Occupation

The protection of fundamental human rights at the time of war or peace is an obligation that should be observed at anytime by the states and international organizations. After the Second World War, the non-peaceful situations such as occupation and economic sanctions have occurred numerously, which in some cases lasted for more than a decade. Unfortunately, the laws governing these situations are not implemented properly, and therefore fundamental human rights of people, especially their life, integrity and security, have been violated. This article aims at considering legal rules and their effectiveness in protecting fundamental human rights at the times of occupation and economic sanctions. This study is based primarily on the conventional and customary international legal rules.

Iran's strategic position has attracted significant world powers, especially the United States, so the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has continuously monitored Iran's political and social situation. After the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the U.S. sensitivity towards the colonial theory doubled, and consequently, the CIA's espionage and interference in Iran increased. Such a situation was unbearable for Iranians who had a bitter experience of U.S. intervention in their country. Therefore, they considered a visa for the fugitive Shah by the United States as another betrayal. In return for fulfilling their demands, they seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran. With a descriptive-analytical manner, the present study aimed to answer ‘how well the CIA has worked at the U.S. Embassy in resolving the hostage crisis?’ Based on the results, with the hypothesis of CIA formal but covert intervention in Iran at the beginning of the Islamic Revolution and extensive efforts to resolve the U.S. government crisis, the CIA used its espionage process U.S. embassy after the Islamic Revolution with various tools. After capturing the embassy, they carried out many activities, including communicating with Iranian officials, mental espionage, communicating with Islamic movements, using local militias, and sending CIA officers to Iran to free the hostages. Define all these cases in the collection of maintaining colonialism and domination over Iran.

This article examines the application of Articles 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter in relation to Israel’s claim of sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Israel has cited historical Jewish rule and invoked “defensive conquest” to justify its position. However, this interpretation misrepresents the non-use of force principle. The article references relevant UN Security Council Resolutions and treaty interpretation rules, emphasizing a strict application of international law, which Israel has overlooked. The UN Charter’s main purpose of maintaining international peace supports this strict interpretation. Consequently, the notion of defensive conquest violates Article 2(4) and customary international law. Additionally, the article discusses the 2024 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, which reaffirmed the illegality of Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and highlighted the prohibition of acquiring territory by force, as established by the UN Charter.