درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The Tigris and Euphrates river basin, spanning Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, is crucial both regionally and globally. Its utilization has become a political and security challenge. The principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, a key tenet of international law, is essential for managing this basin. This research employs a descriptive-analytical approach to explain this principle, identify its conventional and customary sources, and assess the factors affecting its application. It examines the basin's geographical, natural, and environmental conditions to evaluate how the principle is applied. The construction of dams, excessive groundwater use, and extensive irrigation have led to reduced water inflow and severe impacts on agriculture, the environment, and local communities. These issues highlight a weakening commitment to equitable utilization. Urgent cooperation among riparian states is needed to develop a comprehensive plan that ensures fair water use and sustainable ecological preservation for the Tigris and Euphrates basin. Keywords: International Law of Watercourses, Tigris and Euphrates River Basin, Transboundary Watercourses, Equitable and Reasonable Utilization.

In June 2025, the U.S and Israel took extensive military action against Iran which resulted in inflicting severe damage on country’s infrastructure. The primary question of the research is, from the standpoint of international law, whether the actions of Israel and United States of America were legitimate, and what legal response does Iran have. The hypothesis of the research is based on the premise that the aforementioned attacks are illegal and constitute multiple violations of international law, neither falling within the framework of legitimate self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter nor within the framework of anticipatory self-defense. According to the Caroline doctrine, Iran was not planning to attack at any level whether at initial stages or other levels therefore the imminence of self-defense would lose its function and there was no practical and immediate threat against Israel. Therefore, Israel's attack in the form of preventive self-defense also lacked legal legitimacy and constituted military aggression. This research was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and library document review. The findings indicate the attacks constitute a clear violation of Article 56 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions 1977, which prohibits attacks on installations containing dangerous materials, Articles 35 and 55 regarding prohibition of environmental destruction, Article 85(3)(c) which considers such attacks as war crimes, violation of the principle of distinction between military and civilian targets by attacking targets such as the Evin Prison and numerous hospitals, Article 8(2)(b)(4) of the Rome Statute, and Article 2 of the UN Charter regarding peaceful settlement of disputes, while Iran was engaged in negotiations. The article's findings prove that Iran can file complaints based on violations of established principles of international law if the U.S and Israel accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, and can also pursue justice through Declaration under Article 12(3) of the ICC and other legal remedies, as the practice of the ICC shows that its judicial policy regarding issuing arrest warrants for heads of state has undergone significant developments