The “Targeted Killing” can be seen in various forms over the course of past history. It plans to explain the concept of "Targeted Killing under international Law" as follows: First, it provides a legal and desirable definition of the concept; Second, it examines various legal frameworks and models governing The Targeted Killing (The Model of domestic Law; The Model of human rights Law; The Model of Jus Ad Bellum and The Model of Jus In Bellum); Third, it studies Targeted Killing under international Humanitarian Law and its rules and principles (The principles of separation, Proportionality, etc.) as a detailed and deep form; Finally the fourth, it provides the legitimacy of Targeted Killing and its conditions under current international Law.

Asymmetrical Warfare is a new thesis within the last war strategies and doctrines of certain Countries. This dimension of use of force is intended to change the usual results of armed conflicts in accordance with a unique approach. In fact, if the different military capabilities of belligerents, the week party shall recourse to the unconventional methods and means of war to prevent the victory of the enemy. Then in the asymmetrical wars, the victory for the week party will depend on initiatives in war and military operations. But the tactics in this wars (for example, use of civilians as a warfare. extending the theater of war, use of new military technologies leading to unnecessary effects, etc.), are contradictory to Humanitarian or cardinal principles of the Law of Armed Conflict.This Article analyzes the conceptual dimensions of asymmetrical warfare and its implications in light of Humanitarian Law.

The advancement of technology of weapons has led to efforts to develop fully autonomous weapons. These robotic weapons will be able to automatically choose and shoot target in the battlefield. This capability raises a number of fundamental challenges regarding the use of these weapons in accordance with human rights and Humanitarian Law. This paper examines, in particular, the ability of these weapons to protect civilians and to observe the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality. Opponents of the use of fully autonomous weapons argue that since these weapons are not capable of understanding the complexities of the battlefields, their use contradict with the Humanitarian Law requirements. On the other hand, advocates of the use of autonomous weapons claim that Laws are progressing, and this progress has the capacity to regulate and control these weapons in the light of Humanitarian Law. This study concludes that fully autonomous weapons can be used in outlying areas, deserts, and marine areas that are free of ordinary civilians, and that these weapons can act as well as human beings and observe the principles of discrimination and proportionality; while there are serious doubts in concern with the capabilities of such weapons in other.

The developments of naval technologies have combined modern naval wars. Nowadays, naval warfare means the use of tactics and the conduct of military operations on, below, or above the sea. An exemplar of a tactical tool is the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in naval operations. Undoubtedly, the use of UAVs in naval conflict can raise a number of issues related to the Law of naval warfare. The lack of specific treaties on their use at the sea has caused a legal gap and some ambiguities. Therefore, this paper aims to determine whether UAVs can be used within the framework of the rules governing the Law of naval warfare and the basic principles of the Humanitarian Law. This paper also aims to analyze the capacity of the existing rules to employ UAVs in the naval warfare. For this purpose, a descriptive analytical research method was used along with a desk method for data collection. According to the research findings, international treaties and customary Laws, especially the Humanitarian Law, are not indifferent to the legal status of UAVs, despite the air and missile war guidelines as well as the Sun Guidelines in particular. They are not binding documents. In fact, they have amended and revised the Law of naval warfare in accordance with the rules of the Humanitarian Law. Hence, they can be applied to UAVs.

There are many potentials in Islamic countries legal systems to pace toward legal integration. One of them is common resources of Law which can be used to have “Common Legislation”. Common Legislation can take place in forms of inter-governmental (treaties) or internal (approved acts by parliaments). The main question here, is that whether the Muslim States can take common legislative measures on Humanitarian Law? Various Islamic schools (Mazaheb) have communal resources, regulations and verdicts in the realm of Humanitarian Law which can be used to have a common legislation.In result, this article is to analyze the common legislation of Islamic countries on Humanitarian Law: necessity, possibility, barriers and normative challenges facing in this regard. According to this article, Common legislation in the Islamic countries and Muslim world, yields many benefits specially to frustrate Islam phobia. According to this article, common legislation in Muslim World on Humanitarian Law would be necessity any also available because of many possibilities such as common history, culture, resources and removability of barriers or reducing their influence.

International Humanitarian Law, as a significant branch of international Law, encompasses a variety of regulations aimed at limiting the devastating effects of armed conflict. This body of Law, primarily focused on the protection of civilians, plays a crucial role in mitigating the impact of war. One specific area within these regulations concerns the use of human shields. Belligerent parties, often in an attempt to deter enemy attacks, may employ individuals as human shields. These individuals may include captured combatants or even civilians who voluntarily expose themselves to enemy fire.Various forms of human shields have been observed in past armed conflicts. This article seeks to conceptually analyze the notion of human shields, categorize their types, and examine the applicable legal framework governing each category. The existing rules generally prohibit the use of human shields; however, the legal implications may vary depending on the nature of the conflict—whether international or non-international. A key issue that arises is the question of absolute prohibition. The First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions suggests that under certain conditions, the use of human shields might be conceivable under the doctrine of necessity, a concept examined in this study. It appears that, despite the desirability of a categorical prohibition, international Humanitarian Law does not currently recognize an absolute ban. Moreover, the phenomenon of voluntary human shields presents a legal dilemma: how should the Law protect individuals who deliberately place themselves in harm’s way? Although international legal provisions in this area are often vague and general, it is argued that the rules governing involuntary human shields should likewise apply to voluntary cases.

Throughout history human life has changed and improved. Along with this developments and changes the way of the war has also changed. Cyber war is one of the most important transformations. By modifying the type of battles, weapons also have changed. With the development of virtual space, governments have set their eyes on cyberspace. State and non-state actors in cyberspace are working together but with no clear identity. In this context, computer attacks are increasing, however, there are no regulations to investigate cybercrimes. Attacks are increasing in cyberspace and they influence not only political conflicts but also impact negatively on the economy of civilians. As these attacks are capable of hitting civilians, so the application of international Humanitarian Law is mandatoryin this area.

Some have argued that there exists a real and meaningful difference between the normative frameworks of human rights and Humanitarian Law This difference rests on the fact that human rights Law is centered on granting rights to the individual, while Humanitarian Law protects the interests of the individual through means other than granting rights. This article analyses and compares the normative frameworks of international human rights Law and Humanitarian Law by examining the way in which each is constructed to achieve its purpose, whether in the first case, granting fundamental rights to the individual or in the second the alleviation of human suffering in times of armed conflict. We examine, first, whether individuals are rights – holders under Humanitarian Law, and, secondly, the general pattern of protection in that legal system.

In 2002, an organization was established in Iraq which was later named as ISIS. By taking control of considerable parts of Iraq and Syria, this nonstate actor has taken terrorist acts in occupied territories. DAESH, which has been recognized as a terrorist group, uses terrorist methods to achieve its goals. ISIS's acts in Iraq and Syria are not of those sporadic terrorist actions which can be dealt with through peaceful means and judicial mechanism stipulated in the anti-terrorism treaties. Given the definition set out in Article 1 (2) of protocol II of 1977, the current situation in Iraq and Syria is categorized as non-international armed conflict which is governed by Humanitarian rules provided in the Article 3 Common to 1949 Geneva Conventions and protocol II. Terrorism negates fundamental principles of humanity which underlie International Humanitarian Law (IHL). As such, the Article 3 Common to 1949 Geneva Conventions and Article 4 (2) of protocol II prohibit terrorist acts in non-international armed conflicts. The parties engaged in the armed conflicts are obliged to observe Humanitarian rules provided in Geneva Conventions and its protocols. Nevertheless, ISIS' s inhuman acts in Iraq and Syria clearly show breach of IHL. Furthermore, ISIS which is alleging to establish Islamic state and to carry out Islamic rules in the occupied territory has taken actions which are against Islamic norms and rules.