Siamak Karamzadeh; Abdollah Abedini
Abstract
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 ...
Read More
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.
Siamak Karamzadeh; Zahra Feiz
Abstract
Maintenance of independency and honor of the Muslim state in international relationships, obligations and relations is one of the requirements of Nafy-e-Sabil Rule (Non-Dependency Rule); a jurisprudential rule which in accordance with logical and traditional proofs is based on the principle of negation ...
Read More
Maintenance of independency and honor of the Muslim state in international relationships, obligations and relations is one of the requirements of Nafy-e-Sabil Rule (Non-Dependency Rule); a jurisprudential rule which in accordance with logical and traditional proofs is based on the principle of negation of ascendency of non-Muslims over Muslims. It predicates the legal acceptance of relation with other states and conclusion of any contract or treaty to non-domination of aliens over Muslim countries. Giving the necessity of the economic development of the country and its implication to the principle of negation of submissiveness, the issue of accession of Iran to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) as an example of international treaties, is dealt with in this research. Although according to most of the Islamic jurists this principle is applied as a primary rule and negates any sort of submissiveness even in international contracts, this study has reached to a conclusion based on which in case of conflict of the rule with more important interests, the principle is allocable; specifically in international relations that is the sphere of reason and rationality where the expedient reason should take into account the interests and goods of the country and its possible defects and advance on its basis. The authority to determine the interest or defect is the organization or the institution responsible for signing the contract.
Karamzadeh Karamzadeh; Bahram Moradian
Abstract
In 2002, an organization was established in Iraq which was later named as ISIS. By taking control of considerable parts of Iraq and Syria, this non-state actor has taken terrorist acts in occupied territories. DAESH, which has been recognized as a terrorist group, uses terrorist methods to achieve its ...
Read More
In 2002, an organization was established in Iraq which was later named as ISIS. By taking control of considerable parts of Iraq and Syria, this non-state actor has taken terrorist acts in occupied territories. DAESH, which has been recognized as a terrorist group, uses terrorist methods to achieve its goals. ISIS's acts in Iraq and Syria are not of those sporadic terrorist actions which can be dealt with through peaceful means and judicial mechanism stipulated in the anti-terrorism treaties. Given the definition set out in Article 1(2) of protocol II of 1977, the current situation in Iraq and Syria is categorized as non-international armed conflict which is governed by humanitarian rules provided in the Article 3 Common to 1949 Geneva Conventions and protocol II. Terrorism negates fundamental principles of humanity which underlie International Humanitarian Law (IHL). As such, the Article 3 Common to 1949 Geneva Conventions and Article 4 (2) of protocol II prohibit terrorist acts in non-international armed conflicts. The parties engaged in the armed conflicts are obliged to observe humanitarian rules provided in Geneva Conventions and its protocols. Nevertheless, ISIS's inhuman acts in Iraq and Syria clearly show breach of IHL. Furthermore, ISIS which is alleging to establish Islamic state and to carry out Islamic rules in the occupied territory has taken actions which are against Islamic norms and rules.