درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

In recent years, we witnessed the use of laser weapons in naval conflicts in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman. Conflicts that are not armed and under the laws of hostilities and the rights of war are not considered, and the use of laser weapons in them violates the principles of proportionality and necessity in international humanitarian law. Based on the Fourth Protocol of 1995 of the 1980 on Conventional Weapons and Article 86 of International Customary Humanitarian Law, the use of blinding and permanently blinding laser weapons is prohibited. Based on Article 36 of the 1st Additional Protocol of 1977, the governments in the production and use of new weapons should ensure that they are not prohibited from the point of view of international rules.the use of laser weapons in the aforementioned maritime conflicts is a violation of international obligations and has a criminal nature, and according to Article 2 of the 2001 international responsibility plan of governments, it causes the international responsibility of the governments that use it. The main goal of this research is to analyze the international responsibility of governments in using laser weapons in maritime conflicts in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. Therefore, by using an applied research with a descriptive-analytical method to collect the data obtained through library studies and field investigation, we have sought to realize this goal. The result of the research showed that laser weapons are a violation of international obligations in the field of intimidation, unnecessary pain and suffering, use by terrorist groups, intelligent murder,violation of the right to life and the right to reproduction. humanitarian rights, human rights and mandatory rules and universal obligations are international and are considered an international violation and cause the international responsibility of governments.

The crime of piracy as the oldest international crime has emerged in a modern way in recent years. In addition, piracy is one of the first and main crimes that have been subject to universal jurisdiction. Today, this crime has moved away from its classic way and has progressed to the point of a transformation. This has caused the United Nations Security Council, as the main pillar of maintaining international peace and security, to deal with it many times by issuing resolutions. Despite continuous efforts to prosecute the perpetrators of piracy in domestic courts, the international community has not been able to effectively deal with this phenomenon, because states are facing problems to suppress piracy, including the increasing human rights norms. For this purpose to fight against piracy, new and potential solutions have been proposed, including the establishment of a special international court, referring piracy to the International Criminal Court, as well as dealing with the crime of piracy as a terrorist crime through anti-terrorist conventions. In this regard, according to outcomes of this research, combat to modern piracy in the International Criminal Court can be considered the most effective and efficient way. Compiled with a descriptive and analytical method, by setting this outcome as a hypothesis and examining the characteristics and the limitations of combat to this crime, new and potential solutions of combat to impunity of modern piracy, especially in International Criminal Court, has been discussed.

Environmental risks and conflicts in the framework of the relations between countries and subsequently their role-playing in interaction and collaboration or conflicts and struggles between political actors especially in the level of states have reproduced serious discussions and disputes on the environment, security, and power which are interpreted as environmental geopolitics or ecopolitics by modern political geography. Geographically, the Persian Gulf is a semi-enclosed sea that has a very low capacity of self-dredging in comparison to that of high seas; hence, it retains the pollutants for longer periods of time. Some of its environmental problems arise from the various activities of the people residing along the northern and southern shores. If the situation is exacerbated by the factors such as oil and its subsequent pollutions, militarism and its subsequent destruction, desalination of seawater, and the construction of artificial islands, one can conclude that regional convergence between the countries neighboring this body of water in the process of bioregionalism would be of an essential necessity. According to the research findings, states acting in the geopolitical region of the Persian Gulf to produce power, security and to sustain them, from one hand, and to protect this shared aquatic ecosystem in the event of sustainable development, from the other hand, should mobilize all collective cooperations and operationalize the bioregionalism in regional and supranational scales.

Exploiting the bed and subbed of the seas which are outside the governments’ sovereignty is always discussed since the countries severely need to these resources and the technological progress makes it possible to exploit these areas. Present study aims to respond this question that how resources of bed and subbed of the seas outside governments’ sovereignty are exploit based on law perspective, and how can analyze juridical attitude in this issue. In law perspective, according to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Seas, these areas are the common heritage of humanity and International Seabed Authority is responsible in this field. In Islamic jurisprudence, exploitation of properties which do not belong to a specific person and freely are in access the public is named Anfal. But the bed and subbed of the seas are not included in any of the territories such as Dar al-Harb defined by the jurists, because no government have the right to claim sovereignty over these areas, and Dar al-Kofr is not in charge of these areas either. It is necessary to act based on international treaties and customary in such a situation. It means that Dar al-Islam is committed to act in accordance with existing international treaties and customary. Even if Dar al-Islam has not accepted any treaties regarding the bed and subbed of the seas, it is committed to implement international regulations based on international customary since international customary has known the bed and subbed of the seas outside the governments’ sovereignty as the common heritage of humanity.

The peaceful use of the various territories of the international community, including land, sea, air, and outer space, is one of the basic rules of international law, and the prohibition of the use and threat of force based on paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter is one of the mandatory rules.None of the members of the United Nations have the right to resort to force in the seas and non-peaceful maritime activities. Although the 1982 Montego Bay, Convention on the Law of the Sea was drafted for peacetime, this does not mean that the aforementioned convention loses its validity and executive power when armed conflicts occur.In this research, using the analytical descriptive method, a review of the behavior of the United States in the peaceful use of the seas from the point of view of the United Nations Charter and the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and the authors' analyzes has been done.The findings of this research show that the US government, according to the statements issued by this country, which have been prepared in line with the interests and oceanic policies of this sea power, has provided interpretations or perceptions regarding the maritime activities of the US in relation to the 1982 convention, which can endanger the peaceful use of the seas.The approach of the United States through the seven positions that have been examined in this brief article indicates that this country allows its military activities in order to secure its interests and is not subject to dispute resolution methods and peaceful goals. It does not consider the 1982 Convention as its legal obligation.   Therefore, the US wants absolute freedom of navigation in all sea areas. Naturally, this approach of a maritime power cannot be a suitable basis for guaranteeing the peaceful use of the seas and institutionalizing maritime diplomacy. 

With the acceptance of international trade and its expansion in the 20th century, the need to prepare a suitable mechanism to resolve disputes, especially in non-international dimensions, became one of the important concerns to maintain commercial relations and contracts. And this caused that, despite the global skepticism towards arbitration, in a short time arbitration and mediation were considered as a way to resolve conflicts, especially regarding international commercial disputes. On June 26, 2018, the Singapore Convention was approved by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) regarding international agreements resulting from mediation. And the plan of UNCITRAL was modified in the field of international commercial mediation and international settlement agreements resulting from mediation. The purpose of ratifying this convention is to establish a binding legal system and an efficient framework and legal platform for the implementation of international agreements resulting from mediation. Previously, the adoption of the New York Convention by expanding the use of the arbitration method as a way to settle disputes was considered one of the most successful international treaties in this field. In total, the present research, with an analytical and argumentative method, seeks to respond to the main philosophy of concluding and the scope of application of each of the two New York and Singapore Conventions, by examining the weak and strong points of each, it explains the position of these two treaties in resolving conflicts and disputes and discusses the similarities and differences between the New York Convention and the Singapore Convention on Mediation.

The “Black Lives Matter” civil rights movement has left profound effects on the international approach of the US government toward human rights. This movement reached its peak in 2020 and profoundly affected culture, politics, and policy making in the US. The two major parties reacted differently – the Democrats showed support but Republicans opposed it. These reactions help us analyze the US international policy toward human rights. US human rights policy has been embedded in the theory of “American exceptionalism”, which considered US the best incarnation of human rights and its interests as a superpower equal to its protection. But the Black Lives Matter movement challenges this narrative and claims that human rights violations are an untold part of this story. The Democrats have adopted a new approach to American exceptionalism in response which considers The US to have an exceptional potential to embody human rights values but this potential is yet to be realized. Joe Biden has also prioritized human rights more than his predecessors since 1980s by criticizing the US and also adopting harsher policies toward US allies that violate human rights. It can be predicted that the Democrats will adopt a more normative approach toward human rights in the future.