فصلنامه مطالعات حقوقی
سال شانزدهم شماره 1 (بهار 1403)

From the perspective of international law, the conflict between resistance groups and the occupying power is subject to the rules of international humanitarian law governing international armed conflicts. The current exploratory-analytical research has attempted to explain the basis and sources of this right by relying on the idea of “Natural Rights” and in the light of international law, exploring its effects. Based on this, in the light of natural rights and specifically the right to self-determination as one of the peremptory norms of international law.
The concept of "occupation," despite its seemingly simple appearance which denotes the presence and domination of foreign forces in a country, is a complex concept that has been defined in different meanings such as acquiring homeland or domination and imposing military authority on land belonging to another. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a conflict does not affect the application of humanitarian law; however, the legal order cannot ignore the inherent qualities of human beings such as belonging to their land and property and consequently respecting the defense of the land.
Within this framework, the question arises: do the people of the land that have been attacked and aggravated without being members of the armed forces of their country have the right to armed resistance against the aggressor and occupation, and under what conditions is it applicable and what consequences does it have? Therefore, the present descriptive-analytical study tries to answer these questions by relying on legal principles and then on the sources of international law. Additionally, the focus of this research is on the exercise of this right concerning the occupied Palestinian territories.
In the present study, the authors first studied the basis and foundation of “the right to resistance" and in light of the doctrines of natural rights have considered natural rights as the basis for resistance. For this purpose, after a brief introduction of natural rights and their position in the philosophy of law, the right to resistance to natural rights with a historical approach has been measured and evaluated. Accordingly, this paper claims that the restoration of the right to resistance as a natural right in the traditional natural rights and thought of the ancient and middle ages is difficult because to accept the right to resistance in the system requires acceptance of preconditions such as "individualism" and "artificial state or man-made State"; now that both of them have a strong position in the ancient world. In other words, the citizen will have the right to resist the government, which has been involved in the creation it through a social contract. Moreover, the prevailing thought in the ancient and middle ages is not accepted by this doctrine and the enquiry into philosophical thought of that section shows that the state, like some of the previous and innate phenomena such as the family, is considered as a natural institution that existed before the individual and essentially no right to "create" and "durability" of the State. In addition, he has an underlying "individualist" right to resistance, according to which a human being, as a human being and as a moral agent of the creator of the state, can resist the trust entrusted to the state through supervision, reform and even rebellion, and in this way, the right to resist, and he will claim his right to self-determination.
Writers in the light of the thought of philosophers such as Locke and Kant and relying on doctrines and natural law such as the nature of man and desire for independence, self-authority, "trust relationship" between the people and the ruler, and especially the right to self-determination, deserve the right to resistance. According to the above-mentioned thoughts, the right of revolt against the government of the civil uprising can be proved for the citizen, therefore it can be said that inherent right of State to self-defense do note preclude the right by the people of the occupied land, against the occupying government.
In a simple manner, as in the school of natural rights in the form of individual and as a nation in a collective way, they have the natural right to self-determination and against the occupying government as a violation of this right, they have the right to resist. The first protocol of 1977, has been recognized as an international armed conflict the conflict between resistance groups and occupying power and numerous documents of the United Nations General Assembly and other international entities have endorsed this right. Therefore, it can be said that arming civilians is sometimes the last remedy to preserve the territorial integrity of a country. However, the theory of self-defense does not cover the resistance or resistance groups organizations fight against occupation. The right to resistance can only be inferred from the concepts of human rights and the natural right to self-determination; although the channel and the conditions of applying this right are subject to humanitarian law.
With these words, the occupying power does not have the right to resort to self-defense except in its territory - not the occupied territories - and the right to resist is a tool and approach to end the occupation, which is at first a violation of international law itself. And secondly, the rules regarding the duty to terminate occupation, are still legally incomplete. Third States have an obligation to not protect the occupying State and not to recognize the situation of occupation and its results. However, exercising the right to resist is not without responsibility. Resistant forces can have individual international criminal responsibility, and on the other hand, in certain situations, the resistance group may be attributed to the relevant government and cause the government's international responsibility. Therefore, the effort of the resistance group to respect humanitarian law is important both for maintaining the position and legitimacy of the group and determining the nature of the conflict, as well as in terms of the related effects and responsibilities and from causing more harm to the civilians in the occupied territory.

The doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) emerged in response to the weaknesses of international law in addressing human security concerns. It is rooted in the concepts of "human security" and "humanitarian intervention." The post-Cold War era saw a shift in international relations, with the rise of non-state actors, international institutions, and intra-state conflicts. This context led to debates surrounding humanitarian intervention, specifically the use of force by one state against another to protect civilians. The concept of "right to intervene" evolved into "responsibility to protect," and the traditional view of sovereignty as control transformed into sovereignty as responsibility. These developments culminated in the adoption of the R2P doctrine between 2000 and 2005.
Despite ongoing discussions about its effectiveness and legitimacy, the R2P doctrine offers a potential legal framework for international responses to civilian suffering. This study examines the 2023 conflict between Hamas and Israel through the lens of R2P. Although the doctrine has an explicit legal basis, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not invoke it in support of the Gazan population. This research investigates why the UNSC failed to utilize R2P in the recent Gaza crisis.

Main research question: 

Why was the UNSC unable to resort to the R2P doctrine in the recent Gaza crisis? Why did the UN fail to take any effective action based on R2P to support the people of Gaza?
Secondary research question: Does the R2P doctrine provide a sufficient legal basis for an international response (by the UNSC) to support civilians in the Gaza Strip?
The study hypothesizes that power relations and the mechanisms governing the international system hindered the UNSC's use of R2P in the case of Gaza.
The research suggests that the hierarchical power structure within the UN, particularly the veto power, played a significant role. The United States' instrumental use of the UN to maximize its power, interventions, and regional interests in the Middle East, coupled with its strong support for Israel, rendered the R2P doctrine ineffective in the Gaza crisis.

This research employs aggressive realism theory and adopts a descriptive-explanatory approach. The study argues that despite the legal basis for applying R2P to support the Gazan population following the 2023 conflict, the question remained: which state was responsible for protecting Gazan civilians, and why did they fail to uphold this responsibility? The research then examines the relevance of the R2P doctrine in the context of the UN's role.

The research confirms the hypothesis that power relations and the mechanisms governing the international system impeded the UNSC's use of R2P for the residents of Gaza. The findings suggest that the hierarchical power structure within the UN, particularly the veto power, along with the United States' instrumental use of the UN and its unwavering support for Israel, contributed to the ineffectiveness of the R2P doctrine in the recent Gaza crisis.
The United States, seeking to maximize its power and ensure its own security in the aftermath of the 2023 Hamas-Israel conflict, resorted to "backpassing" responsibility to its regional partner, Israel. This strategy aimed to maintain control over the crisis and prevent other major powers and regional actors from gaining influence.
The strategic alliance between the US and Israel, along with the US's commitment to supporting Israel as its regional partner within the Middle East's "backpassing" system, aimed to maximize US power against competitors and uphold the existing international order and power structure within international organizations like the UN. These factors ultimately led the UN Security Council to disregard and fail to implement the R2P doctrine in support of the Gazan people, despite the clear legal basis for its application. As long as current conditions persist and power relations continue to overshadow the R2P doctrine, we risk witnessing the further marginalization of this doctrine on the altar of US patronage of Israel.

According to Article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all children within a country's territory are entitled to the rights outlined in the Convention without discrimination. This means that no country can deprive children of any rights or impose restrictions on their exercise based on their legal status. One such crucial right is the best interests of the child, which is underscored in Article 3(1) of the Convention as follows: "In all actions concerning children, whether carried out by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
However, in 2018, the Israeli Knesset passed the Israel Nation-State Law, which the Israeli Supreme Court recognized as part of Israel's constitutional rights in 2021. Given that Israel is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the critical question arises as to whether the best interests of Palestinian children have been upheld under this law.
Since the enactment of the nation-state law, an increasing number of Palestinian children living under occupation have faced death and endured mass violence and persecution. Statistics reveal that in 2018, the year of the law's approval in the Knesset, 57 children were killed in the occupied territories, compared to 7 Palestinian children killed in 2021, the year the law was acknowledged as a fundamental right. This indicates a clear violation of the right to life following the adoption of Israel's nation-state law.
Furthermore, by exclusively recognizing the right to self-determination for the Jewish nation, the law overlooks the national identity rights of Palestinian children, often derived from their citizenship. This exclusive right for Jews effectively renders Palestinian children as foreigners in their own ancestral land.
Moreover, the nation-state law promotes Israeli settlement in predominantly Palestinian areas, considering it a national value. By encouraging such settlements, Palestinians face land confiscation, severe movement restrictions, and reduced access to resources. This has led to a decrease in available land for Palestinian housing and infrastructure development, resulting in forced evictions and displacement of Palestinian families and communities. In 2021, the Human Rights Council reported over 70 families in the Sheikh Jarrah region experiencing forced eviction. The escalation of violence following the law's enactment has further compelled Palestinians to abandon their lands, with 410 attacks carried out by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the first ten months of 2021 alone, making life in the occupied territories nearly untenable.
Beyond displacement, the nation-state law has had detrimental effects on the health of Palestinian children. Growing up amidst violence not only directly harms children but also leads to mental health issues such as anxiety, distress, separation anxiety, hypervigilance, and PTSD, as evidenced by a 2021 study on Palestinian children living near Israeli settlements. Exposure to violence and mental trauma exacerbates the conflict and increases child mortality and health issues.
Additionally, the right to education of Palestinian children is compromised by the nation-state law. Settlement construction impedes access to educational facilities, and children face additional obstacles such as Israeli military checkpoints, resulting in missed classes due to lengthy journeys. Furthermore, schools in the occupied territories are subject to harassment, including stone-throwing and gunfire, contributing to learning disorders among Palestinian children.
As legislative bodies are obligated to prioritize the best interests of the child in all actions, the Israeli government was duty-bound to consider the best interests of Palestinian children when approving the nation-state law. However, by violating their right to life, identity, health, standard of living, and education, Israel has clearly failed to uphold their best interests, which are intrinsic to their rights as children.

The incendiary attacks by the Hamas group from the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023, towards the border areas of Israel, known as "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm," and Israel's robust military response to these attacks once again brought the issue of the occupied Palestinian territories to the forefront of the world's media. These attacks involved a combination of terrestrial, aerial, and naval assaults, with thousands of rockets launched towards Israel, resulting in significant damage to Israeli positions, including the loss of approximately 1400 lives and the capture of 240 individuals. In response to Hamas' operations, Israel officially declared war one day later, expressing its intent to engage in military conflict to eliminate Hamas and end their control over the Gaza Strip. Subsequently, Israel launched forceful and disproportionate offensives against the Gaza Strip, resulting in numerous civilian casualties. As of December 9, 2023, the casualties from these attacks have exceeded a staggering 17,700 tons, as reported by the Palestinian Ministry of Health. It is also important to note the extensive destruction of numerous buildings caused by these attacks.
From an international legal perspective, a significant aspect of the military operation on October 7, 2023, is the legality of the military actions undertaken by both Hamas and Israel against each other. Hamas has portrayed its military actions, particularly the October 7 operation, as a response to Israel's presence as an occupying force, aligning with the Palestinians' right to self-determination. On the other hand, Israel justifies its actions and attacks on the Gaza Strip as acts of self-defense. Both parties consider their actions lawful based on these grounds, which they view as crucial justifications. This article aims to explore, through a descriptive-analytical approach, the international law perspective on the use of force in the October 7 operation and the military actions of Hamas and Israel against each other.
According to the statement issued by the United Nations Secretary-General following the attack, the lack of opportunity for Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination prompted Hamas to initiate military action to create a conducive environment for such exercise. Considering the founding charter of Hamas and statements by its officials against the Israeli occupation, the decision to conduct military operations on October 7 can be justified under international law as a manifestation of the right to self-determination. While some scholars, legal experts, and countries like Israel and the United States may view Hamas' actions as terrorism, Hamas' distinct approach towards the occupying force sets it apart from terrorist organizations. Hamas has demonstrated a level of influence and effective control over the population it represents, even if not all Palestinians endorse its methods and political objectives. However, exercising the right to self-determination does not grant a group the freedom to choose the type, method, and means of military operations. Therefore, the evaluation of Hamas' armed operations targeting Israel should consider the requirements outlined in Additional Protocol I to the four Geneva Conventions (1977).
Regarding Israel's justification for military operations in response to the October 7 attack, the claim of legitimate defense is contentious. While it could be argued that if Palestine were recognized as a state by Israel and non-state actors like Hamas were capable of armed attacks, Israel would have the right to defend itself under Article 51 of the Charter, the reality is that Israel does not recognize Palestine as a state. The prevalent view in international law, including the Security Council, is that self-defense is not applicable when an occupying power controls another entity. Even if Israel's self-defense justification were accepted, the conditions, including proportionality, for justifying severe international crimes are not met.
Israel's reliance on Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention for self-defense to establish order and security in occupied territories is also questionable. As Israel's presence in the territory is temporary and lacks sovereignty, this provision cannot be invoked when the occupier faces the people's struggle for self-determination. The actions of the occupier must adhere to international human rights and humanitarian law, which prioritize the right to self-determination as a fundamental human right.
The designation of Hamas as a terrorist group by Israel does not hold legal weight in international law. The determination of a group as a terrorist organization is the prerogative of the United Nations Security Council, not individual countries. Even if a group resorts to intimidating tactics, it may still be considered a liberation group, especially if it actively opposes foreign occupation.

Since the establishment of Israel by the United Nations in 1948, Israel has sought to annex Palestinian lands through various crimes and acts of violence. Subsequently, it established settlements on this land, relocating populations from different parts of the world, often accompanied by the expulsion of indigenous Palestinians. Paragraph 4 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits the deportation of protected persons from occupied territories. However, decisions by the Israeli Supreme Court have not consistently addressed deportations carried out by military authorities under the guise of security concerns.
The objective of this article is to examine the legal status of settlers residing in the occupied Palestinian territories. Settlers, at times, engage in military activities or volunteer as human shields to assist the occupying regime, blurring the line between civilian and military roles. While occupation law aims to protect both civilians and occupying forces, ambiguity surrounds the status of civilians in occupied territories.
This article delves into the adherence to the principle of distinguishing between military and civilian entities during wartime, as outlined in international humanitarian law. Specifically, it analyzes the role of Israeli settlers in occupied areas resulting from Israel's settlement policies, exploring whether their presence supports the maintenance and stabilization of the occupation within the framework of humanitarian law. It also raises questions regarding the settlers' classification as human shields, their settlements as forms of military assistance, and whether they can be targeted as combatants.
Occupation law primarily aims to safeguard the civilian population in occupied areas and protect the rights of the occupied state, given the illegality of the occupation. Thus, the restrictive nature of these rules and the need for a narrow interpretation must be considered when interpreting the law governing occupation. In the absence of explicit legal provisions, the occupying government is prohibited from taking actions that violate humanitarian law principles.
While civilians are entitled to protection under international humanitarian law, this protection is revoked if they directly participate in hostilities or aid occupiers, making them legitimate military targets. This principle applies to settlers in occupied areas as well.
Furthermore, the transfer of civilian populations to occupied areas is strictly prohibited, and settlements near borders raise concerns of settlers being used as human shields to protect military installations. Settlers involved in conflicts may be classified as combatants and legitimate targets, especially if they act as human shields.
This article, using an analytical-descriptive approach, aims to demonstrate that residents of occupied territories can be considered combatants based on their engagement in armed violence and military activities. Through the implementation of multiple military laws, the occupying regime has effectively controlled Palestinian territory and allocated it to military settlers. The settlers' use of violence against Palestinians has significantly furthered the occupying regime's objectives. Settlers who relocate through Israeli population transfer policies and do not engage in military activities effectively become human shields for the Israeli regime's actions, potentially altering their legal status to that of combatants.

In today's global arena, the Zionist regime stands accused of egregious crimes against humanity, particularly in its occupation of Palestinian territories and its conduct during various conflicts, notably the 22-day war in 2008, the 8-day war in 2012, and the recent intensification of hostilities starting in October 2023. Throughout these conflicts, the regime has systematically violated international humanitarian law, subjecting the defenseless people of Gaza to siege conditions, depriving them of essential resources like water, food, and medicine, and perpetrating acts of persecution, torture, and displacement.
Numerous reports from UN agencies corroborate the widespread commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and potentially genocide by the occupying Israeli forces. Consequently, global attention has turned to the urgent need for accountability and justice for the victims of these atrocities. However, the path to holding the perpetrators accountable is fraught with legal and political challenges.
Questions arise regarding which courts possess jurisdiction over these crimes and how legal proceedings can be initiated. Despite the clear imperative for justice, limitations within national and international legal frameworks complicate the prosecution of these crimes. Palestinian and Israeli courts face restrictions in addressing these violations, while legal proceedings in other countries may prove ineffective due to political considerations and obstacles such as the immunity granted to high-ranking state officials.
Although international mechanisms such as the establishment of ad hoc courts by the Security Council or referral to the International Criminal Court offer potential avenues for justice, political dynamics, particularly US support for Israel, present significant obstacles. Therefore, the most viable option for pursuing accountability lies with the ICC, either through referral by a member state or the prosecutor's initiative. By accepting the ICC's jurisdiction and referring the situation in Palestine and Gaza to the Court, the State of Palestine can pave the way for legal action. In addition, seeking intervention from the International Court of Justice to prevent further atrocities and secure reparations holds promise. By taking immediate action to prevent genocide and subsequent obligations to compensate damages, the ICJ can play a crucial role in addressing the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
In conclusion, while the pursuit of justice for the crimes committed by the Zionist regime presents formidable challenges, concerted efforts within the international legal framework offer hope for accountability and redress for the victims.

The liberation of al-Quds has been a fundamental goal of the Islamic Revolution since the establishment of the Islamic government in Iran during the years following the uprising. Consequently, the Islamic Republic of Iran and its citizens have consistently endeavored to take steps in various dimensions to support this aspiration. The "National Referendum Plan in the Land of Palestine" is defined as a legal initiative in this regard, based on international law language and referencing international documents and legal terminology.
This plan or proposal, formulated based on international legal principles and utilizing a four-stage mechanism, seeks to provide a legal framework for the realization of the establishment of a Palestinian state, asserting the "right to self-determination" and formulating the legal rights of Palestinian refugees and displaced persons under the headings of "right of return." An analysis of the amalgamation of concepts and documents suggests that the language of the proposal is grounded in international law. The choice of this language can be attributed to the widespread adoption of the "international law" discourse.
The proposal, by asserting Iran's historical claim in supporting the resolution of the Palestinian Question by Palestinians, introduces the referendum as the optimal available option to end the current tense situation. Referendum, as a method for determining future leadership, is one of the most common approaches recognized initially in domestic law and subsequently in international law as a "legitimate" method for the establishment of a country or government.
This article addresses the fundamental issue of the challenges faced by the Iranian proposal from the standpoint of international law and examines the subjects that warrant attention for its revision and enhancement. Employing an analytical and descriptive approach, the paper delves into the challenges and imperatives for reconsideration in the aforementioned proposal.

The primary challenge that the proposal has insufficiently addressed is the concept of "the two-state solution." This idea, considered a rival theory to the Iranian resolution of the Palestinian Question, has gained acceptance and dissemination by governments and international organizations at large. The proposal should articulate the reasons for deviating from alternative solutions, both legally and practically, while elucidating its own concept. The notion of establishing two states conflicts with various aspects of international law, such as opposition to the right to self-determination, right to land and territory, division without legal basis, division without competence based on the United Nations Charter, disregard for actions conflicting with the subject and goals of agreements by the Israeli party.
Furthermore, recent public sentiments regarding the acceptance of the two-state solution among the Palestinian and Israeli populations highlight the fact that individuals involved in this proposal on both sides lack belief or hope in the reality and operational feasibility of this idea. The article aims to shed light on these challenges and considerations for the revision of the Iranian proposal in a comprehensive and insightful manner.
Iran plan systematically avoids addressing the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), currently holding the official government of Palestine, despite the indispensable need to consider recognized international legal structures to advance solutions for the Palestinian predicament. It appears that the Iranian proposal must contemplate a mechanism involving the collective participation of Palestinian organizations.
The utilization of international legal terms without equivalents (such as national referendum and genuine Palestinian) or with vague interpretations (occupation) constitutes the third legal challenge of the Iranian proposal. Iran considers all Palestinian territories as belonging to the Palestinian people, describing Israel's presence anywhere on this land as an "occupation." However, the term "occupied territories" in international law literature and the documentation of various governments refers to Israel's presence beyond the boundaries defined in the partition plan known as the 1967 borders.
Despite possessing all the legal strengths, like all international proposals, the Iranian plan necessitates a revised and enhanced version. It is indisputable that the issue of Palestine, in addition to its international legal dimensions, encompasses various political, economic, military, and social arenas, as acknowledged by the author. Therefore, rewriting the proposal, while acknowledging non-legal realities, remains imperative from an international legal perspective.

This article suggests that Iran, in its plan revision, should move towards garnering public consensus and conveying the Iranian proposal to the collective endorsement of governments sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. This approach is reinforced by Iran's repeated declarations, in various General Assembly resolutions, expressing disagreement with certain clauses while overall supporting the Palestinian side.
Furthermore, given that the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and international human rights mechanisms are poised for extensive actions concerning Palestinian issues, the new Iranian proposal must draw on legal literature shaped by these judicial and international human rights developments. The International Court of Justice has been requested for the third time regarding the "Situation of Israel's Actions in Occupied Territories (After 1967)" in advisory opinion, with the verdict on the verge of issuance. Additionally, South Africa, a party to the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, has initiated litigation concerning the occurrence of genocide by Israel during the October War.

The Al-Aqsa Storm operation on October 7, 2023, carried out by the military branch of Hamas, namely Al-Qassam, represents an unprecedented military action in the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Hamas's actions may be justified based on the occupation and the right to self-determination, Israel's response to this operation has been extensive, devastating, and unprecedented, to a degree that cannot be considered legitimate defense. The killing of thousands of innocent civilians, the use of prohibited weapons, the destruction of medical centers and hospitals, the collapse of the health system, the all-encompassing siege of Gaza, and the lack of access to vital goods such as food, water, and medicine have led to widespread famine. The destruction of homes and the forced displacement of the people of northern Gaza to other areas are among the blatant atrocities committed by Israel, which could be assessed as the actus reus element of the crime of genocide.
This article seeks to address whether the actus reus and mens rea elements of genocide (specific intent) have been met in light of recent Israeli military operations against the Palestinians (the people of Gaza). Through a descriptive and analytical examination of official reports, doctrine, and international jurisprudence, it concludes that, based on Israel's actions, especially the killing of members of the group, both the actus reus and mens rea elements of the crime of genocide in the Al-Aqsa Storm operation on October 7, 2023, have been fulfilled in a manner that establishes grounds for the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Consequently, the International Criminal Court could exercise its jurisdiction in this case.
The people of Gaza are an integral part of the Palestinian nation and government, united by a common and historic goal and struggle for liberation from occupation and colonization. Their shared nationality, ethnicity, and religion, as well as their continuity of goals, align them as a group protected under the Genocide Convention of 1948 and the Statute of the Court (6).
In addition to the deaths of Palestinians resulting from Israel's military actions, they face immediate risks of starvation, lack of water, and disease due to Israel's enduring blockade, inadequate aid distribution, and extensive restrictions on essential resources caused by the destruction of Gaza's infrastructure due to Israeli attacks. The coordinated and consistent statements of Israeli authorities, operationalized through military orders, serve as compelling evidence of intent.
The pattern of Israeli attacks and actions against the Palestinian population in Gaza since October 7, 2023, including collective punishment, forced disappearances, and the use of famine, water, electricity, and fuel cuts as tools of war, along with public statements by high-ranking Israeli government and military officials, collectively indicate Israel's genocidal intent. The behaviors, circumstances, and presumptions used by ad hoc international criminal tribunals to establish the specific intent of genocide align with the actions of Israeli authorities and can serve as a legal basis for potential proceedings against them.
Currently, the court's prosecutor, Karim Khan, has emphasized the importance of investigating the situation in Gaza, ensuring justice for the victims, and upholding the rule of law. While the prosecutor's actions have been articulated in a series of speeches and not as official actions, no preventive statement regarding Gaza has been issued by the court prosecutor. Member states of the Court, such as South Africa, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Bolivia, and the Comoros Islands, have recently referred the situation in Gaza to the Court, citing genocide as one of the concerns. However, due to the cautious approach of the prosecutor, an official decision regarding genocide does not appear imminent. Nonetheless, a provisional order issued by the International Court of Justice in the case of South Africa against Israel concerning the genocide of the people of Gaza, based on the Convention on the Prohibition and Punishment of Genocide, could potentially alter the court prosecutor's cautious stance.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of the most complex and intractable challenges facing the international community. Central to this conflict is the question of Jerusalem's status. Jerusalem holds profound religious significance for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, each with holy sites located within the city. The right to worship and access to these sites for all faiths must be a key consideration in any final resolution. Both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority view Jerusalem as their capital, making control of the city a critical red line for both parties.
This research seeks to propose a potential solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the principle of freedom of worship and access to Jerusalem for followers of all three Abrahamic religions. Drawing upon the teachings of international human rights law and Islamic jurisprudence, the paper argues that a framework guaranteeing such access can be established.
The research methodology employs analytical reasoning with a comparative and interdisciplinary approach. Specifically, the paper compares and adapts the teachings of Islamic jurisprudence with those of international law, particularly the international human rights system, as they relate to the issue at hand. Based on this analysis, the concept of recognizing Jerusalem as an independent entity emerges as a potential solution.
An independent Jerusalem could guarantee the right of access for all religious groups to their holy sites. This aligns with the principles of the international human rights system, Islamic jurisprudence, and Islamic legal foundations. Moreover, it fulfills the objectives of Sharia law concerning freedom of worship and access. Reconsidering the independence plan through the lens of human rights and religious texts reveals its potential for greater success compared to other conflict resolution proposals.
Therefore, this research explores the concept of internationalizing and recognizing Jerusalem as an independent entity. It examines how this concept aligns with the right to worship and access, potentially reducing the conflict's intensity and paving the way for a final resolution. The paper will also discuss the functionality and challenges associated with this plan.
Key findings from the research analysis and proposal include:
Jerusalem's Significance in Abrahamic Religions:Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all hold Jerusalem in high regard due to its historical and religious significance. Specific places of worship for each religion are located within the city.
The Right to Worship and Access in Human Rights:The right to worship and access to holy sites is a fundamental principle enshrined in human rights documents and the international human rights system. This right encompasses the freedom to conduct individual and communal worship, as well as the freedom to build and maintain places of worship.
Respect for Religious Symbols in Islam:The Quran emphasizes the principle of "freedom of belief" alongside "respect for religious rituals, symbols, and figures." This principle extends to protecting and defending places of worship belonging to other religions.
Jerusalem's Status in the Partition Resolution:The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, adopted in 1947, envisioned Jerusalem as an independent corpus separatum (separate entity). The need for Jerusalem's independence has been echoed in other international documents.
Alignment with Islamic and Human Rights Principles:Recognizing Jerusalem's independence aligns with the teachings of the international human rights system, Islamic jurisprudence, and Islamic legal foundations. It upholds the objectives of Sharia law concerning freedom of worship and access.
Guaranteeing Access and Reducing Conflict:An independent Jerusalem would guarantee the right of access for followers of all religions to their holy sites. Defining the legal status of Jerusalem and ensuring access could potentially lessen the intensity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and render religious justifications for violence obsolete.
Favorable Conflict Resolution Scenarios:Due to its alignment with human rights principles and relevant resolutions from the United Nations Security Council, General Assembly, and other international bodies, conflict resolution scenarios based on Jerusalem's independence hold greater promise.
Challenges and Realities:The biggest challenge to the independence plan is its potential incompatibility with the current discourse of both parties involved in the conflict. However, political solutions are often driven by realities on the ground rather than ideals. Furthermore, the disruption of regional geography caused by Israeli policies may obstruct the implementation of the plan.

On October 7, 2023, Palestinian militant groups led by Hamas launched a surprise attack named "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm" against Israel (El Deeb, 2023). This attack began with a barrage of rockets targeting southern Israel. According to Hamas' announcement, its purpose was to respond to the desecration of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, settler violence in the area, and the siege of the Gaza Strip (Crescent International, 2023). In response, Israel declared a state of war and launched a counter-operation called "Operation Iron Swords" with the aim of destroying Hamas, freeing hostages, and controlling the Gaza Strip. After clearing Hamas militants from its territory, the Israeli army conducted extensive aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip, followed by a large-scale ground attack. During this operation, Israel ordered the evacuation of the northern part of the Gaza Strip and launched nearly 29,000 bombs, rockets, and chemicals, causing damage and destruction to nearly 307,000 homes (Jared & Shah, 2024). Experts claim the scale and speed of destruction of protected objects, such as residential buildings in Gaza, is among the most severe in contemporary history (Evan, 2024). The violent confrontation resulted in the displacement of nearly the entire population of 2.3 million in Gaza. More than 24,000 Palestinians were killed, with over 10,000 children and 7,000 women among the casualties (Abou-Ghazala, 2023).This significant civilian death toll and destruction of buildings and urban infrastructure have led to numerous accusations of war crimes against Israel due to its actions against civilians during the conflict with Hamas. A "war crime" is a violation of the laws of war and can lead to individual criminal responsibility. Important conventions such as the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute, define what acts are considered war crimes.The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to deal with war crimes according to Article 1 of the Rome Statute.As a non-member observer state in the United Nations, Palestine ratified the Rome Statute on April 1, 2015 (Abedini, 2014: 333). Following this ratification, the Palestinian government came under the jurisdiction of the ICC. However, the Israeli government has not joined the Rome Statute and, due to its non-recognition of an independent State of Palestine in the international arena, has not accepted the court's jurisdiction over Palestine.Therefore, the initial question of this article is whether the ICC has jurisdiction over Israel's alleged war crimes. If the answer is yes, then based on what rules can the court condemn Israel's actions in the 2023 conflict as war crimes? This research explores these questions.The first part of this study addresses the issue of the court's jurisdiction in dealing with alleged Israeli war crimes, thereby considering the recognition of an independent State of Palestine. It then examines the existing regulations by analyzing current rules and the membership of both Israel and Palestine in the relevant conventions. Once the competence of these regulations is clarified, the second part presents examples of Israel's alleged war crimes in the 2023 conflict, categorized as crimes against persons and crimes against protected objects. The author attempts to reconcile the acts committed by Israel with the relevant regulations.This research aims to prove the jurisdiction of the ICC and identify the applicable regulations in potential proceedings. It will define crimes against protected persons and objects by applying the Rome Statute, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols clause by clause, ultimately arguing that Israel's actions in the 2023 conflict constitute war crimes.Words can be used to construct the cruelest weapons, yet they can also be the most effective deterrents. Ironically, Israel, a nation that has garnered significant international sympathy through its use of words in recent history, now stands accused of committing a brutal massacre in Gaza.This article sought to analyze the bare facts of the Israel-Gaza conflict through a legal lens and demonstrate how the Israeli army's actions might be considered war crimes under existing regulations.The research identified the ICC as the most competent authority in the international arena to pursue war crimes investigations. Therefore, the first step was to establish the court's jurisdiction in the 2023 Israel-Palestine conflict. In doing so, the article acknowledges an independent State of Palestine, positing that the Israel-Palestine conflict is an international one. Consequently, it concludes that the Court

The most significant event of the 20th century is arguably the emergence of the Internet phenomenon, creating a direct communication network among people worldwide. This development has and will continue to bring about changes in the course of time that are incomparable to other events of this period, including world wars. Expanding the scope of virtual communication through social networks has become a key factor influencing political and legal developments both domestically and internationally. With the proliferation of social media in recent years, this emerging discourse has solidified its position and connected a global audience across borders. Events in the political and international arena are now intertwined with developments in the Internet realm and major global social networks like Instagram. One notable event in 2023 was the conflict between Gaza and Israel.
This study aims to explore how the Gaza conflict was portrayed in the legal and media landscapes through the Instagram accounts of BBC Persian and Iran International. The analysis covers posts from the start of Operation Al-Aqsa on October 7, 2023, to the end of that month. The hypothesis posited in this article considers the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of Instagram posts by BBC Persian and Iran International regarding the Gaza conflict. It suggests that these media outlets may represent Hamas as a terrorist group and portray Israel as justified in exercising "legitimate defense." Furthermore, the posts on Iran International's Instagram page not only depict Hamas as a terrorist group but also highlight the role of the resistance axis, particularly the Islamic Republic of Iran, in supporting Hamas and intervening territorially in the Gaza conflict.
To evaluate this hypothesis effectively, the study employs the media Representation theory by British sociologist Stuart Hall as a theoretical framework. Hall's theory emphasizes the interplay of Representation, Production, Consumption, Identity, and Regulation in the cultural cycle. Hall's concept of Representation explores the connections between Meaning, Language, and Culture. He categorizes Representation into Reflective, Constructive, and Intentional interpretations, highlighting strategies like Stereotyping and Naturalization. These strategies can lead to polarization and radical separation between different groups.
The study examines how the Representation of the Gaza conflict in October 2023 on the Instagram pages of BBC Persian and Iran International focused on legal metaphors. The analysis reveals that the main metaphors in these posts were tailored to influence the audience's mindset, aligning with the media's Representation Project. Out of a total of 3,833 posts on both media pages during the specified period, 1,825 posts (about 47.6%) were related to the Gaza conflict, while 1,428 posts (about 37.1%) were related to Iran. Analyzing these posts yielded key qualitative components and statistical data along specific conceptual axes.
The study's findings highlighted four main axes of Representation in the Instagram posts of both media outlets. Firstly, there was an emphasis on Hamas's high violence in violation of conflict laws, contrasting with humanitarian rights principles breached by repeated Israeli attacks and civilian casualties. Secondly, there was a focus on Israel's right to legitimate defense by portraying Hamas as a terrorist group. However, the analysis notes the need for proportional responses in line with international law, even in response to Hamas's military actions. The third axis addressed territorial intervention in the Gaza conflict by Iran and other supporting actors, a claim denied by Iranian officials and lacking substantial evidence according to some foreign officials like US President Joe Biden. Lastly, the Representation analysis highlighted the diminishing legal legitimacy of Hamas among the people of Gaza, with some opinions framing Hamas's actions within the legal rules of armed conflict against colonial domination and foreign occupation.

October 7, 2023, marked a significant turning point that not only disrupted regional dynamics and agreements but also once again brought the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the forefront of global attention and legal discourse. Following an attack by the Hamas group, the Israeli occupying and apartheid regime launched a massive and unprecedented assault on Gaza.
When considering the right to use force in accordance with jus ad bellum, it is important to recognize that occupation is intended to be a temporary and transitional circumstance. Occupying territory during times of war does not strip the occupied government of its national sovereignty, nor does it confer national sovereignty upon the occupying forces. Furthermore, prolonging the occupation does not legitimize the act of occupation. It is on these grounds that international law does not recognize actions that seek to make an occupation permanent.
The International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinion on the construction of a barrier wall by the Zionist regime in the occupied territories, affirmed that member states of the Fourth Geneva Convention are obligated to not recognize the illegal situation created by the occupation, including the construction of the barrier wall, and to abstain from providing any assistance in its construction. Under the provisions of the four Geneva Conventions, the humanitarian rights of individuals in occupied territories are to be upheld, regardless of whether the occupation is met with armed resistance or not.
The guiding principle of occupation law is to safeguard the sovereignty of the occupied government and protect the security and rights of the inhabitants of the occupied areas. The post-World War II world order, founded on the United Nations Charter, emphasizes the prohibition of using military force and upholding the territorial integrity and political independence of nations, thereby deeming occupation a form of territorial aggression. Humanitarian law underscores the temporary nature of military occupation and prohibits any actions that seek to alter the demographic composition of occupied regions.
While it is possible to establish occupation without resorting to ethnic cleansing and to occupy uninhabited land, ethnic cleansing serves as a clear indicator of the occupier's intent to perpetuate and institutionalize the occupation, with the aim of supplanting the original inhabitants and establishing their own rule. Ethnic cleansing, while not explicitly listed as a standalone crime under international law, aligns with the broader category of forced population transfer and deportation, both of which constitute international crimes.
The occupied state of Palestine serves as a poignant example of the repercussions of such war crimes, particularly in terms of violating the fundamental right of a people to determine their own destiny, safeguarding against the enduring impacts of prolonged occupation, and preventing actions that seek to entrench the occupation's longevity.
Expulsion entails the removal of individuals from one country to another, whereas forced population transfer involves the displacement of civilians within a country's borders, without necessitating their crossing into another nation. While deportation is explicitly defined in the statutes of international criminal tribunals, forced population transfer has been expressly codified in the Rome Statute, under the broader category of "other inhumane acts".
In conclusion, the perpetuation of occupation through actions such as ethnic cleansing, forced population transfer, and deportation not only flouts international law but also undermines fundamental human rights and perpetuates cycles of conflict and injustice. It is imperative for the international community and legal scholars to remain vigilant in upholding the principles of temporary occupation and safeguarding the rights and integrity of occupied populations.
The crime of population eviction comprises two essential elements: coercive behavior leading to forced eviction and displacement of the population. The mandatory element of the crime of deportation involves what is known as "open behavior," where the perpetrator may engage in various acts such as murder, sexual violence, robbery, and torture to carry out the deportation. Coercion in this context does not necessarily involve violent actions; the use of coercive conditions alone is sufficient. In addition to eviction, the destruction of homes and available resources to establish new settlements violates the right to occupation.
In its 2004 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice explicitly declared Israel's policy of constructing and developing settlements from 1977 onwards as contrary to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This policy was deemed an example of the illegal transfer of the population to occupied territories, a blatant violation of international law. The transfer of settlers to illegal settlements is considered a criminal act, similar to the settlements themselves, as it is typically done voluntarily and with the complete consent of the settlers. Thus, accountability falls upon the settlers themselves, a responsibility that is often forgotten.
The Rome Statute, like the Geneva Convention, considers voluntary transfer as part of the crime, aiming to protect the population of the occupied territories rather than the transplanted individuals. Even in cases where settlers voluntarily move to occupied areas with various motivations, individual criminal responsibility may still apply. This aspect sheds light on unexplored facets of occupation rights, challenging the common notion that population transfer is solely a state crime attributable to the occupying government's actions.
Some argue that ordinary individuals settling in occupied areas without governmental support should not be held accountable, as voluntary settlement may not always be malicious. However, according to experts such as "Dinstein," an Israeli authority on humanitarian law, voluntary settlement can still pose legal implications if done in coordination with occupation forces or through organized efforts.
The research herein analyzes the settlement actions of the Zionist regime in Palestinian occupied territories and the influx of Jewish settlers into these regions. The study concludes that Israeli settlement constructions, necessitating ethnic cleansing of the occupied areas, constitute criminal behavior, alongside the resettlement of settlers within these territories. Settlement involves the acquisition of land and property from original non-resident inhabitants, an act constituting war crimes and significant violations of humanitarian rights, punishable under the Rome Statute.
Voluntary settlement, being a form of population transfer, carries criminal responsibility for the settlers involved. Thus, under international criminal law, the construction of Israeli settlements and the relocation of settlers to occupied territories, achieved through ethnic cleansing and forced displacement of native Palestinians, are deemed war crimes for which both settlers and those facilitating or encouraging such acts are held accountable.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a complex and intractable dispute with profound human rights implications. The dominant approach, grounded in the legal framework of humanitarian law and the two-state solution, has yielded limited progress towards resolving the conflict or securing fundamental Palestinian rights. This paper argues that an alternative framework, based on anti-discrimination law principles, offers a more comprehensive and effective lens for analyzing the conflict and pursuing a just resolution.

The prevailing narrative in Western discourse portrays Israel as a legitimate state established in accordance with international law and bolstered by the UN partition plan in 1947. This narrative emphasizes the Jewish right to self-determination within the newly created state. Palestinians, under this view, are either refugees who should be resettled elsewhere or an occupied population with the future right to establish their own state alongside Israel (the two-state solution).
However, a growing body of scholarship and activism challenges this dominant narrative. This counter-narrative argues that Israel's creation constituted an act of dispossession and displacement of the Palestinian people. It views Israel as an apartheid system marked by systematic discrimination against Palestinians on the basis of race and ethnicity. This systemic discrimination manifests in the denial of Palestinian citizenship rights, including the right to self-determination, voting rights, freedom of movement and expression, and equal access to resources and property ownership.

The dominant approach to the conflict relies heavily on the framework of humanitarian law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention. This framework recognizes the occupied status of the Palestinian territories and mandates that Israel, as the occupying power, uphold certain basic rights of the Palestinian population. While these principles are crucial for protecting Palestinians from the immediate harms of occupation, the framework has significant limitations.
Firstly, the humanitarian law framework focuses primarily on regulating the conduct of hostilities and protecting civilians during armed conflict. It has limited capacity to address issues of systemic discrimination and denial of fundamental rights, such as citizenship and self-determination, that lie at the core of the conflict.
Secondly, the humanitarian law framework treats the situation as a temporary one. Its ultimate goal is the cessation of hostilities and eventual withdrawal of the occupying power. It offers a limited vision for a final solution that guarantees lasting peace and full recognition of Palestinian rights.

The anti-discrimination law approach offers a more comprehensive framework for analyzing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It draws from international human rights instruments, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), to examine the denial of Palestinian citizenship rights. This approach highlights the structural inequalities embedded within the Israeli system that disadvantage Palestinians based on their national origin and ethnicity.
By focusing on citizenship and equality, the anti-discrimination law approach challenges the legitimacy of a system that denies basic rights to a significant portion of its population. It sheds light on the ways in which Israel maintains a Jewish majority state through discriminatory policies and practices in areas such as land allocation, movement restrictions, and access to social services.

Comparisons have increasingly been drawn between the Israeli-Palestinian situation and the former apartheid regime in South Africa. Both cases share features of racialized systems of domination, where one group enjoys privileges and political power while the other is marginalized and denied basic rights. The South African case provides a historical precedent for dismantling an apartheid system and transitioning to a more inclusive democracy based on equal citizenship.
The international community's successful application of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against South Africa demonstrates the effectiveness of collective action in pressuring a discriminatory state to change course. Advocates for Palestinian rights increasingly utilize the BDS movement as a tool to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law and human rights principles.

While the anti-discrimination law approach offers a more promising framework for addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, challenges remain. One key challenge is the entrenched power dynamics and the strong political and financial support Israel receives from some Western countries.
Secondly, achieving a just and sustainable solution will require a willingness on both sides to compromise and negotiate in good faith. Palestinians must be able to exercise their right to self-determination, while legitimate Israeli security concerns must also be addressed.

The adoption of an anti-discrimination law approach can be instrumental in guiding international efforts to resolve the conflict. This approach necessitates:
Increased international pressure:The international community needs to hold Israel accountable for its violations of Palestinian rights and international law. This includes actively supporting measures such as the BDS movement and imposing targeted sanctions.
Meaningful negotiations:A genuine commitment to peace requires a return to meaningful negotiations based on the principle of a two-state solution with land swaps, or a single democratic state