غلامعلی قاسمی

The occupation of the Palestinian Territory for over seven decades encompasses historical, political, and legal dimensions, intertwined with issues of peace and security. At its core, this conflict arises from the denial of a nation's right to self-determination and the establishment of an independent state. This article not only recounts pertinent events but also analyzes the central issue of self-determination. By affirming this right, the article explores the right to resist and combat the occupying forces, examining the interplay between self-determination and the right to resistance. Additionally, it addresses the obligations of other states concerning the occupied nation and the occupying power, adhering closely to international legal standards and citing relevant sources. The recent tragic events and the dire circumstances faced by the people of Gaza, including the loss of nearly 40,000 innocent lives, underscore the significance of this research. It is evident that violations of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination are the primary causes of this prolonged crisis. The struggle and resistance of the Palestinian people, including armed resistance, are framed as the only viable solution. Both self-determination and the right to resist, including armed struggle, possess international legal legitimacy. Other states are obligated to support the Palestinian people and must refrain from legitimizing the occupation or facilitating its continuation. The support of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the Palestinian cause can be understood within this context of international law.

The claim of Russia’s humanitarian intervention in Ukraine serves as a legal justification for theuse of force. However, there is no evidence supporting allegations of genocide in the Donetskor Luhansk regions. While the majority of states oppose Russia’s invasion, this does not justifyoverlooking the rule of law, particularly the law of neutrality. In Ukraine’s struggle againstRussian aggression, the United States and its allies have provided weapons and military trainingto Ukrainian forces. This unprecedented support violates the prohibition of the use of force andthe law of neutrality. According to the Thirteenth Hague Convention of 1907, neutral countriescannot supply “war material of any kind” to belligerent powers. Consequently, Russia holdsthe right to take countermeasures against governments violating neutrality. Furthermore, underArticle 52 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Convention of 1949, Russia may target weaponsin Ukraine’s possession. However, if Russia targets these weapons before they are actively usedby Ukraine, such an attack could violate jus ad bellum, as the transfer of weapons alone cannotbe classified as an armed attack against Russia.