نشریه مطالعات حقوق عمومی
سال پنجاه و سوم شماره 4 (زمستان 1402)

Among supporters of natural rights, it is believed that government is necessary and natural, but limiting the sovereignty and power of this government is also essential. The Government has been natural and necessary in natural rights advocate” s idea, following this grand approach, it is essential to the restriction of the sovereignty and power of this government. In public law studies, authority differs from crude or pure power, and the institution of authority is fundamentally linked to legitimacy .The basis of such legitimacy is the early guidance of natural rights that transforms pure force into authority under conditions of legitimacy. The nature of authority has a nature of power that is attached to legitimacy and is called legitimate power. A great example of this authority within the realm of state is sovereignty, which is a tool in the hands of the government. A sovereignty that is bound, not as an absolute entity, but as a relative entity, despite its inherent and permanent characteristics, by natural rules as an absolute entity. The output of this article paper confirms the relativism of sovereignty and absoluteness to natural rules, thereby limiting sovereignty to absolute natural laws.

From the past to the present, use of common water resources has caused conflicts between states, therefore international law has tried to prevent such conflicts. However, with scarcity of available water resources, international water conflicts have increased in recent decades; this can be considered as proof of inability of approaches adopted by states, which are based on quantitative division of water, in facing and solving such conflicts. The current research, using a descriptive-analytical method, indicates that transition from focusing on volumetric allocation of water between states sharing river to establishment of cooperation arrangements between them in order to use river in the most optimal way available and the fair sharing of benefits from this cooperation can be considered a more favourable option for using these valuable water resources. In fact, application of benefit sharing arrangements in the use of transboundary rivers, which is also supported by the fundamental principles of international water law, through transformation of win-loss result due to water sharing into a win-win result due to cooperation in the optimal use of common water resources, increases interests of states and not only prevents water conflicts, but is able to develop and strengthen international cooperation.

The displacement crisis is one of the serious problems the international community has faced in recent years. However, at the international level, there is no binding legal document about them that specifically addresses the status, recognition of the rights of individuals and the obligations of the international community, or the international body specifically responsible for this matter. In addition, this group is not included in the umbrella of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and the possibility of changing or extending its scope to this group does not seem justified. Therefore, the present study seeks to find a framework to support this group, while examining the existing mechanisms. It is concluded that based on the actions of international institutions (in the form of cooperation and partnership between various institutions, Leadership of specific organizations), as well as on the basis of international obligations of states (including commitment to protection arising from the doctrine of R2P; to accept under customary international law; to human security; to the principles of the United Nations Displacement Guidelines) in international law and the international system and Given the general support, provide a framework for the protection of displaced persons and fill the existing gaps to an acceptable extent.

With the arrival of new technologies related to intelligent systems into the field of military weapons, contradictory theories were raised among jurists about their use in various battlefields. Given the benefits of using these weapons, some jurists believe in the legitimacy of the use of these weapons, and some acknowledge the ban, due to their inability to understand the operational environment and their taken actions which is contrary to international humanitarian law. Therefore, the main question is to determine the challenges and legal considerations governing the legitimacy or prohibition of the use of intelligent weapons systems on the battlefield. The research method is descriptive-analytical, data collection done by library method and the statistical population are books, instruments and international conventions related to this subject. The research shows, despite the lack of rules enshrined in international law regarding the prohibition on the use of intelligent weapons systems, the legitimacy of the use of these systems is based on the rules of IHL depending on the type of mission, operational function, the level of intelligence and operational environment. The use of the system depends on its application and varies in the range from absolute legitimacy to absolute prohibition.

The concept of public interest is one of the most important axes of public law. The definition of public interest in the field of constitutional law as well as administrative law is especially reflected. By definition, two general approaches can be distinguished in contemporary legal systems: the liberal system, and the republican system. In the Iranian law system, considering the theories of the government after the revolution of February 1979, it seems that the general tendency in defining the public interest is more towards the republican system, but considering the historical structure of Shiite jurisprudence on the field and concepts Private law, existing jurisprudence has lacked the necessary details to theorize the theory of government. Even with the emergence of the theory of Imam Khomeini's "absolute sovereignty of faqih", it can be seen that on the one hand the theory has no reflection in other levels of government, including administrative law, after three decades and still remains within the justification of the first person authority and on the other hand the issue of control of the state and the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms have not been theorized or institutionalized, and so instead of a full-fledged theory of public law.