نوع مقاله : علمی و پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران، مدرس مدعو دانشگاه بزرگمهر قائنات.
2 گروه فقه و حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات، دانشگاه بزرگمهر قائنات، قائن، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint, has consistently been the site of conflict between coastal State sovereignty and the international transit passage regime. Under existential threats and grey-zone warfare, customary international law fails to provide a pre-emptive deterrence framework due to its narrow interpretation of "armed attack" and strict naval blockade restrictions. Using a descriptive-analytical method with a comparative approach and relying on primary jurisprudential sources, this research explores the jurisprudential basis for the "right of maritime blockade." The findings show that while international law faces a normative gap in hybrid threats, emphasizing reactive defense, Islamic law, through the Rule of Tarhīb (intimidation), offers proactive and sustained deterrence. The subsidiary rule "Al-Qadīmu Yutraku 'Alā Qadamihi" yields to the priority rules of "Lā Ḍarar" and "Ḥifẓ al-Niẓām," as well as secondary rules like "Iḍṭirār" (necessity) and "Maṣlaḥat al-Niẓām" (public expediency). Thus, under existential emergencies, Verse 60 of Al-Anfal provides the jurisprudential foundation for a credible threat of blockade for Iran; however, the blockade itself, as a temporary measure, requires justification through secondary rules and the principles of self-defense under international law (necessity, proportionality, and declaration).
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله