Heidar Piri
Abstract
Increases in the number of internal tensions and disturbances particularly in the last few decades have caused States seeing their security and sovereignty at risk. So, they have committed severe violations of the fundamental rights of people. Nevertheless, they ligitimize their activities and claim ...
Read More
Increases in the number of internal tensions and disturbances particularly in the last few decades have caused States seeing their security and sovereignty at risk. So, they have committed severe violations of the fundamental rights of people. Nevertheless, they ligitimize their activities and claim the observance of International Law. Documents and international institutions governing the behavior of states consider these measures as the exercise of rights violations and greatly prohibit them and declare that internal tensions and disturbances are no longer considered in the exclusive sovereignty of states and to prevent domestic violence tragedies and disasters, extensive and appropriate measures should be taken at national and international level. Therefore, the new approach of the international community demonstrates the extension of the minimum standards of International Humanitarian Fundamental Law irrespective of time and place to any situation of internal tensions and disturbances and other life-threatening emergencies which lead to threat the existence of a nation. In this article, we’ve tried to investigate International rules (customary and conventional) governing the conduct of states during internal tensions and disturbances and their impact on the protection of International Humanitarian Fundamental Law and state authority facing such situations from the perspective of international law.
Heidar Piri; Seyed Ghasem Zamani
Abstract
International Law, by referring to the vital national and security interests has been used as a shield against legal’s, as an instrument to escape from legal obligations and as a justification for breaking up the treaties, therefore it limits the appliance of International Law Rules especially ...
Read More
International Law, by referring to the vital national and security interests has been used as a shield against legal’s, as an instrument to escape from legal obligations and as a justification for breaking up the treaties, therefore it limits the appliance of International Law Rules especially International Humanitarian Law, yet claiming of the observance of International Law. This notion and other similar concepts, are considered as one of the main obstacles against development in universalizing International Law especially IHL, because It can cause intractable misuses by states as well as justifying anything by reffering to national interest. IHL norms bring a serious challenge to the governments holding the fundamental logic of sovereignty and national interests. According to primary precedence of human norms in international law, The vital national interests only in compliance with the international law rules and provide the ground for legitimate government functioning. Therefore, governments have always tried to explain and interpret the vital national interests in a way that results the least loss to the universal international values.