Search results

The Iranian nuclear program was launched before the Islamic Revolution in the 1950s with the help of the United States, under the agreement known as the Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Atoms. In 1958, immediately after the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran gained its membership and signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) on its adoption date, July 1, 1968. Two years after, the NPT was approved by the Iranian Parliament and since then, Iran remains a party to this treaty. In Article IV, the NPT endorses the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.

AbstractThe law of belligerent occupation permits the Occupying Power to administer and use the natural resources in the occupied territory under the rules of usufruct. This provision has no counterpart in the provisions of humanitarian law applicable to non-international armed conflicts, which may suggest that any exploitation of natural resources by non-State armed groups is illegal. The International Committee of the Red Cross's updated 2020 Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Armed Conflict did not touch on this issue, and nor did the International Law Commission in its 2022 Draft Principles on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, where it applied the notion of sustainable use of natural resources instead of usufruct. The present paper aims to fill this gap. It first reviews the development of the concept of usufruct and then studies whether the current international law entitles non-State armed groups with de facto control over a territory to exploit natural resources. By delving into the proposals raised by some commentators to justify such exploitation for the purpose of administering the daily life of civilian populations, the paper advocates for a limited version of this formula as the appropriate lex ferenda. In the final section, the paper discusses how situations of disaster, as circumstances which may preclude the wrongfulness of the act, may justify the exploitation of natural resources by non-State armed groups in the current international legal order.

AbstractThis paper explores how the general obligation of the Detaining Power to exercise the greatest leniency towards prisoners of war may be used in interpreting the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 (GC III) related to the sanction regime to fulfil the obligation of humane treatment and to preserve the persons and honour of prisoners of war. The International Committee of the Red Cross updated Commentary on GC III is placed at the core of the arguments of this research.

Abstract
From an international law point of view, the covid-19 pandemic could be described as a 'disaster' which has led to various calls especially from the UN system for harmonized international cooperation and global solidarity. This article focuses on the meaning of 'solidarity' in the context of international human rights, and elaborates on the implications of solidarity on the international law of humanitarian assistance in the current situation of the coronavirus outbreak.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (Da'esh) has put in place a governance system encompassing judicial structures to justify its grotesque violence. This paper seeks to evaluate the legitimacy of these courts under two complementary perspectives. Whereas establishing courts by an insurgent group during armed conflict should meet the requirements of international humanitarian law (ihl), because Da'esh claims to ground its laws on Islam, these courts should also follow the requirements of Islam as its constituting law. The paper starts with analysing whether international law entitles armed groups to establish their courts. It argues that although such courts are not prohibited at first glance under international law, they should meet the requirements of being regularly constituted while respecting minimum judicial guarantees. Since Da'esh has sought to found its legitimacy on Islam, the paper argues that Da'esh's interpretation of Islam is not compatible with any major schools of Islamic thought.