International Humanitarian Law

The rapid and intensive progress in science and technology in the world, despite its abundant advantages and gifts of welfare and comfort for the mankind, in many ways, it has pushed human security to face grave tragic events. To give an example, the progress in chemistry before the Great War, made it possible to produce and use toxic gases including Phosgene gas causing enormous deaths of both military personnel and civilians. Another example in man’s progress in nuclear physics led to innovating nuclear bomb with no precedent and unheard of in terms of mass destruction and ruins. In turn, the international humanitarian law, despite its progress in recent decades, has had been slower than the development of aforementioned scientific progresses. Nonetheless, one should consider the point that those disciplines of human sciences have more essential and fundamental principles that provide it with the ability to prevail with new conditions and situations. To elaborate the subject, although the international humanitarian law lacks explicit rules, regulations and treaties in addressing many of the modern armaments and warfare, it still possesses the principle of distinction, principle of unnecessary pain and suffering, principle of preventing vast and long-term damages that could be enforced on new arms by assessing its legality in order to boost human security. The present paper aims at studying various aspects of this issue.

Harirud river with an international nature is shared between Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan and currently there is no treaty among these states regarding the division of its water resources. In recent years, after the construction of the Doosti Dam by Iran and Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, as an upstream state is moving towards hydro-hegemonic policy in the region by building various dams which restrain and divert the water flow of this river in order to decrease the downstream countries’ water rights. On the other hand, due to the high importance of Harirud water resources for Iran, continuing this type of behavior by Afghanistan might cause conflicts and create security risks among these countries in the near future. Therefore, employing a descriptive-analytical approach, the study aims at examining the issue according to international legal documents in the field of sharing common water resources. Finally, the findings indicate that the best and most practical method for exploitation of Harirud water resources is based on the theory of limited territorial sovereignty and implementation of the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization of common water resources by Afghanistan, without causing significant harm to downstream states.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been dragged into political and legal fields in parallel with the battlefield, and the international community, including Iran, has been subsequently drawn into the situation. The controversial debates concerning Iran’s role in supplying Russia with armed drones prior to and during Russia’s Military Operations in Ukraine raise the question of Iran's international responsibility in the ongoing war. The provision of armed drones to Russia does not, in itself, constitute a violation of international law unless Iran knowingly and intentionally engaged in an internationally wrongful act. Evidence is not conclusive so far whether Iran's transfer of armed drones to Russia is a breach of international law. Besides, the use of the drones yielded military advantages to both sides: Russia could narrow down the impact of its attacks, respecting the principle of distinction, while Ukraine could target Iranian drones more easily than Russia’s missiles, which is compatible with Iran’s positive obligations under International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

“The Legal Implications of the United States' Strike on General Soleimani, His Associates and Iran's Response” offers a comprehensive examination of the assassination of General Soleimani from the perspective of international law.  This book sheds light on the subject by delving into the various dimensions of international law, including international treaty law, international criminal law, the use of force in international law, humanitarian law, and the fight against terrorism, with a focus on elucidating the act of terrorism committed by the United States. The book's strengths lie in its emphasis on international treaties and its reflection of Eastern thought regarding the assassination of an anti-terrorism hero within the framework of international law. Furthermore, the book seeks to establish legal convergence in the Middle East regarding the assassination of General Soleimani and to counter United States’ Lawfare against Iran's authorities. However, the book falls short in failing to address certain recent developments, such as changes in foreign policy after the Trump Administration, Iran's intention to bring the case before the International Court of Justice, and the conclusion of legal proceedings concerning General Soleimani's assassination in Iran and Iraq.

The claim of Russia’s humanitarian intervention in Ukraine serves as a legal justification for theuse of force. However, there is no evidence supporting allegations of genocide in the Donetskor Luhansk regions. While the majority of states oppose Russia’s invasion, this does not justifyoverlooking the rule of law, particularly the law of neutrality. In Ukraine’s struggle againstRussian aggression, the United States and its allies have provided weapons and military trainingto Ukrainian forces. This unprecedented support violates the prohibition of the use of force andthe law of neutrality. According to the Thirteenth Hague Convention of 1907, neutral countriescannot supply “war material of any kind” to belligerent powers. Consequently, Russia holdsthe right to take countermeasures against governments violating neutrality. Furthermore, underArticle 52 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Convention of 1949, Russia may target weaponsin Ukraine’s possession. However, if Russia targets these weapons before they are actively usedby Ukraine, such an attack could violate jus ad bellum, as the transfer of weapons alone cannotbe classified as an armed attack against Russia.