مجله حقوقی بین المللی
پیاپی 76 (زمستان 1403)

Introduction :

As the third millennium begins, humanity grapples with a complex web of problems such as poverty, unemployment, increasing inequality within and between States, increasing weapons, war and militarism, terrorism and fundamentalism, financial and environmental crises, refuge and immigration, violation of human rights and democracy, discrimination along lines such as sex/gender, ethnicity, and race, widespread violence, etc. What is important is to understand the relationship of these problems with each other and with the order based on domination, injustice, and systematic inequality ruling the world. All of the above issues can be seen as the result of the order based on the relations of domination and power at various levels, which, in the final analysis, create limitations in the realization of the autonomy of individuals. In the contemporary globalized and interconnected world, these issues, some of which were controllable by States, transcend the capabilities of individual ones, demanding global solutions outside the State-centric order in the form of a global legal order that can effectively bind States and Non-State Actors in the international sphere to guarantee the autonomy of individuals. In avoiding idealism in this field, which leads to proposals such as the creation of a centralized global government, international law is an available option to do the aforementioned function; However, the realization of this matter, considering the limited success of international law in this regard, requires overcoming the obstacles to the effective functioning of international law in carrying out this mission. This article considers the reason for the necessity of democratization of the international legal order as its central question in addressing these issues and facilitating a transition from the current state of affairs, and to improve the feasibility and effectiveness of this solution, conceptualizes it as a gradual, dynamic and multidimensional process centeredon the United Nations system, which relying on the democratic defects of the existing order, makes changes at different levels to guarantee autonomy of individuals. By overcoming the shortcomings of international law, the mentioned process can help strengthen it to act as a global law capable of 
establishing the rule of law at the global level.

 Research Gap and Objective :

It is impossible to solve, control, and contain the above issues except through a set of regulations and norms with a global scope. However, the success of international law in realizing this goal has been scant. The limited success of international law in this regard can be attributed to two factors: First, the nature and characteristics of international society, and second, the structural weaknesses and deficiencies within international law, as well as its lack of objectivity and neutrality, which raises international law as part of the problem. Nevertheless, acknowledging the role of politics in international law, its lack of objectivity and neutrality, and its close ties to politics does not negate the potential of international law as a solution. International law possesses a distinct identity and playes a crucial guiding role in maintaining global order. Therefore, while international law is part of the problem, it is also part of the solution to overcome the existing situation and manage the current issues. To effectively serve as part of the solution, international law must undergo a process of democratization.

The present text adopts a critical approach and emphasizes the connection between law and politics, and the need for legal analysis within its social context on the one hand, and emphasizes the structure, logic, and internal dynamics of the law on the other. An interdisciplinary methodology is employed within the text, and the analytical tools of social sciences are used to study, critique, and reconstruct international law. Moreover, by emphasizingthe normative nature of international law, the authors have utilized its research methods such as analytical and descriptive means in the related 
areas.

The article argues that addressing the above challenges which often restrict autonomy of individuals, necessitates the reform and democratization of the current international legal order and emphasizes that democratizing the international legal order, with a focus on autonomy can, inter alia, overcome the cross structures of rejection and domination, as well as the tension between objectivism and subjectivism, and help to increase legitimacy and compliance with international law, and as a result, strengthen the rule of international law.

Contribution to the Field:

Studies addressing the need for democratization of the international legal order, have primarily progressed in two directions within political theory and international law. In political theory, the focus lies mainly on the core democratic values challenged by globalization within the traditional political societies' framework. As a result, international law's reform and democratizationare suggested as a pragmatic solution to overcome these challenges. On the international legal-studies side, democracy is usually assumed as the preferred form of governance and concentrate on a set of democratic institutional requirements. Thus, the need for international law democratizationemerges as a consequence of deficiencies within these mechanisms. In an effort to respond to this question, this article starts from the concept of autonomy as a non-instrumental and central value of democracy, and by avoiding a formal or procedural approach to the democratization of the international legal order, considers its necessity due to the challenges of realizing autonomy in the State-oriented perception of it in the present era.Additionally, by analyzing the issue from the international law perspective, it demonstrates how this process can help overcome the limitations and barriers hindering international law's effectiveness as a key factor in shaping the global order.

In the current globalized community, overcoming the forces and structures that threaten the autonomy of individuals can no longer be guaranteed within the framework of traditional political communities. Protecting autonomy requires the expansion of democracy on a global scale, enabling citizens to participate in all decisions affecting their lives. Establishing a global democracy does not necessitate a centralized global government; changes can be implemented at various levels to uphold democratic values and guarantee individual autonomy. Given the undesirability and impossibility of a global government, or a less centralized model, and contemporary political and social realities, international law emerges as the most viable option for creating a global democratic order. This requires the democratization of the international legal order around the United Nations system under a gradual and multidimensional process; In such a way that relying on the democratic defects of the existing order, it applies changes at its different levels to manifest democratic values and guarantee autonomy of the people. Democratizing the international legal order presents an opportunity for international law to transcend its inherent structural limitations. By embracing diverse subjectivities, the aforementioned process can help international law to act as a space in which an intersubjective consensus can be provided to achieve objectivity. Also, the democratization of the international legal order to ensure the autonomy of citizens is a pragmatic solution to simultaneously overcome the multiple and intersecting structures of domination and inequality to avoid focusing on a specific feature of it. Strengthening the objectivity and overcoming the existing inequalities from the above channels will ultimately lead to an increase in the objectivity and universality of international law, and as a result, increase the legitimacy and compliance with the rules of international law, and strengthen its position to act as an effective global or transnational law.

 Today, international law is responsible for managing and creating an effective legal framework for organizing fresh water in the clouds. One of the most important tensions in the world is the frequency of witnessing crises, one of which being the issue of "legal dimensions of artificial fertilization of clouds", especially when it is carried out in border areas between States. This point has become increasingly important in recent years. On the one hand, trying to intervene in the precipitation process and changing its natural circulation can affect the normal precipitation process, and as a result, a group of governments can benefit more from the water resources in the atmosphere at the expense of another group of governments. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the issue of interfering in the normal process of cloud precipitation is one of the major issues regarding the concept of development.The main issue of the research is how international law can help to solve the disputes related to the artificial fertilization of clouds. In this context, the most important questions are as follows:Are States, in the international normative order, entitled to the water reserves in the clouds that exist within their territory? And if the answer to this question is positive, can they directly claim their right from the said resources?In this article - with a descriptive analytical method - by examining the right of States to the water resources in the clouds from the perspective of international law, this hypothesis has been investigated that despite the shortcomings of the international law treaty system related to clouds, general principles of law have created duties and rights for States in this field. By examining State practice, this article has tried to examine and analyze their approach in this field.The most important findings of this article focus on three fundamental principles that should be taken into account in the use of fresh water sources of clouds: First, the principle of peaceful use of these water resources; Second, considering the needs of developing and least developed countries in terms of water resources, and third, this important principle that any material and physical exploitation should be carried out by considering the interest of the current and future generations. In relation to the last principle, it means that this exploitation should not be for the benefit of a specific State or a particular group, and that humanity as a whole should benefit from it. However, in the matter of clouds, we are facing an important difficulty: the volume of water that evaporates from the open seas cannot be calculated, and in the same way, the amount of water necessary for States that are exposed to droughts are unknown. In such a situation, similar to the arrangements governing the status of the seabed authority as well as the rules governing the exploitation of this area, this amount can be determined within the framework of the rules regarding the administrative process by one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations. In this context, water transfer and related costs can be provided through donations from developed countries. However, it must be acknowledged that in the current situation, the implementation of such a solution does not seem very likely, but the experience of codification of international law regulations in this field shows that the public international law already recognizes the rights of States that are in a geographically disadvantaged situation from the place of "common heritage of mankind".While emphasizing on geographical facts, this article comes to an important conclusion that the water within the clouds can be considered as an absolute common resource among States, and therefore the clouds should not be subject to the sole ownership of a particular State.In this article, it is argued that the international legal regime of clouds is moving towards subjecting the precipitation to the ownership of no particular State, and for the purpose of preventing abuse, uses general principles of law such as the principle of not harming others.This article tries to establish a right for States that are in an unfavorable geographical position, and at the same time, aims to prevent the possible damage that interference in the process of cloud formation can bring to the States.It is true that when we talk about the legal status of a complex resource such as water within the clouds, the proposed solutions are dependent on the way we analyze the issue. In this article, an attempt has been made to re-imagine this natural phenomenon with regard to its close relationship with humanity and the environment that form a close bond to it. In this connection, the most important related issue is the right of States to access natural water resources. The important fact has been taken into consideration that although access to water is considered a basic need of humanity, there is still a serious disagreement over the formation of the "right to water" as a human right. The important effort of this article is to use general principles of law to fill lacunae in this connection. The truth is that relying only on general principles of law have certain limitations. The vagueness and generality of these principles can lead to unfair results. In such a situation, international law with an eschatological approach and emphasizing the need of the members of the world community for water, should try to present a fair approach in this field. The goal is to create a balance between the needs of the international community and the challenges of commercial exploitation of clouds, and at the same time, use cloud fertilization technology for the benefit of regions that do not have a favorable geographical situation. The international law of clouds is an important branch of the international law of waters, which should be analyzed closer and advanced each and every day due to the substantial growth of technology in this field.

 The issue of doping in sports continues to provoke debate and significantly influences the spirit of fair play and equity in athletic competitions. While remarkable advancements have been made in the anti-doping framework through the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency, and the implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code, the principle of strict liability stands as a key legal foundation of the anti-doping system.The relentless pursuit of victory among professional athletes often drives some to breach anti-doping regulations. The utilization of performance-enhancing substances and methods has stirred controversy throughout the history of sports, with its origins tracing back to ancient times. Modern advancements have only intensified the complexity of doping practices, as exemplified by the emergence of blood and gene doping techniques. In response to these growing concerns, the international sports law community has collaborated to create a comprehensive global system to address the issue.Athletes who resort to these prohibited substances and methods not only jeopardize their physical and mental well-being, but also gain an unfair edge over their competitors. This, in turn, threatens the integrity of sports and the core values they represent, including ethical conduct, fair play, honesty, well-being, excellence, education, camaraderie, and teamwork.Given these concerns, it is crucial for anti-doping organizations, sports governing bodies, and national and international federations to enforce stringent regulations aimed at deterring the use of such substances and methods by athletes. Adopting a stance of strict liability in doping cases is vital for ensuring that anti-doping agencies and arbitration institutions can maintain order, uphold justice, and preserve the spirit of fair competition. The realm of doping in sports encompasses two main categories of athletes who test positive for banned substances: those who intentionally use performance-enhancing drugs to gain a competitive edge, and those who inadvertently ingest such substances due to negligence or carelessness. Despite these distinctions, the principle of strict liability within anti-doping regulations treats both categories equally in establishing a violation, leading to a polarized debate among experts and stakeholders.Proponents of strict liability argue that its implementation is essential to maintain order and efficacy within the anti-doping system. In contrast, opponents contend that athletes who are not at fault should not face punishment, as strict liability inherently conflicts with the tenets of natural justice. Notably, athletes who can demonstrate a lack of fault or negligence in their doping violation may be eligible for a reduced suspension period, theoretically addressing some criticisms of the principle.Despite its imperfections, the legal framework of the anti-doping system must, much like other legal systems, contend with inherent challenges. The value of strict liability lies not in its implementation alone, but in its capacity to fill a void that would otherwise exist, given the near impossibility of proving an athlete's intentional doping in its absence. Consequently, the principle of strict liability remains a necessary and inevitable component of the anti-doping system.An analysis of the Court of Arbitration for Sport's jurisprudence and relevant case studies indicates that the principle of strict liability has become firmly established in disciplinary cases, particularly those concerning anti-doping violations. This article employs the descriptive-analytical method to explore the concept of doping, general notion of strict liability, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport in its preliminary discussions. The Article delves into strict liability's application to athletes, the intricacies of establishing violations, and the potential for reduced sanctions under exceptional circumstances. Notably, this research addresses a gap in Persian-language literature, as no prior source has specifically examined strict liability concerning doping by athletes.

Use of force for the purpose of occupying and taking over the territory of another State or nation is prohibited under International Law. Based on this, resistance to occupation, which is one of the aspects of fulfilling the right to self-determination, is allowed, and according to the standards of International Humanitarian Law, the formation of resistance groups against occupation is recognized and the conflict between resistance movements and the occupier State is subject to international legal rules governing international armed conflicts under paragraph 4, Art. 1, Protocol I additional to Geneva Conventions. So, the members of the resistance group are legitimate combatants and are not responsible for their armed action, but the legitimacy of the resistance does not exempt them from their commitment to International Humanitarian Law. International documents show that Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands after 1967, including military occupation, the construction of a barrier wall, and the creation of Jewish settlements under the protection of Israel, are considered measures of occupation that are subject to the rules within the system of international law. The International Court of Justice also confirmed this assessment in its recent Advisory Opinion of 2024. Therefore, the activities of Palestinian resistance groups in the occupied territories, in order to put an end to the occupation are legitimate under international law. This article tries to explain the legal framework governing the resistance groups, and specifically answer the questions about the obligations of these groups, their members and the responsibility arising from their actions. In terms of methodology, this article follows the descriptive and analytical method of research, and the data is collected from original sources of international law, such as international treaties and international jurisprudence, and used and analyzed these data by usual logical and judicial methods of international law. The main ambiguity regarding the Palestinian situation is that whether, considering that Palestine has become a member of the First Protocol since 2014, and the fact that Israel is not yet a member, the conflict between Hamas and Israel can be considered an international conflict; And as a result, can it be subject of the said Protocol? Practice of the States reflected in the resolutions of the General Assembly and the interpretations of the First Protocol follows that the internationalized nature of these conflicts is a customary rule and many other rules of the first protocol are independent of the membership of the states as rules of customary international law, are binding. Therefore, the conflicts between Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups against Israel can be considered as an International Armed Conflict, with the consequence that the resistance groups party to the said conflict must also comply with the aforementioned standards. In addition to the international criminal responsibility of the perpetrators in case of committing international crimes, the assumption of the international responsibility of the State can also be proposed. The actions of Non-State Actors do not cause the State to be held responsible unless attribution is present; such attribution being subject to certain conditions such as being controlled or directed by the State. If the situation is such that the (official) armed forces of the country have control over a group of military or volunteer militias and direct their operations, the aforementioned forces are included in the definition of paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Third Convention, and it can be said that the resistance group acted as an organ of the government. This means that its acts can be attributed to the relevant State. Regarding Palestine, it can be said that the Palestinian government does not have control over these forces, nor does it recognize their specific actions, and the aforementioned groups do not possess a governmental control over the occupied territories, and as a result, their actions cannot be attributed to the Palestinian government. A third State may also be held responsible within the framework of Article 11 of the 2001 Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, via approval of a wrongful act, and to the extent that it has approved such act. Iran's official authorities have repeatedly emphasized that not only the 7th October 2023 operation, but also other actions of the Palestinian forces are planned and implemented by these forces themselves, and the Iranian government has no control over these groups despite some material and non-material support. Considering the nature of the resistance/occupier conflict and application of International Humanitarian Law on this type of conflict, the resistance forces will be criminally responsible if they commit a war crime. The commission of other international crimes such as crimes against humanity or genocide by the resistance also causes criminal responsibility; However, these types of crimes are basically irrelevant in the situation of anti-occupation resistance. This individual responsibility can be imagined in any of the modes of responsibility (committing, assisting, facilitating, etc.). Also, the commanders of the resistance will also be criminally responsible in the framework of International Criminal Law standards (especially the rules contained in Article 28 of the Rome Statute) due to the commission of crimes by their subordinates. The state of occupation as a violation of the preemptory norm of international law, i.e. the prohibition of use of force, makes some obligations for third countries, which include the obligation not to recognize the said situation, as well as cooperation in the direction of ending the occupation; a notion which is re-affirmed by ICJ in its 2024 Advisory Opinion. Moreover, certain Resolutions of the General Assembly also validate these obligations. From this point of view, the actions of third States to support the resistance group, as long as they do not violate the international law, are legally permissible, and otherwise, it causes the responsibility of that government towards the occupied state, and consequently there is no reason for the occupying state to claim this responsibility (in terms of violating the principle of non-intervention).

Ecocide generally refers to widespread and severe destruction of, or long-term damage to, nature which is officially recognized as an international crime only in the context of war.In the Gaza conflict, heavy metal bombardments have led to the release of toxic substances that, due to their long-term persistence in the environment, have entered the food chain, contaminating the local food resources. Although some countries have criminalized ecocide in their national laws, many have not taken serious action to prosecute this type of crime.On 21 March 2023, the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs unanimously voted that the most serious environmental crime, widely known as ecocide, should be punishable under EU Law. However, Israel and the Palestinian Authority have not yet taken steps to formalize ecocide-related crimes. In 2015, the ICC accepted Palestine as a Party to the Statute, but Israel, which had originally signed the Statute, withdrew its signature in 2002, creating legal challenges to address environmental crimes in Gaza.The Statute of the International Criminal Court does not provide a precise definition of "State", but rather provides that a "Member State" may refer a case to the Court, and a "non-Member State" may accept the Court's jurisdiction by filing declarations.Israel's military operations in Gaza, particularly the massive bombardments, have clearly caused long-term and widespread environmental damage that can be classified as ecocide, violating the Geneva Conventions and fundamental human rights.The key issues in the study pertain to the ICC's ability to address environmental crimes during the Gaza War, especially considering Israel's non-membership status to the Rome Statute.

The term "ecocide" refers to unlawful or intentional acts that are carried out with the potential to cause severe, widespread, or long-term harm to the environment. One of the important goals of ecocide criminalization is to protect human groups from the harmful effects imposed on them through the destruction of the environment. For example, the destruction of vital natural resources can lead to humanitarian crises, and even genocide.This study examines the legal issues surrounding ecocide during the Gaza conflict and analyzes the challenges facing the ICC Prosecutor. Among the most important of these challenges are issues of jurisdiction and enforcement in the prosecution ofdefendants who enjoy the protection of their governments and are, therefore, excluded from international justice’s reach.The study also analyzes the devastating environmental events in the Gaza War to assess whether these events can be classified as deforestation and international crimes. In addition, it examines the legal challenges surrounding the prosecution of these crimes, especially in areas where the parties involved are not Parties to the Statute of the ICC.Finally, the study examines the legal basis for issuing the 2024 arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister, as well as Hamas leaders.

The research is descriptive and analytical, based on collecting information from library sources, legal documents, and reviewing authoritative secondary sources. In this approach, key concepts such as ecocide and regulations related to environmental crime are first explored. Then, the collected data is used to analyze events related to the Gaza War and its environmental consequences. The study utilizes international reports, academic articles, legal conventions, and analyses by international jurists.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has significant impacts on the region's natural resources, especially water resources. Such resources are essential not only for economic benefits but also for ensuring independent and secure livelihood of the people, and full realization of basic human rights such as access to safe drinking water. Fresh, safe-drinking water plays a vital role in human survival and in creating the conditions for lasting peace. In this regard, the question is, can environmental restoration be considered as part of a peaceful solution between Israel and Palestine at the end of this conflict? And, to what extent can sustainable coexistence between humans and nature help strengthen the foundations of peace and stability in the region?Since June 2021, when the Independent Panel of Experts published its proposed definition of the crime of ecocide, there has been increased global attention to the need to criminalize the act internationally. According to the Panel's definition, ecocide involves actions that are carried out illegally and deliberately, with the knowledge that there is the potential for severe, widespread, and long-term damage to the environment.The addition of ecocide as a new crime in the Statute could be a turning point in international law. For the amendment to be officially added to the Rome Statute, one of the member states must first propose the addition of the crime. Then there is the need for the support of a simple majority of member states for initial adoption, while the final adoption requires the support of two-thirds of Member States. Also, due to the discretionary nature of jurisdiction, only in cases where States specifically recognize the crime, will the prosecution of ecocide be possible.

 Contribution to the Field:

Building international capacity to issue warrants, similar to those already issued, could pave the way for preventing or positively intervening in similar events. These capacities can help strengthen international peace and security, given the ICC's power to enforce justice and uphold human rights. Although there are significant challenges associated with the application of these types of jurisdictions, the gradual expansion of these legal mechanisms and the strengthening of international cooperation in this field can be a way of ensuring justice and preventing similar crimes from occurring in the future.

Despite increasing global attention to environmental destruction in conflict-affected areas, the International Criminal Court (ICC) faces significant enforcement challenges in its administration of justice. It lacks a police force to enforce its judgments and the option of trial in absentia, so the enforcement of its judgments relies on the cooperation of Member States. This dependency creates a critical weakness in the Court's enforcement structure that can be a major obstacle to prosecuting environmental crimes.The real question is whether the international community has the will to prosecute ecocide under Article 8 of the Rome Statute or as a new crime in its own right. Despite the numerous legal and executive obstacles, justice for crimes against humanity and nature is a fundamental necessity. In this regard, the issuance of arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, may be seen as a step to overcome these obstacles. However, doubts remain as to whether these efforts will actually succeed, posing a significant challenge to international justice.

Armed conflicts are battlegrounds where opposing parties strive for dominance using various military and non-military strategies. The use of lethal force often determines the success or failure of each side. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) seeks to regulate these acts by imposing restrictions on methods of warfare and standardizing the conduct of belligerents to mitigate the harm caused by war. One of the most crucial tactics employed in combat is the "attack"; a method through which parties aim to inflict harm and secure victory. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) first introduced the term "attack" in its 1956 Draft Rules for the Limitation of the Dangers incurred by the Civilian Population in Time of War, defining it as "violent acts against the enemy by armed forces, whether offensive or defensive." This concept was further codified in Article 49(1) of Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions, where an attack is described as "acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offense or defense." Despite these definitions, ambiguities persist concerning the scope of an attack, its legal boundaries, and how it is applied in armed conflicts. Key questions include: How do the manner, intent, and consequences of a violent act influence its classification as an attack? Can an act still qualify as an attack when the perpetrator has already gained control over the adversary’s persons or property, contrary to the prevailing view that an absence of hostile control is a key condition for defining an attack? These issues were central to the 2019 Ntaganda case before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Trial Chamber adopted a narrow interpretation, determining that violent acts against a hospital and church in the Democratic Republic of the Congo could not be classified as attacks due to Ntaganda’s control over the sites. In contrast, Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda argued for a broader interpretation, considering the violent acts as attacks regardless of control. This article employs a descriptive-analytical approach, examining Article 49(1) alongside the Ntaganda case to explore the definition of "attack" in armed conflicts. It concludes that the drafters of Additional Protocol I intended a narrow interpretation of "attack," applying only to certain behaviors that meet the specific criteria of Article 49. Expanding this interpretation could lead to the misclassification of behaviors such as looting or property confiscation as attacks, which would be inconsistent with the established principles of IHL. Such actions should be regarded as separate criminal offenses. However, the broad phrasing of "acts of violence" in Article 49 provides interpretive flexibility, enabling a wider range of actions to be categorized as attacks. Modern interpretations often prioritize the harmful outcome of a violent act when determining whether it constitutes an attack. The article ultimately asserts that achieving the goals of IHL, particularly civilian protection, requires evaluating acts of violence based on their type, result, and the perpetrator's intent. Any act, whether involving kinetic or non-kinetic force, that aims to directly harm the adversary, even without resulting damage, should be classified as an attack. Moreover, the absence of hostile control over the opposing party’s persons or property remains a key criterion. Finally, the article argues that "attack," as defined in Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the ICC Statute, aligns with the general understanding set out in Article 49(1). While the Prosecutor in the Ntaganda case sought a more specific interpretation regarding the protection of cultural property and hospitals, the nature of the targeted property should not affect whether an act is deemed an attack, especially as other provisions in Article 8 criminalize actions such as property destruction and looting.

This article examines the application of Articles 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter in relation to Israel’s claim of sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Israel has cited historical Jewish rule and invoked “defensive conquest” to justify its position. However, this interpretation misrepresents the non-use of force principle. The article references relevant UN Security Council Resolutions and treaty interpretation rules, emphasizing a strict application of international law, which Israel has overlooked. The UN Charter’s main purpose of maintaining international peace supports this strict interpretation. Consequently, the notion of defensive conquest violates Article 2(4) and customary international law. Additionally, the article discusses the 2024 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, which reaffirmed the illegality of Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and highlighted the prohibition of acquiring territory by force, as established by the UN Charter.