international law

This article examines the legality of Israel’s claim to a right of preemptive self-defense against Iran within the framework of international law. It argues that such a claim lacks any valid legal foundation and stands in stark contrast to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations as well as established international jurisprudence. According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, the use of force in self-defense is only permissible in response to an actual and verifiable armed attack. Any military action based solely on the anticipation or assumption of an imminent threat does not meet the legal threshold and is not recognized by the international legal order. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in landmark cases such as Nicaragua (1986), the Advisory Opinion on the Wall (2004), and Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (2005), has consistently adopted a narrow interpretation of self-defense, explicitly rejecting the doctrine of preemptive force. Israel’s assertion of facing a permanent threat from Iran, absent concrete evidence of an imminent armed attack, cannot serve as a lawful justification for the use of force. Such actions not only contravene the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of state sovereignty but may also constitute a breach of peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) and amount to an act of aggression. Furthermore, acceptance of such a precedent poses serious challenges to the maintenance of international peace and security and risks undermining the credibility of the global legal order. Drawing on authoritative sources, international instruments, and comparative legal analysis, the article concludes that Israel’s invocation of preemptive self-defense is legally unfounded and incompatible with contemporary international law.

In the current globalized scenario, in view of the existence of phenomena and dynamics that go beyond state territories, of the integration of States in supranational and globally considered political systems, it is possible to perceive the emergence of new forms of political-legal organization in the international community that raise constitutionals conceptions beyond the classical perspective of the State-centered Constitution Theory. Thus, in view of the manifestation of a quantitative and qualitative growth of international law based on the identification of constitutional elements, an issue that has been gaining importance in debates and in the internationalist agenda, the problem to be developed asks: how is the development of Global Constitutionalism composed? considering the common challenges of the globalized world that transcend state borders, the confusion between external and internal limits, as well as the transformations of law in the international order, it is necessary to analyze the present content due to the need to point out directions by where you can tread the reflection in relation to the development of Global Constitutionalism. In this sense, the present study intends to find theoretical trends that compose the identification of the development process of the Global Constitutionalism paradigm. To answer the exposed problem, some objectives need to be achieved. Initially, an overview of the perspective of classical constitutional theory will be carried out. Then, we move on to the observation of the manifestation of Constitutionalism beyond the State. Finally, trends and aspects of the development of Global Constitutionalism will be examined.

International refugee law has its origins in the aftermath of World War II as well as the refugee crises of the interwar years that preceded it. In the context of the Syrian conflict, more than 3.6 million Syrian asylum seekers are under temporary protection in Türkiye. As this country is the number one host country for Syrian asylum seekers in the world. One of the current discussions about the fate of Syrian asylum seekers in Türkiye is their status after the end of temporary protection. In this context, the regulations on the end of temporary protection in Turkish legislation will be discussed in light of global standards on international protection. The aim of this study is to discuss Article 11 of the Turkish Temporary Protection Regulation in comparison with the UNHCR Guidelines on Temporary Protection or Residence Arrangements and International Humanitarian Law. In this context, the conditions for the termination of temporary protection, the legal and policy basis for a decision to return asylum seekers, the conditions for acquiring Turkish citizenship, and the compliance of Turkish legislation with global standards are discussed. This study will stand for a decision to terminate based on the voluntariness of asylum seekers in accordance with UNHCR guidelines.

In the classical system of international law, states have largely used religion as an instrument in their reciprocal relations. This “instrumental” interpretation of religion was often a reason of conflict rather the ground of religious freedom. Since its origins, yet, the international legal system has changed and it is reasonable to ask what role religion plays at present day in international relations.  The present article aims at suggesting that religion – or more exactly “religiosity” – can be an element of diplomacy. Taking the transformation from International to “global law” into account, this article promotes a constructive, not-more instrumental, role of religion, useful to prevent the States from the use of force. In so doing, it offers some insights into the differences between “religion” and “religiosity” in the contemporary human rights’ discourse; analyzes the recent involvement of religious leaders in global law; presents the emergence of a new methodology, called “Religious Diplomacy”. This methodology is supported by the increased number of international provisions encouraging a major engagement of religious actors into diplomacy. As a result, international community could enhance human religiosity as a factor of diplomacy. International organizations such as United Nations, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and European Union should use their convening power to initiate new, multi-layered frameworks of engagement, inclusive of the representatives of global religions. This could make multilateralism more fit for purpose and have a major impact over time on the global peaceful relations among states and international actors.

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 principle of res judicata serves as a fundamental pillar of adjudication within legal frameworks, prohibiting a judicial body from re-adjudicating a dispute that has already been resolved and for which a judicial decision has been rendered. This paper explores the jurisprudence of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, critically analyzing the Tribunal’s reasoning and approach to res judicata. A descriptive-analytical analysis, alongside a meticulous examination of the Tribunal’s rulings, reveal inconsistencies in its application of res judicata. At times, the Tribunal has raised the threshold for its application compared to similar courts and Tribunals, whereas at other instances, it has broadened its scope. Over time, the Tribunal has not remained consistent with its prior findings regarding res judicata, occasionally excluding certain disputes from its ambit based on insufficiently robust arguments. Furthermore, when applying this principle, the Tribunal has expanded its scope and asserted authority over all aspects of the ruling articulated in the operative part of the judgment. Consequently, a notable inconsistency exists within the Tribunal’s rulings regarding the application of pertaining to the principle of res judicata.

This paper critically examines the international legal and political precedents surroundingthe principle of self-determination, beginning with the dissolution of Yugoslavia, particularlythe Kosovo War, and juxtaposes it with the global responses to analogous separatist claimsin Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, as well as the ongoing situations inPalestine and Somaliland. Through a comparative analysis of these cases, the paper exposesthe international community’s selective recognition of independence movements, wheresimilar claims are met with divergent responses based not on consistent legal standards buton geopolitical interests and strategic alignments. The study argues that the recognition ofKosovo as an independent state, despite bypassing the UN Security Council, has created aprecedent that is now invoked selectively to either support or delegitimize other secessionistclaims. This inconsistency reveals an underlying double standard in the application ofinternational law, wherein the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination areinstrumentalized to serve the hegemonic objectives of powerful states, thereby eroding thenormative coherence and credibility of the United Nations Charter and the internationallegal order it was designed to uphold.

For thousands of years after the settlement of the Israelites in Canaan, the region hosted asmall Jewish population by the twentieth century. Claims of persecution, displacement, andhistorical ties to the land gave rise to the formation of a movement termed “World Zionism,”aimed at establishing a Jewish State in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration, issued by Britainin 1917, emphasized the necessity of creating a “Jewish National Home,” and the Leagueof Nations Mandate Agreement was subsequently concluded on this basis in 1922. Britain’scontradictory promises to Jews and Arabs led it to refer the Palestine question to the UnitedNations. Negotiations in the UN General Assembly resulted in the adoption of Resolution 181,known as the Partition Resolution, and the establishment of two States, Jewish and Arab, in1948. However, the creation of these two States appeared to violate the rights of the Palestinianinhabitants. Thus, in addressing the question of the legal consequences arising from theestablishment of Israel on land belonging to the Palestinian inhabitants, this study scrutinizes thehypothesis that the formation of Israel involved violations of certain rules of international law,rendering the United Nations and complicit states internationally responsible for this wrongfulact. To substantiate this hypothesis, a descriptive-analytical methodology was recruited. Thelegal framework applicable to Palestine included the Mandate system, the Mandate Agreement,and norms of international law, such as the UN Charter and human rights law. An interpretationof Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and Article 76 of the UN Charter indicatesthat sovereignty over mandated/trust territories must be vested in the “indigenous inhabitants”of those territories. Such sovereignty must be exercised over theentire territory. Moreover, thecreation of religious or racial states in the region constitutes a breach of the obligation of non-discrimination. Consequently, the establishment of Israel entails the international responsibilityof the UN and complicit states in the UN General Assembly. The legal consequences of thisresponsibility would includerestitution in integrum, reparations, non-recognition, and non-cooperation to ensure the return of “the entirety of Palestine’s sovereignty to its Palestinianinhabitants.”

This study examines the legal foundations, legitimacy, and effectiveness of Western sanctionsimposed on Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine. It assesses these measures underinternational law, evaluating their compliance with principles governing economic coercion,state sovereignty, and lawful enforcement. Through doctrinal analysis, the study explores thesanctions’ influence on Russia’s foreign policy and military strategy. Findings suggest thatwhile early sanctions induced considerable economic strain, Russia has adapted by diversifyingits economy and deepening trade relations with non-sanctioning states. Though often framedas lawful countermeasures under international law, the actual effectiveness of these sanctionsin constraining Russia’s military ambitions remains contested. The study identifies key legaland policy considerations affecting the impact of sanctions, including proportionality, globaleconomic interdependence, and the mitigating role of major powers such as China. Ultimately,this inquiry calls into question the long-term viability of both unilateral and multilateral sanctionsas reliable instruments of coercive diplomacy within the framework of international law.

Francesca P. Albanese and Lex Takkenberg’s Palestinian Refugees in International Law,the substantially expanded second edition of which was published in 2020 by OxfordUniversity Press, is an exhaustive and meticulous work that can be considered the seminallegal text on the status of Palestinian refugees. This volume, which is fundamentallya new work built upon the foundation of the 1998 first edition, adopts a holistic andmultidisciplinary approach to examine the historical, legal, and political dimensions ofone of the world’s most protracted refugee crises. The authors, both possessing extensiveexperience with the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the NearEast (UNRWA), present a profound analysis of the distinctive legal regime governingthis refugee population, arguing that any just and durable solution to their predicamentmust be firmly rooted in the principles of international law.