AbstractThroughout history, the phenomenon of war, as a painful reality in human life, has always been full of suffering, and therefore the international community has tried to reduce its destructive and harmful effects by enacting international humanitarian law. In the meantime, individuals, including physicians, in some cases and in violation of their professional duties and ethical principles and by abusing this dangerous situation, in violation of international rules and the basic rules of medical professional ethics and with the help of prisoners of war under the protection of international law, unusual biological experiments during armed conflicts against these people lead to severe physical and mental injuries that, in addition to tarnishing the image of medical science, lead to one of the most heinous international crimes called "medical war crimes." The purpose of this study is to explain and analyze this conceptual approach to the phenomenon of medical war crimes and to present its examples from the perspective of international regulations and distinguish it from similar concepts to provide intellectual infrastructure. Special rules are necessary to develop the protection of victims of this range of international crimes in light of current social developments.Keywords: Medical war crime, International criminal court, Rome Statute, Geneva Convention

Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited in armed conflicts. This proscribed conduct is criminalized as a war crime by international criminal law. Taking into account international instruments and jurisprudence, this paper seeks to conceptualize starvation and its constituent elements. As an international crime, starvation requires three elements. First, contextual element and that is the conduct should be committed in the context of an armed conflict. Second, material element which defines the concerned conduct as depravation of civilians from objects indispensable for their survival, which implies that the term of starvation goes behind its literal meaning that is limited to depravation of food and water. Third, mental element which requires the perpetrator to intend to starve civilians as a method of warfare.

In parallel with the expansion of cyberspace, cyber warfare has also expanded as a tool for exerting power against various countries. The imposition of legal restrictions on them has become inevitable. In the realm of international criminal law, imposing limitations of the laws of war on cyberattacks, which differ from conventional warfare, faces challenges. Because the regulations governing the laws of war and war crimes has been formulated to align with conventional warfare. Yet disruptive cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are a type of cyberwarfare that, without causing physical effects similar to conventional wars and solely through non-physical impacts on a country's vital infrastructure, are considered capable of producing consequences more severe than those of conventional wars. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and gathering materials through a library-based approach, this study addresses its central question whether under the existing framework of the Rome Statute, disruptive cyberattacks on critical infrastructure could constitute war crimes particularly Article 8 on war crimes. Ultimately, it holds the view that by adopting a dynamic interpretation of the concept of 'intensity' under existing regulations, it can be affirmed the possibility of cyber conflict and war crimes via  severe disruptions to critical infrastructure. However, this approach will face challenges when dealing with critical infrastructure with dual-use.

From the beginning of human history to the present, the world has witnessed countless conflicts, confrontations, and wars of varying scales. One of the key elements in this context is attention to victims and their needs and rights. Since the early days of criminal law in ancient societies to the modern era, the victim has played a central role in criminal proceedings and has been regarded as one of the main actors in this domain. The emergence of victimology movements in recent decades and their impact on crime reduction have redirected criminologists’ focus toward new perspectives, including civilian victims and support for those affected by war crimes. Today, war crimes, in diverse forms and with numerous victims, continue to threaten the survival of humanity. This reality necessitates a descriptive-analytical study to examine mechanisms for protecting victims. What is particularly significant in this regard is the implementation of practical policies aimed at safeguarding the rights of victims. The primary objective of the present study is to conduct a victimological analysis of those affected by war crimes in light of religious teachings. The findings of this research indicate that contemporary humanitarian law has developed specific rules for the conduct of war and the legal framework governing it. However, many of the principles emphasized in modern international legal systems had already been established in Islamic teachings, even before the formal emergence of human rights norms related to armed conflict.

Shortly after gulf war (G.W) thousands of war veterans referred with sign and symptoms of an unknown disease called G.W illness. Despite multiple studies undertaken by several non-governmental and governmental centers this illness remains unclassified and can not be coded by international classification of disease (I.C.D). The etiology has not been found and the illness appears to be multifactorial and basically related to use of depleted uranium (D.U) weapons, chemical warfare (C.W) and biological agents. This article reviews this illness and the adverse effects of D.U and B.c.W agents in the G.W battlefields.

The rapidly growing development of intelligent autonomous and automated weapon systems has become one of the most controversial sources of debate in the international arena. One of the many concerns that emerges about this technology is the existence of an accountability gap. This fear stems from the complexity of holding a human operator responsible for the possible malfunction of a weapon system; therefore, when these crimes are not intentional, the question arises as to who should be held criminally responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law. Therefore, the aim of the present article is to examine the criminal liability arising from serious violations of international humanitarian law by intelligent autonomous weapon systems as a war crime, carried out qualitatively and based on inferences from sources and texts, and in a descriptive-analytical manner. The findings and conclusions indicate that lethal autonomous weapon systems may cause serious violations of international humanitarian law, mainly because their target selection is highly unpredictable. Under current international criminal law, criminal liability can only be attributed when there is at least some intent and knowledge of the crime. The mere possibility of a violation is not sufficient to hold operators or programmers responsible for war crimes committed by lethal autonomous weapon systems. Command responsibility seems to be the most appropriate mode of liability, provided that these weapons are deployed under a specialized command structure. The command structure should include a group with technical expertise to test and continuously monitor the operation of the weapon systems.

Addressing the issue of philosophy of war difficult. In the other words, the relationship between Philosophy and war seems to be difficult one. Alexander Moseley is a Political Philosophy Editor for the IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and he has lectured on the Philosophy and morality of war at Several British universities. In his book called The Philosophy of War he explained why do humans fight each other? He said “ what I hope to establish in this work is that the Principles of war s origins involve all aspects of our nature, culture, and thinking. We fight because we believe in fighting and our beliefs have to change if we wish to abandon war. The research method in this book and this article is analytical and Philosophical.

The imposed war between the Islamic of Iran and the Iraq regime lasted from September 0891 to August 0899.Imam Khomeini, citing verse (8) of Surah Al-Hujurat < in traduces the aggression of the Iraqi regime as a crime of prostitution. In Islamic jurisprudence, insurgents are first invited to negotiate in peaceful ways, and if they don’t succeed, they will fight the insurgents, bat wheather they have an organization or not , a different verdict is issued in dealing with the wounded, fugitives and prisoners . Imam Khomeinis strategies against this crime, including invitind Islamic countries to repel the insurgents aggression according to verse 8 of the Hujrat , command of the Armed forces, preventing the dissolution of the army and the formaton of the IRGC and the mobilization of the oppressed and the formation of the supreme council , pre-war defense , jihad – building , the formation of the IRGC,s three , farces, establishment of the supreme Council of war support and finally the decisive messages in various war operation the results of the research are analytical – descriptive and library methods that deal with criminalization and the verdict of this crime in Islamic religions, and finally the solutions to deal with this crime are examined from the perspective of Imam Khomeini