---

Siamak Karamzadeh Assistant Professor, department of Law, Shahed University  One of the methods which may be used in combating terrorism is the use of force by states. With the increase of terrorist acts, the use of force by victim states as a necessary response to terrorism has become inevitable. In state-sponsored terrorism, states do any efforts to support terrorism within or out of their borders. There is a consensus that states supporting terrorism engage in illegal activities and are internationally responsible for their acts. If International community is incapable to confront terrorism, especially state¬ sponsored terrorism, injured states have no alternative except defending their interests and security and nations. The question is whether on the bases of international law, there is any legal justification for using force against terrorism. At present, international documents especially UN Charter invite states to settle their disputes in a peaceful manner and ask them to avoid every measure comprising the use of force. Meanwhile, the context of Article 51 of the Charter is an exception to the general prohibition of the use of force. The UN Charter provides that force may be exerted in cases of self-defense in response to an armed attack. Where terrorist acts form a consistent pattern of violent terrorist action rather than just being isolated or scattered attacks, the victim states can use force against these actions. In this situation, the use of force can be justified as self-defense under Art. 51 of the Charter. When terrorist activities reach systematic proportions to constitute an armed attack, the attacked state may respond to these acts with force based on the actual necessity and proportionality between attack and defense.

---

Mohammad Tohidi Fard Ph.D. Graduate, Tarbiat Modarres University  One of the most significant events related to the beginning of twenty first century is the trrific evidence of Sep. the 11 th of 2001 in which horrible attacks were done against economical, political and military center of the U.S.A. Many people stated this event as a new born beginning in the world records. Considering different dimension of this evidence and reactions of other governments around the world, the U.S.A. attacked Afghanistan in order to perish causes of destroying the twin towers and the Pentagon under the name of "Battle against the terrorism" .As a result, Taliban system in Afghanistan perished but with the new configuration of Afghanistan government, the rumor of U.S.A. military operation toward Iraq, Somali and Yemen spread more. The evidence of the Sep. the 11 th of 2001 from the International Criminal Law point of view as International Terrorism is am instamce of an International governmental Crime which means a threat against International peace and security. Against such criminal activities, U.N. Security Council can use the mentioned authorities in the 7 th part of the U.N. Charter, actions on 41 and 42 Articles, with subject of applying to the punitive sanctions. In case of no application on behalf of Security Council, according to the 51 Article of the U.N. Charter, victim Government can lise its own rights of defence and Counter armed attacks according to legal points of self-defence.

---

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, nevertheless, threats of sush an evil to the contemporary societies make it distinctive from the other phenomena crossing law and others. The threats resulting from terrorist activities have never been limited to a particular territory but it has been changed in to a global threat. Terrorism attacks the values that lie at the heart of the Charter of the United Nations: respect to human rights; the rule of law; rules of war that protect civilians; tolerance among peoples and nations and the peaceful resolution of conflict. Therefore, the United Nations has, so far, passed a diversity of conventions to fight terrorism. The UN Security Council has also adopted different resolutions requiring the states to figh terrorism. The advent of communication revolution, increasing number of air traveling, privatization of global economy and globalization and world with no boundaries are some phenomena which have been taken benefit from by the terrorists to attain their goals via dispersing insecurity all over the world. It seems that the legal system of Iran is not well-equipped with effective and updated machinery to fight terrorism. The crime of Moharaba (resorting to arms in order to frighten people), as an instance of terrorist activities, has been penalized by the Iranian legislature, but diversity and complicacy of the concerned activities, the ongoing organized and transnational feature of considerable number of sush activities and failure in retorting them properly are some, evidence that necessitates to have a review on such a phenomenon i.e. terrorism and criminalization of the related activities. The Iranian legislature should notice this important issue and attemp to pass working laws on fighting terrorism in its different dimensions.

---

Political instability as one the domestic factors has the nearest interaction with the concept of economic security in influencing on production factors. In developing countries, uncertainty is created in an unstable political environment and violent behavior atmosphere. It results in reduction in the investment levels, failure in attracting foreign capital, and capital flight. Terrorism is one of the important political risk indicators. This study examines the effect of terrorism on inward foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Middle East region. The statistical sample includes Iran, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey over the period 1970-2008. Using panel data method, findings show that Terrorism has negative impact on FDI in selected countries. Adversely, GDP and Openness degree have positive impact on FDI.

---

Abstract Terrorism and terrorist attacks is one of the biggest challenges in the 21st century. Each year, thousands of people around the world lose their lives due to terrorist attacks. Cities and metropolises are one of the foremost spaces to organize and carry out terrorist attacks. In fact, today the vast majority of terrorist attacks are happening in big cities so that terrorism can be considered a primarily urban phenomenon. Iran and its big cities are exposed to terrorist attacks due to the characteristics of the regional and the existence of terrorist groups in conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran. There are a number of potentially vulnerable sites against terrorist attacks in Shiraz metropolis such as vital infrastructure, public places and centers of political power. In this paper have been used analytical descriptive method and documentary and inductive approach. In this paper, we first examine the locations of terrorist attacks in large cities in the world, and then have been analyzed the most important locations at risk of terrorist attacks (conventional and non-conventional) in nine municipality zones of Shiraz. The results of this study show that zones 1, 2 and 8 in Shiraz are most important and vulnerable zones against terrorist attacks, due to physical characteristics, population concentration and multiplicity of infrastructures.

---

Under normal circumstances, security and freedom as two human rights must be established in every society in order to protect human values ​​and principles; But in the face of terrorism emergencies, governments may be challenged to combine the two human rights of freedom and security. The predominant approach adopted by countries is a security-oriented approach. This paper first examines the laws and judgments of the United Kingdom, France, and the United States, and explains that governments often ignore freedom of expression in these circumstances. In contrast, there is a freedom-oriented approach that in the face of terrorism with the establishment of freedom, security to some extent ignores this approach and this approach due to the desire for a security-oriented approach by governments can not be adopted by governments and only historical aspects of this approach can be adopted. Found by governments. Finally, further investigation in this regard can lead to the conclusion that in balancing security and freedom, moderation can be maintained and, in times of emergency caused by terrorism, restrictive human rights can be restricted as much as possible; In such a way that neither of the two human rights of security and freedom is violated under the pretext of establishing another.

---

---

Punishing and prosecuting the offenders of terrorist crimes is the right and duty of every country to ensure the peace and stability in society, and to guarantee the right of the state to punish anyone who violates the system and the public stability. However on the one hand, this right is restricted by the principles of fair trial in order to adopt fair procedures towards the accused of terrorist crimes and meantime, guaranteeing the dignity of these accused, protect them from fraudulent lawsuits and retaliatory complaints; on the other hand, to guaranteeing the rule of law, the criminal procedure and human rights. Despite the importance of upholding the principles of fair trial for the terror accused and the guarantees emphasized by the International Covenants on the need to observe the principles of a fair trial for them and the emergence of a new trend in the observance of these principles, in recent periods, in the domestic legislative system of many countries, there is lack or insufficiency of fair trial for the defendants of terrorist crimes. This problem has led to unimaginable violations. From this perspective, the present study emphasizes descriptive, analytical and comparative methods to explain the theoretical and legal foundations of the issue based on the need for fair trial of those accused of terrorist crimes, various manifestations of fair trial and ways to guarantee them, lest the innocent be convicted and the real criminal escape punishment. The findings of the study confirm the right of the government to try those accused but in line with the principles of fair trial and the need to legislate and observe the mentioned principles in the laws. This right, which is based on theoretical and legal principles at both domestic and international levels, considers it necessary to observe the principles of fair trial and considers the provision of legal, criminal and disciplinary measures if necessary in case of violating these principles and ensures the possibility of referring to the Judiciary for Innocent defendants.
 

---

Certainly ISIS in Syria carried out terrorist operations that can be classified at the same time as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. But the problem here is whether the actions of ISIS can be, as a failed insurgent group, attributed to the Syrian government. The study showed that the criminal and non-governmental acts of ISIS are not attributed to the Syrian government, and thus Damascus is not internationally responsible for them. Exceptionally, however, if the Syrian government fails or falls short in suppressing and prosecuting ISIS or granting amnesty to its members, their behavior can be attributed to the Syrian government and, the economic, administrative, and judicial violations that ISIS carried out on the lands under its control in Syria can be attributed to the Syrian government if the conditions of Article 9 of the draft articles on international responsibility are met. The basic issue is that, given the overthrow of the so-called ISIS rule and the non-existence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, who is the authority that would be responsible for the acts contrary to international law committed by that self-appointed government during its span? Therefore, the issue at hand is the international responsibility of the ISIS government, which no longer exists, but the criminal responsibility of ISIS members is another category and is not the subject of this research. While many papers have been written on criminal liability, but the issue of international responsibility due to the illegal actions of ISIS has not received special attention.