international responsibility

In recent years, we witnessed the use of laser weapons in naval conflicts in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman. Conflicts that are not armed and under the laws of hostilities and the rights of war are not considered, and the use of laser weapons in them violates the principles of proportionality and necessity in international humanitarian law. Based on the Fourth Protocol of 1995 of the 1980 on Conventional Weapons and Article 86 of International Customary Humanitarian Law, the use of blinding and permanently blinding laser weapons is prohibited. Based on Article 36 of the 1st Additional Protocol of 1977, the governments in the production and use of new weapons should ensure that they are not prohibited from the point of view of international rules.the use of laser weapons in the aforementioned maritime conflicts is a violation of international obligations and has a criminal nature, and according to Article 2 of the 2001 international responsibility plan of governments, it causes the international responsibility of the governments that use it. The main goal of this research is to analyze the international responsibility of governments in using laser weapons in maritime conflicts in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. Therefore, by using an applied research with a descriptive-analytical method to collect the data obtained through library studies and field investigation, we have sought to realize this goal. The result of the research showed that laser weapons are a violation of international obligations in the field of intimidation, unnecessary pain and suffering, use by terrorist groups, intelligent murder,violation of the right to life and the right to reproduction. humanitarian rights, human rights and mandatory rules and universal obligations are international and are considered an international violation and cause the international responsibility of governments.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been dragged into political and legal fields in parallel with the battlefield, and the international community, including Iran, has been subsequently drawn into the situation. The controversial debates concerning Iran’s role in supplying Russia with armed drones prior to and during Russia’s Military Operations in Ukraine raise the question of Iran's international responsibility in the ongoing war. The provision of armed drones to Russia does not, in itself, constitute a violation of international law unless Iran knowingly and intentionally engaged in an internationally wrongful act. Evidence is not conclusive so far whether Iran's transfer of armed drones to Russia is a breach of international law. Besides, the use of the drones yielded military advantages to both sides: Russia could narrow down the impact of its attacks, respecting the principle of distinction, while Ukraine could target Iranian drones more easily than Russia’s missiles, which is compatible with Iran’s positive obligations under International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

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.”