عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
The international armed forces and humanitarian law (a branch of international law) has not allowed to the both parties of the conflict to resort to any weapons or warfare to advance its war goals and programs. From the very beginning of this law in the modern age, it has sought to forbid the rival forces to use the weapons and methods that cause pain, suffering and inflicting unnecessary damages in order to minimize the suffering and the other effects of war. The question is that: can military necessities justify the use of the prohibited devices and unauthorized methods in the war campaign scene? From the humanitarian perspective, the only legitimate aim of armed hostilities is to stop the enemy's combat power and to bring the combatant out of the war and continue the campaign. But, the use of inappropriate combat methods and tools and the use of banned and inhumane weapons, even from the perspective of necessity is unjustified.
The lack of clarity in the meaning of this principle and the lack of clarification of the limits of "military necessity" have led to numerous challenges and harms in the field of international and domestic hostilities. Military necessity is an urgent, unavoidable need to be taken by a commander to promptly surrender and stop an enemy by using legal and controlled means and equipment. However, this article seeks to find out the nature and scope of military necessity in international humanitarian law and its position by attending to the prohibited means and methods in the law of armed conflict by examining the case of the Iraq war against Iran.