use of force

Conflict is a natural phenomenon in human social life, yet the tools for managing it have not been uniform across historical periods. Prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, conflicts were resolved through subjugation and the exercise of force. However, the religious Thirty Years' War demonstrated that force no longer retained its former effectiveness. From that point onwards, the balance of power and diplomacy emerged in European relations. This article seeks to elucidate the components and processes that can be used to evaluate the role and position of diplomacy in resolving Europe's conflicts and crises. The findings indicate that, following the Renaissance, a set of factors, trends, and events accumulated over centuries, resulting in the prioritization of diplomacy over force. An interplay of national and structural trends influenced the shift of Europeans' conflict resolution tools from force to diplomacy. Europeans gradually learned the connection between survival and diplomacy. The structural imperatives and constraints that manifested in the emergence of the balance of power system, coupled with a shared historical memory, a common lived experience, a relatively shared identity and culture, a common enemy, and relatively shared values ​​and beliefs, as well as numerous other factors, such as the belief in solutions that yield maximum benefits at minimal cost, accumulated in Europe over centuries. They led to a heightened desire and determination among Europeans to prioritize peaceful approaches. This research, conducted using a descriptive-explanatory approach within a historical sociology framework, underscores the historical processes that led to the prominence of diplomacy in Europe.

This article contributes to the ongoing scholarly debate on the possible effect of jus cogens norms. For the purpose of the article, it is assumed that peremptory norms certainly exist in positive international law. According to the argument, even if we limit the effects of jus cogens norms to those described in the 1969 Vienna Convention, the jus cogens concept takes us farther than most commentators seem to realize. This is due partly to the power potential invested in the jus cogens concept, and partly to the intricate structure typical of legal norms. In fact, as argued in this article, if we take the existence of peremptory international law to its logical consequence, it will carry too far: most actors in the international arena will consider the effects unacceptable. Using as an example the jus cogens norm most often referred to in the literature –the principle of non-use of force– it is a purpose of the present article to establish this proposition as valid. A second purpose is to attract attention to what appears to be the really crucial question for further discussion How should the effects of jus cogens be limited? Whoever opened the Pandora’s Box that once contained the jus cogens concept obviously did not fully realize the consequences that this would have for international law in general. How can this situation be remedied?

In today's world, cyber war is a reality and cyber-attacks are increasing. The ability of cyber-attacks to shut down computer systems of nuclear facilities, power grids and air control systems has made these attacks a serious threat to national security. Some scientists believe that cyber-attacks can be a reason to start a war. However, looking at the traditional laws of war, only a small fraction of cyber-attacks can be considered armed attacks. While the international legal system must adapt to this new battlefield, there is currently no stable and effective international law to deter cyber-attacks. In this article, how to apply the existing rules of international law regarding the "use of force" in the framework of the right to use force, against cyber-attacks. The analyzes are carried out within the framework of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibiting the use of force, the seventh chapter of ensuring peace and security and the right to legitimate defense contained in Article 51.

The principle of the prohibition of resorting to force in international relations has been effective in determining the level of international judicial efficiency in resolving disputes and establishing the position of the law,because principle of non-recourse to force is one the absolute principles of the Charter and is completely rejected except in exceptional cases and is considered one of the mandatory rules.This article written in a library method with the aim of communicating and interacting the prohibition of resorting to force with other fundamental principles of international law.findings indicate that;Therefore,resorting to force,which includes the threat of force or the use of force without the official authorization of the Security Council,is considered a clear violation the UN Charter. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter,which allows resorting to coercive forces and unilateral coercive action in the exercise of the self-defense,either individually or collectively,against armed attack.Therefore, the principle of resorting to force in international relations in case violation of sovereignty or human rights by a member of the United Nations should be used with special sensitivity by the United Nations so that it is not considered a violation of sovereignty and the unilateral resort to the use of power by stronger countries.

In the present research, under the title "Benefits of using people's power in a military organization", by using the descriptive-analytical method and in an applied manner and by conducting theoretical and environmental studies, an effort has been made in line with the goals of the research and providing answers to the hypotheses. Research has been done. In general, the questionnaires of this research were distributed among experts and opinion-makers related to the subject in the form of a statistical population of 54 people, which were completed in full, and then their opinions were also collected. After collecting the questionnaires at each stage and checking the opinion of the statistical community, using statistical techniques and methods, data analysis has been done, and then summarization has been done to answer the research questions. The results showed that there is a significant relationship between the employment of people's forces with the dimensions of the development of appropriate training, equipment, readiness and support, the presence of charismatic leadership and command, organizational discipline and rule of law, optimal planning and organization, and spiritual preparation.

The war of the Iraqi Baath regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran was one of the longest, deadliest, and most expensive armed conflicts in the 20th century. In 1980, shortly after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, Iraq's Baathist regime invaded Iran. In the early days of the war, many parts of Iranian territory were occupied, and this war lasted for 8 years. In 1983, after liberating Khorramshahr, Iran was able to occupy parts of Iraq. Pursuing the aggressor and the continuation of the war after the repossession of Khorramshahr and the occupation of Faw by Iran has caused an ambiguity that has not yet been investigated in legal research, regardless of political and military dimensions. The current research seeks to answer the question of what was the reason for the continuation of the war of the Iraqi Baath regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran after the conquest of Khorramshahr and whether, from the legal point of view, Iran could enter the territory of the aggressor country and occupy parts of it by resorting to self-defense. A library study based on documentary sources with an evaluation-analytical method has been used to achieve this purpose. The research results show that according to the requirements of the theory of self-defense and the acquisition of conditions based on international custom and practice, Iran's action was lawful.

The protection of nationals abroad is a legal doctrine meaning military intervention by a state to protect the lives of its nationals in the territory of other state. Some Advocates of this doctrine seek to justify it as a valid form of self-defense by broadly interpreting Article 51 of the United Nations charter and also asserting it as a part of customary law. This means nationals of countries who are outside their territory are considered part of their territory and therefore, attacking them is considered an attack on the country of these people, and the right of self-defense is reserved for that country. Furthermore, some have attempted to classify this doctrine under the umbrella of Diplomatic Protection, asserting that the state has the right to offer military protection to its citizens during precarious circumstances. Taking this matter into account, this article will explore the nature and approach of international law towards the doctrine of protection of nationals. Generally, it seems that since the doctrine has not been explicitly addressed in any international document and in addition, several nations and organizations, in various circumstances, have responded unfavorably the use of it as means of self-defense and diplomatic protection, the protection of nationals is not accepted from the point of view of international law.

The rules relating to the prohibition on the use of force, including its exceptions, are at the core of the international legal order that emerged after the greatest human-made disaster of all times: World War II. In that legal order peace is perceived as the main value to be protected and the general prohibition on the use of force embodied in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The hopes for a new peaceful international order between 1945 and 1989 and also after the collapse of communism were soon disappointed. The resort to force in international relations is even more prevalent today than previous decades. Since the United States has become the only superpower with its overwhelming military supremacy and has been one of the States that has resorted to force the most, this begs the following question: how has the post- cold war US approach to the use of force challenged international law in this important sphere? To provide an answer to this research question, by using a Structural Realism framework and a qualitative-analytical method, the US legal arguments and practice relating to the rules governing the use of force, and the reactions of other countries to them are analyzed in order to show that the post- cold war US challenge on international law will lead to the governing the use of force in international relations and the supremacy of power over law.

Hospitals are very complex, bureaucratic and multi-specialized social organizations that are allocated a large part of the health system's budget. Patients expect accessible, safe, high-quality, effective and reliable services from hospitals. Therefore, hospital managers should try to provide effective, high-quality and safe services efficiently. The purpose of this research is to investigate the impact of accreditation on the quality assurance of management programs of Navy hospitals.

The current research is a descriptive survey in terms of practical purpose and in terms of data collection method. The statistical population is all the hospital administrators of the army navy, 110 of them were selected through targeted sampling. Data collection was done using a researcher-made questionnaire.

According to the findings of the research, it can be acknowledged that accreditation can guarantee the quality of hospital management programs. But due to the low coefficient of some accreditation components, it still needs to be improved. Therefore, managers can help to improve and guarantee the quality of hospital programs with proper planning for the implementation of accreditation and evaluation.

The UN Security Council is the only authority to prescribe the right to legal use of force on the basis of legal principles and rules.  The 1937 Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of Terrorism (Geneva Convention) is the first international convention on terrorism. The process and mechanisms needed to define and delineate counterterrorism in international law are very slow. The US government has often used the Security Council mechanism, and otherwise, by force or concluding incomplete treaties with some countries, to justify its illegal actions internationally. The assassination is considered to be the most effective senior military official in command of the Takfiri Counter-Terrorism Front in the US-led region, under the direct command of the US President. The following article examines the assassination of General Suleimani for violating the principles of international and domestic law. This article states that citing a defense by the United States lacks the necessary elements to assign action to Iran. The claim of preventive defense is also not approved by international judicial custom. The perspective of international lawyers not only confirms the matter, but also denies it and opposes it. The US military attack on January 3, was contrary to the Iraqi -US security agreement and the Roman statute, and is a case of violations and violations.

Muslim thinkers have long emphasized the strong relationship between religion and politics in Islamic political thought, and some even believe that the inherent link between the religion of Islam as a comprehensive program for regulating human life and politics as a necessary tool to achieve this There is a plan, but it must be acknowledged that sharing the views of Muslim thinkers on the existence of politics and religion in Islam does not necessarily mean that they agree on all the relevant details. In fact, it can be said that the multiplicity of interpretations and interpretations began from the time of the demise of the Prophet of Islam and continues to this day, some offer pro-democracy views and some offer anti-Islamic views. One of these scholars is Khajeh Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, who has practiced politics with a practical view during the time of the Mongols and turned their savagery into the peace of society. In the book of Nasiri ethics, he presents a political security model in the police force and updates it with the second step of the Islamic Revolution of Iran and the key word of justice by the Supreme Leader in the country.

The relationship and interaction between Islamic Republic of Iran and Financial Action Task Force has had its ups and downs over more than a decade. Although it seems that the relationship between Iran and FATF is in its most complicated phase today, there are still hopes that some mutually-beneficial solutions can be reached for settlement of the disagreements based on international law. The present paper has tried to use different sources in order to demonstrate that on the one hand, there has been overstatements and exaggeration about risks involved in Iran’s compliance with FATF recommendations and Action Plan– such as risks in FIU information leakage, uncertainty about the next steps in the group’s  Action Plans or pessimism about FATF decision making method (consensus);  and on the other hand, solutions are available for more complicated  issues - such as Iran’s entering into Palermo and  CFT conventions -  based on international law and Islamic jurisprudence.

The Charter of the United Nations recognizes two types of collective security systems (CSS); the security system under Article (51) regarding the States' right to collective self-defense and also the Use of Force authorized by the Security Council. The UN's CSS, besides small alterations, has its roots in a similar system which was defined in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The continuity of occurrence of international armed conflicts today has challenged this system and its efficiency. This article aims to understand this mechanism of use of force and to review the criticism raised on this mechanism. The main question is: "How the performance of this system is assessed and what are the main criticisms of it?". This article has a qualitative research nature and is of a descriptive-analytical methodology. It is written in three main sections, it deals with the conceptual understanding of the collective security system, examines the evolution of this system and a comprehensive analysis of the criticisms of this mechanism. Finally, it has been concluded that, despite some shortcomings, the mechanism for resorting to Security Council force has been shown to be effective in some cases and could benefit from the participation of other international law enforcement officials.

This study is intended to investigate the establishment of the use of force until the emergence of the United Nations through a historical approach, and to addresses its defects and challenges. Studying the historical procedure of the use of force from the Middle Ages, as well as the study of the theory of just war up to the advent of the United Nations, demonstrate an evolutionary approach from the unlimited power of states to use force by the nations against one another and their limitations and prohibitions. The main challenge of international law governing the use of force in this era includes the extreme intentional decisions by the states and the dominance of politics and force over international law and peace in the arena of international relationship. During this time, however, the international community witnessed a transition from the principle of the use of force to resolve disputes by the principle of the prohibition of the use of force as a fundamental rule in the relationship among states. The writers believe that, this evolutionary process should be considered as the signs of gradual institutionalization of international law on the use of force in the relationship among states. Accordingly, a relative effectiveness of this branch of law in reducing the use of force in this field. As the imposed war of the Ba'athist regime of Iraq against Iran is an illegitimate use of force against the territorial integrity and invasion of our country, it seems that the historical study of the rules governing the use of force can be quite convenient for a more accurate and complete understanding of the legal norms governing the various perspectives of this important event in the contemporary history of Iran, that is, the eight-year long Holy Defense, protecting our honor, soil and country.

Jurists consider the most important achievement of the United Nations Charter to be "prohibition of resorting to force" based on Article (4) 2 of the Charter. The only exception provided in the Charter is the use of force under Article 51 in the framework of "legitimate defense". At the same time, some believe that customary international law also recognizes the right to self-defense against an imminent attack. After the September 11 incident and the spread of the cross-border threat of terrorism, some countries try to assign the title of terrorist to their opposition groups and resort to force against these groups even in the territory of other countries. A group of jurists presented the theory of "preventive legitimate defense" in the form of an expanded interpretation of Article 51 of the Charter to deal with non-urgent terrorist threats. The question is, can this theory be defended according to the procedure and principles and methods of legal interpretation? The answer is that interpretative theories do not support this legal approach, and no unified practice has been developed to support this theory by governments or international institutions; But this assessment does not mean ignoring the necessity of providing a legal solution to fight terrorism. The possibility of legitimate defense against terrorist acts in the territory of a state that has effective support is certain, and it can be defended in the territory of a state that has general support. Also, according to the procedure of the Security Council and some governments, l

After the 11th of September of 2001, the United States, intending to reach a hgemonic position by institutionalizing new exceptions such as the fight against terrorism, humanitarian intervention, and liability for protection, has established its own international law. In fact, the United States used the capacity to regulate and regulate international law in order to secure its interests and impose its will. This study search the question: how has the United States, played a role in developing the norms of international law. The hypothesis of this article focuses on the international rights of the fight against terrorism and through historical-comparative methods and through citation-legal arguments, as well as the use of library resources. The new law, through Security Council resolutions, follows Chapter VII of the UN Charter after the events of 9/11. In this process, the impact of the unilateralism of the United States on the evolution of the norms of international law is also assessed, focusing on the fight against terrorism.

Prior to the deployment of Nedaja on the Makran coast, it had roles assigned to the coastal navy. But after deploying on the Makran coast, a new environment (in both domestic and foreign arena) was introduced to the I.R. of Iran navy forces. Therefore, opportunities, threats, strengths and weaknesses changed into a new environment, and the roles that NEDAJA played before did not meet the needs of the new environment. Thus, the researchers sought to develop a proper model for the development of the strategic roles of the I.R. of Iran Navy by conducting research. In this research, using a case study method, data collection was done using library and field methods, and initially outputs of resource study, interview and observation outputs led to determination of basic conceptual model of developing roles of Navy Forces. In the next step, the selected dimensions, components and indices for developing Navy roles were distributed among a sample of experts selected from the sample population. After normalizing the questionnaire, the standard questionnaire was distributed to a sample population of 80 individuals. Using qualitative and quantitative analysis tools and descriptive and inferential statistics and SPSS, KMO and Bartlett software, the collected data were analyzed. Four elements for developing roles of navy force on Macron coasts and its adjacent seas were selected under titles of military roles, police roles, diplomatic (political) roles and humanitarian roles. Also, for each component, indicators have been identified that the set of components and indices has provided the model for the development of Navy force roles.

Researches on resistance and movement studies are the most important, though neglected, research fields closely interwoven with three categories of survival, security and development. Resistance is the borderline between righteousness and evilness, which confronts equally the two problems of humanity, “Islamophobia”, in the form of atheism, and “extremism” under the guise of Takfir. Hence, the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the basis of the rules of its constitution and the high ideals of the Islamic Revolution, has certified protecting the liberation movements and their supportive governments as its fundamental goals. Accordingly, fighting against the usurper Zionist regime and its allied states in the region seems to be the natural and logical outcome of Iran’s strategic policy. Emphasizing on the necessity of pursuing and maintaining the support of the axis of resistance and confronting the dominating system, especially in the security environment round the Islamic Republic of Iran, according to the strategic logic of regional presence and its implications, this research argues that the IRGC, as the protector of the achievement of the Islamic Revolution, plays a decisive role in preserving the national security of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The attendance of the faithful and Jihadist forces of the Quds Force and the defenders of the shrine (Modafean Haram), has promoted Iran's regional status from a regional power to a regional dominant actor. This research mainly hypothesize that the security-oriented foreign policy is a natural outcome of foreign interventions and internationalization of security in Southwest Asia. In such a situation, the country's security and defense forces are the main drivers and providers of national security in line with maintaining territorial integrity and national development and prosperity because any type of progress fosters through security. Certainly, the country's diplomatic entity can never influence significant diplomatic and negotiating power in dealing with the western and eastern parties without the attendance and influence of the IRGC regional forces. More precisely, war and use of force cannot be necessarily prevented by diplomacy and negotiation; rather, they entail the attendance of regional corps and, of course, the strengthening of defense and missile deterrence along with “the presence of people”. This is impossible without proposing “forward defense” policy, and upholding the “axis of resistance” aiming at progressing “strategic depth” of the Islamic Revolution. The theoretical framework of this research includes “liberating theology”, “post-colonial theory”, “ontological security”, “balance of threat”, and “resistance theory”. This is a descriptive-analytical research based on documentary, library, internet and analytical study, as well as the researcher’s own analysis of the critical region of the Southwest Asia.

In the information age, cyber-attacks represent a novel type regarding use of force and they can lead to create massive damages to the critical infrastructure of a government, property and loss of human lives and thus by violation of article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter, they take into consideration as illegal use of force. But the issue is that today the legitimacy of cyber-attacks is evaluated from the non-use of force approach set forth in article 2, paragraph 4 of the charter, and in order to have an illegal intervention, cyber warfare researchers claim that cyber-attacks must lead to physical damages, but the problem is that many cyber-attacks do not result in physical damages and thus do not fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down in article 2, paragraph 4, of the charter, and according to this approach, victim states are  not able to defend themselves. But this article seeks to show that cyber-attacks, which force governments to take actions that are able to decide freely on them under the principle of sovereignty, violates the principle of non-interference in internal affairs of states and for the victim state, the right to take countermeasures is created.