International Court of Justice

In recent decades, indiscriminate whaling in the oceans as well as marine pollution have caused harmful damage to the sea environment and the marine ecosystem of the oceans. Therefore, creating an international legal system and imposing legal restrictions on whaling have become necessary. Moreover, the approval of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) and the formation of an international commission to monitor whaling in international law were considered essential. In this article, using the analytical descriptive method, The Judgment of the International Court of Justice on Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening) has been studied.The findings of this researcher indicate that since Japan did not comply with the international regulations of whaling in the Antarctic, the government of Australia instituted a proceeding against the government of Japan in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and New Zealand intervened. Considering the importance of the issue and the consequences of the ICJ's judgment on whaling and the legal implications and position of whaling in international environmental law. This article hypothesizes that the international whaling regulations and the environmental approach of states towards the concept of the common heritage of mankind and erga omnes resulting from it can become the basis for the development of international environmental rights and international judicial procedures. Moreover, this paper hypothesizes that these international rights and judicial procedures are influenced by the decisions issued by the ICJ.

The intensification of armed conflict in Palestine during the years 2023 and 2024 by the Zionist regime have brought the solutions for the long-standing tension in the Palestinian territories into the focus of international attention. Therefore, in this regard, solutions such as the two-state solution and similar proposals have been presented by various governments and organizations. For nearly two decades, Iran has also proposed the "Palestinian Referendum Proposal" in pursuit of a legal-political resolution to the Palestinian issue. This article investigates the strengths and weaknesses of the “Referendum Proposal” from the perspective of international law, as well as the essential requirements that need to be observed to enhance its effectiveness. Therefore, strengths such as "the centrality of human rights and international law in this plan", "compliance with democratic principles and historical facts" and its “universal acceptability”, as well as weaknesses such as "lack of a comprehensive legal perspective, particularly in the field of humanitarian law", detrimental brevity and ignoring for political realities affecting the law, have been examined. Findings indicate that the actions of various countries against Israel in international courts and international legal organizations have turned Palestine into a target for legal convergence.

Following the violent escalation on October 7, 2023, attributed to the actions of the Israeli regime in Gaza, a series of substantial measures have been implemented by international legal, judicial, and political organizations in support of the Palestinian cause and the resistance movement. These actions have involved key international bodies, such as the Security Council, the General Assembly, and judicial institutions including the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as various countries and influential global experts. In this context, the international community has witnessed a historical and unprecedented series of judicial opinions, resolutions, and legal positions condemning the actions of the Israeli occupying forces in Gaza. Moreover, the recent focus on obligations to prevent genocide and end the occupation and violence in Palestine is unparalleled in its intensity and global consensus. These measures provide substantial and authoritative evidence supporting the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause, while simultaneously imposing binding legal responsibilities on states, international organizations, and in particular, the General Assembly and Security Council, to ensure the protection of Palestinian rights and the cessation of occupation and violence in the region. The present study adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology, utilizing documentary and library research approaches to critically analyze the nature and substance of these legal instruments and resolutions. In doing so, it aims to inform national, regional, and international executive bodies, while fostering academic dialogue and public awareness on the critical need for implementation of these judicial decisions. This research underscores the transformative legal, judicial, and diplomatic developments following October 7, 2023, developments that are crucial to the future trajectory of Gaza and Palestine, and which must be taken into account when formulating policies and strategies for the region's future.

This article examines the legality of Israel’s claim to a right of preemptive self-defense against Iran within the framework of international law. It argues that such a claim lacks any valid legal foundation and stands in stark contrast to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations as well as established international jurisprudence. According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, the use of force in self-defense is only permissible in response to an actual and verifiable armed attack. Any military action based solely on the anticipation or assumption of an imminent threat does not meet the legal threshold and is not recognized by the international legal order. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in landmark cases such as Nicaragua (1986), the Advisory Opinion on the Wall (2004), and Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (2005), has consistently adopted a narrow interpretation of self-defense, explicitly rejecting the doctrine of preemptive force. Israel’s assertion of facing a permanent threat from Iran, absent concrete evidence of an imminent armed attack, cannot serve as a lawful justification for the use of force. Such actions not only contravene the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of state sovereignty but may also constitute a breach of peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) and amount to an act of aggression. Furthermore, acceptance of such a precedent poses serious challenges to the maintenance of international peace and security and risks undermining the credibility of the global legal order. Drawing on authoritative sources, international instruments, and comparative legal analysis, the article concludes that Israel’s invocation of preemptive self-defense is legally unfounded and incompatible with contemporary international law.