International Law
maryam hosseinabadi; Seyed Qasem zamani
Abstract
The presence of Non State Armed Groups (NSAGs) in non-international armed conflicts has become a threat to the international peace and security in the last few decades. In this regard, shedding light on the matter of the aforementioned entities' adherence to the rules and regulations of international ...
Read More
The presence of Non State Armed Groups (NSAGs) in non-international armed conflicts has become a threat to the international peace and security in the last few decades. In this regard, shedding light on the matter of the aforementioned entities' adherence to the rules and regulations of international humanitarian law, as a branch of international law regulating armed conflicts, as well as its necessity through examining theoretical foundations proposed in this field of study is of great significance, since the effect of their adherence to the provisions of this field of law as primary rules, is, in turn, reflected in applying secondary rules. On the basis of analogical method and through examining international sources and doctrine, this article aims to shed light on the theories concerning non state armed groups` adherence to the rules of international humanitarian law and its effect on secondary rules with emphasis on the non- international along with internationalized armed conflict in Yemen. It is finally concluded the theory of binding force of IHL on NSAGs due to the exercise of de facto governmental functions may explain the aforementioned entities' commitments to rules in question more clearly.
sattar azizi; Siamak Karimi
Abstract
The Arab coalition’s military intervention in Yemen crisis (2015) which is led by Saudi Arabia can be studied through different aspects in the international law’s system. The secondary rules of international law which decide the breach of primary rules of international law and their consequences, ...
Read More
The Arab coalition’s military intervention in Yemen crisis (2015) which is led by Saudi Arabia can be studied through different aspects in the international law’s system. The secondary rules of international law which decide the breach of primary rules of international law and their consequences, is one of these aspects. Principally, each state is responsible for its own wrong doings, but in some cases, other considerations and necessities such as rule of law and reparation of injured party, requires a state to be held responsible regarding another state’s wrongful act. One of these cases is derived international responsibility which results from aiding or assisting another state which commits an international wrongful act. The use of cluster munitions by Saudi against positions in Yemen and armed this state with these munitions by third state/states could be examined in the light of the derived international responsibility. Using the principles of this type of responsibility, this article tries to resolve whether the third party state/states that have armed Saudi Arabia with cluster munitions, have responsibility in Saudis' usage of cluster weapons.
Homayon Habibi; Salehe Ramezani
Volume 16, Issue 45 , April 2015, , Pages 77-103
Abstract
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as a series of rules which aims to protect civilians against the effects of hostilities has prohibited expressly the use of civilians as Human Shield. But voluntarism in human shield poses some question of law. In fact in some situations, civilians may put themselves ...
Read More
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as a series of rules which aims to protect civilians against the effects of hostilities has prohibited expressly the use of civilians as Human Shield. But voluntarism in human shield poses some question of law. In fact in some situations, civilians may put themselves in front of military objective by their will, which is a controversial issue. Some scholars consider the Voluntary Human Shield as taking direct participation in hostilities by civilians which deprives theme of the protections IHL grants to civilians. But the opponents view refuses this interpretation. This article rejects the idea of Voluntary Human Shield, as direct participant except in very specific situations where criteria of "direct participation" are met.
