قابلیت انتساب عملیات طوفان الاقصی به جمهوری اسلامی ایران در پرتو رویه قضایی و اسناد بین المللی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.

2 دکتری حقوق عمومی، واحد ساری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، ساری، ایران.

چکیده

گروه فلسطینی حماس در تاریخ 7 اکتبر سال 2023، به عملیات نظامی علیه اسرائیل مبادرت ورزیدند. در پی عملیات مذکور که به عملیات طوفان الاقصی معروف گشت برخی محققان معتقد به انتساب این عملیات به جمهوری اسلامی ایران هستند. بر طبق ماده 8 طرح پیش نویس مسئولیت دولت ها برای ارتکاب اعمال متخلفانه بین المللی (2001) زمانی اعمال شخص یا گروهی از اشخاص به یک دولت منتسب می شود که اعمال مذکور به دستور، تحت هدایت یا کنترل دولت صورت گیرد. منتها مسئله اصلی این است که آستانه هدایت و کنترل بر اساس چه معیار یا معیارهایی تعریف می شود. براساس اسناد بین المللی و رویه های قضایی معیارهای متعددی شامل کنترل کلی، کنترل موثر، کنترل کلی موثر و کنترل نهائی برای انتسابِ اعمالِ یک گروه نظامی به یک دولت خارجی مطرح شده است. بنظر می رسد با توجه به قواعد حقوق بین الملل و هر کدام از معیارهای مذکور در چهارچوب قواعد حقوق بین الملل، عملیات 7 اکتبر به جمهوری اسلامی ایران قابلیت انتساب ندارد. نوع پژوهش توصیفی- تحلیلی بوده و با استفاده از منابع کتابخانه ای و همچنین استفاده از منابع الکترونیکی از قبیل کتاب، مقاله، پایان نامه، کنفرانس های رسمی مرتبط با موضوع (منطقه ای و بین المللی) به زبان فارسی و انگلیسی انجام خواهد شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The attribution of the October 7 Hamas operations against Israel to the Islamic Republic of Iran in the light of legal precedents and international instruments.

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hossein Rezazadeh 1
  • Mohammad Abbasi Atoie 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran , Babolsar, Iran.
2 Ph.D. in Public Law, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The Palestinian group Hamas launched military operations against Israel on October 7, 2023. Following this operation, some scholars believe that it can be attributed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to Article 8 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), the actions of a person or group of persons are attributed to a state if they are carried out on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that state. The main question that arises is what criteria are defined based on the threshold of guidance and control. According to international documents and judicial precedents, several criteria—including overall control, effective control, effective overall control, and ultimate control—are used to attribute a military group to a foreign state. Based on the principles of international law and any of the aforementioned criteria, the operations of October 7 are not attributable to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This research is descriptive-analytical and will be conducted in both Persian and English, utilizing library resources as well as electronic resources such as books, articles, theses, and official conference materials related to the topic, both regionally and internationally.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Al-Aqsa storm
  • Overall control
  • Effective control
  • Effective overall control
  • Final control
  • Islamic Republic of Iran
Akgül-Açıkmeşe S. & Soli Özel (2024), EU Policy towards the Israel-Palestine Conflict: The Limitations of Mitigation Strategies, Italian Journal of International Affairs, 59(1), 59-78.
Alam M. (2024), Postscripts on Israel  October 7 Surprise?, Northeastern University, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4698385
ARAL b. (2023). Israel’s Fateful March: From Settler Colonialism to Genocidal State, Insight Turkey, 25(4), 181-196.
AbuHasballah b. (2024). The Palestinian Operation on October 7 Between International Legitimacy and Criminalization, International Journal of Law and Politics Studies, 6(1), 87-95
Beigzadeh E. (1391). Law of International Organization, Tehran, Majd           publication.
Cassese, A. (2007). The Nicaragua and Tadić Tests Revisited in Light of the ICJ Judgment on Genocide in Bosni. The European Journal of International Law, 18(4), EJIL, 649-668.
Danesh S. (1999). The General Legal Framework Governing the Process of a Delegation by the UN Security Councilش of its Chapter VII Powers, Clarendon Press Oxford, 3-49.
Dannenbaum, T. (2010). Translating the Standard of Effective Control into a System of Effective Accountability: How Liability Should Be Apportioned for Violations of Human Rights by Member State Troop Contingents Serving as United Nations Peacekeepers, Harvard International Law Journal, 51(1), 113-192.
Elhovi Nazari, H., Zawar Jalali, A. (2016). International responsibility of states that finance terrorism, Public Law Studies, 47(3), 725-747. [In Persisn]
Gasseling, K. (2017). The Legacy of Srebrenica: Potential Consequences of Reducing Liability for Troop Contributing Countries in Modern UN Peacekeeping Operations, 40 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 343, 343-361.
Mahmoudian, A. (2023). Israel-Hamas Conflflict: Operational Considerations and Strategy, Global and National Security Institute (GNSI), University of South Florida.
Messineo, F. (2009). The house of lords in al-jedda and public international law: Attribution of conduct to un-authorized forces and the power of the security council to displace human rights, Netherlands International Law Review, 35-62.
Mujezinović Larsen, K. (2008). Attribution of Conduct in Peace Operations: The ‘Ultimate Authority and Control’ Test, The European Journal of International Law, 19(3), 509-531.
Nollkaemper, A. (2011). Dual Attribution: Liability of the Netherlands for Conduct of Dutchbat in Srebrenica, Journal of International Criminal Justice 9(1), 1143-1157.
Palchetti, P. (2016). Who must bear international responsibility for wrongful conducts of UN peacekeeping forces?, Право и управление. XXI век, 98-114.
Palchetti, Paolo (2015), International Responsibility for Conduct of UN Peacekeeping Forces: the question of attribution, University of Macerata, 19-56.
Philosophi, H. E. (2012). Eternal Peace and the Rule of Law. New Publication, 2nd Editio, Appendix I.
Ryngaert, C. (2017). Peacekeepers Facilitating Human Rights Violations: The Liability of the Dutch State in the Mothers of Srebrenica Cases, Netherlands Judicial Developments, 453–535.
Seifi, J., Abdulahi, M., Malekizadeh, A. H. (2013). the possibility of assigning responsibility in the procedure of the International Court of Justice in the light of the genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro), legal research, 1(5). [In Persian]
Smith J, Edwin Jit Leung Kwong, Layth Hanbali, Sali Hafez, Amy Neilson, Rasha Khoury (2023), violence in Palestine demands immediate resolution of its settler colonial root causes, BMJ Glob Health, available at: gh.bmj.com
Talmon, S. (2009). The responsibility of outside powers for acts of secessionist entities, 58 Int'l & Comp. L.
Tohidi, A. (2024). Zionist Regime Violation of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Following the October 7, 2023 Hostilities, International Law Review. 40(71), 203-208. [In Persian]
 
Cases
Al-jedda v. (2011). European Court of Human Rights, United Kingdom, 7 July 2011.
Behrami v. France, and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (2007). European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 71412/01 v. France, and App. No. 78166/01 Grand Chamber decision of 2 May 2007.
Court of Appeal of The Hague, Nuhanovic´ v. Netherlands. (2011). No.200.020.174/01, available at:  http://www.nuhanovicfoundation.org/user/file/2011_nuhanovic_court_of_appeal_judgment.pdf
Hague District Court, Mothers of Srebrenica/Netherlands, 16 july 2014, No. 09/295247 / HA ZA 07-2973.
Hague, X and Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica v. (2017). State of the Netherlands, judgment of 27 June 2017, No.200.160.317.
ICTY, (1999). Appeals Chamber, Tadić case, 15 July 1999, Case no. IT-94-1-A.
Loizidou v. Turkey (1996). European Court of Human Rights, No. 40/1993/435/514, 18 December 1996
Nicaragua v. United States of America  (1986).  Icj report, case concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against nicaragua, Judgment of 27 june 1986.
Stichting mothers of srebrenica and others against the Netherlands (2013). The European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 65542/12, 11 June 2013.
 
Documents
International law commission (2001). Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, 2001, A/56/10. The report, which also contains commentaries on the draft articles, appears in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II, Part Two, as corrected
International law commission (2011). Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, with commentaries, 2011, A/66/10. The report will appear in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II, Part Two.
Remarks of the Secretary-General. (2016). retrieved from…………………………….. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2016-12-01/secretary-generals-remarks-general-assembly-new-approach-address.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Human Rights Council (Francesca Albanese), 20 October 2023, A/78/545
 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Human Rights Council (Francesca Albanese), 25 March 2024, A/HRC/55/73