فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق بشر اسلامی
پیاپی 30 (پاییز 1402)

The development of humanitarian rights is an undeniable necessity. The need to formulate this important need of human society during conflicts is an inevitable outcome of war. As Article 48, Paragraph 2 of Articles 51 and 52 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions refers to the fact that attacks should only be carried out against military personnel. The following article, by examining library sources in a comparative-analytical way, aims to develop humanitarian actions from the perspective of the Islamic legal system. The issue is, which trades have support in Islamic and international law? In the Islamic legal system, with what characteristics are people protected and what acts cause people to leave immunity? Searches show that since the beginning, Islam has given special rights to people who are not involved in battles. The present study, by examining the persons who were supported in the narrative sources, reached the conclusion that Islam has supported all those who lack the "description of active action" in war. Immunity is waived only by "direct and indirect participation in the conflict" and "requirement of the principle of military necessity".

Citizenship is a legal relationship between citizens and the government, based on membership in a political system through citizenship. Citizenship rights are a set of rights and privileges that are granted to citizens in the legal system of a country. These rights have been established equally for all citizens and guarantee the protection of their rights against the encroachments of the government and other powerful social groups and classes. According to the Convention on the Status of Refugees, a refugee is a citizen who stays outside the country he was previously in to escape or fear racial, religious, ethnic and national persecution, or to be a member of a particular social group or have political opinions. And he is deprived of the support of his home state, and on the other hand, since he does not have the citizenship of the refugee-receiving country, he is deprived of the rights of citizenship in that country. Of course, the refugee's deprivation of citizenship rights in developed countries is different from developing countries. This research with descriptive-analytical method seeks to answer the question that in a situation where refugees have the same citizenship rights as others in the host countries, do refugees have the desire to return to their countries of origin? The findings of the research indicate that in a country where refugees can enjoy the rights of citizens to enjoy a decent life, regardless of whether the conditions that caused their displacement have disappeared or not, they tend to stay.

In Iran's legal system, citizenship is an inalienable right of every Iranian in Article 41 of the Constitution, provided by the legislator. In international human rights documents, including the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to citizenship for an individual and the possibility of changing this right by its owner have been emphasized. Iran's citizenship rules and human rights documents provide guarantees to prevent statelessness and deprivation of citizenship by the government. In these two systems, dual citizenship is not recognized. Nevertheless, Iran's citizenship rules need serious reforms to avoid statelessness and reduce cases of double citizenship. In the international scene, considering the problems that statelessness and dual citizenship bring in the domestic and international system, and paying attention to the lack of international organizations and very effective international documents, in order to prevent, eliminate and reduce these two phenomena, countries should amend laws and regulations. their internal affairs and the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral (international) agreements seriously to resolve these two big problems and make a serious and double effort.

One of the topics that has received the special attention of human rights institutions in recent decades is the issue of the rights of prisoners of war. International legal assemblies have taken an important step towards the protection of prisoners of war through the establishment and approval of the Third Geneva Convention in 1949. At the same time, the issue of the rights of prisoners of war has been given special attention in Islamic jurisprudence, including in Shia texts, both in general and specifically. The current research deals with the question of what is the concept of war and prisoners of war in international law and Imami jurisprudence, and what are the similarities and differences between these two schools of thought regarding the rights of prisoners of war? The study carried out in this article showed that although international documents and Imami jurisprudence have many similarities with each other regarding the concept of war and prisoners of war, However, there are differences between these two schools regarding the laws governing prisoners of war, and among these differences, the criteria for determining the end of captivity and the possibility of enslaving prisoners of war can be mentioned.

In identifying the functions of analogy in international law, the role of analogy is often neglected in the process of law-making, codification and progressive development of international law. It is due to the historical origin of analogy in the process of decision-making in international tribunals. However, this practical aspect of analogy is one of the potentially important aspects in which analogy has been played an important role in the work of the International Law Commission, both as a general method of legal reasoning and as a gap filler. This paper provides an analytical framework to develop a comprehensive understanding of legal analogy in humanity scopes of international law.The author is of the opinion that, in spite of significant limitations on the application of analogy in these areas and by considering the dynamics of international tribunal decisions and the absence of human rights law and IHL rules indicate that states, the international community, and other international institutions have a real need for analogy as one of the most important forms of legal reasoning. The emergence of analogy from the necessitatis in these fields shows that analogies have an accomplishment for achieving not only a coherent and up-to-date legal system but also for making the international legal system more efficient. The use of legal analogies by maintaining and observing the lege lata of international law can make the legal rules compatible with the current needs of the international community.