. Rigorous legal analysis and comprehensive documentation are essential to advancing individual criminal responsibility, including through mechanisms such as universal jurisdiction.

This study reconsiders the normative boundaries of legitimate military intervention through the lens of the recent twelve-day international armed conflict between Iran and Israel and the controversial involvement of the United States Or in a more legal sense, the twelve-day armed aggression of Israel and United States of America against Islamic Republic of Iran. The central research questions ask: The central idea of the present research is to find an appropriate answer to the question of whether existing international legal frameworks, including the UN Charter, customary international law, and ICJ jurisprudence, can sustain their regulatory authority over state conduct in asymmetric conflicts. Moreover, can interventions that are justified as anticipatory or collective self-defense be reconciled with the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter? The hypothesis posits that existing legal instruments inadequately address the realities of contemporary conflicts, where political expediency often eclipses legal restraints. Adopting a doctrinal and case-based methodology, the present article examines relevant ICJ cases, UN records, and state practice. It finds a growing divergence between legality and legitimacy, revealing an urgent need to redefine intervention standards through enforceable norms and coherent adjudication.